Page Range | 10255-10440 | |
FR Document |
Page and Subject | |
---|---|
82 FR 10428 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
82 FR 10396 - Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
82 FR 10357 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
82 FR 10285 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status for Rusty Patched Bumble Bee | |
82 FR 10378 - Georgia; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
82 FR 10377 - Georgia; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
82 FR 10406 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Slope and Shaft Sinking Plans | |
82 FR 10378 - Mississippi; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
82 FR 10412 - Division of Coal Mine Workers' Compensation; Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
82 FR 10407 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption 1985-68 To Permit Employee Benefit Plans To Invest in Customer Notes of Employers | |
82 FR 10403 - 185th Meeting of the Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans; Notice of Meeting | |
82 FR 10410 - Division of Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
82 FR 10409 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Loans To Plan Participants and Beneficiaries Who Are Parties in Interest With Respect to the Plan Regulation | |
82 FR 10329 - Notice of Petitions by Firms for Determination of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance | |
82 FR 10411 - Division of Coal Mine Workers' Compensation; Proposed Revision of Existing Collection; Comment Request | |
82 FR 10408 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 | |
82 FR 10337 - Procurement List; Proposed Additions and Deletions | |
82 FR 10356 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability | |
82 FR 10356 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
82 FR 10413 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request | |
82 FR 10335 - Procurement List; Additions and Deletions | |
82 FR 10357 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
82 FR 10364 - Tribal Consultation Meetings | |
82 FR 10373 - Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-New | |
82 FR 10375 - Information Collection Request to Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0102 | |
82 FR 10273 - Changes in Requirements for Affidavits or Declarations of Use, Continued Use, or Excusable Nonuse in Trademark Cases | |
82 FR 10364 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Public Comment Request | |
82 FR 10415 - Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations; Correction | |
82 FR 10333 - Certain Activated Carbon From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of Administrative Review and Notice of Amended Final Results | |
82 FR 10330 - Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From the Republic of Korea and Taiwan: Continuation of Antidumping Duty Orders | |
82 FR 10332 - Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic of China: Correction to the Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Rescission of Review, in Part | |
82 FR 10331 - Quarterly Update to Annual Listing of Foreign Government Subsidies on Articles of Cheese Subject to an In-Quota Rate of Duty | |
82 FR 10324 - Amendments to the Reef Fish, Spiny Lobster, and Corals and Reef Associated Plants and Invertebrates Fishery Management Plans of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands | |
82 FR 10309 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Yellowtail Snapper Management Measures | |
82 FR 10414 - Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting | |
82 FR 10372 - Current List of HHS-Certified Laboratories and Instrumented Initial Testing Facilities Which Meet Minimum Standards To Engage in Urine Drug Testing for Federal Agencies | |
82 FR 10312 - Importation, Interstate Movement, and Environmental Release of Certain Genetically Engineered Organisms | |
82 FR 10286 - Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Rehabilitation of the Jetty System at the Mouth of the Columbia River: Jetty A, North Jetty, and South Jetty, in Washington and Oregon | |
82 FR 10312 - Importation of Hass Avocados From Colombia | |
82 FR 10346 - Notice of Availability of a Draft Detailed Project Report With Integrated Environmental Assessment and Draft Finding of No Significant Impact for the Pier 70 Central Basin Continuing Authorities Program Section 107 Navigation Improvement Project at the Port of San Francisco, San Francisco, CA | |
82 FR 10347 - Notice of Intent To Prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Centennial Reservoir Project, Nevada and Placer Counties, CA, Corps Permit Application Number SPK-2016-00030 | |
82 FR 10365 - Declaration Under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act for Zika Virus Vaccines | |
82 FR 10355 - Notice of Effectiveness of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status | |
82 FR 10355 - Combined Notice of Filings #2 | |
82 FR 10354 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
82 FR 10375 - National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee; Vacancies | |
82 FR 10376 - Commercial Customs Operations Advisory Committee (COAC) | |
82 FR 10403 - Investigations Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance | |
82 FR 10404 - Notice of Determinations Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance | |
82 FR 10348 - Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive License; Superior Armor Systems, Inc. | |
82 FR 10431 - Geriatrics and Gerontology Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting | |
82 FR 10432 - Advisory Committee: VA National Academic Affiliations Council Notice of Meeting | |
82 FR 10401 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension of a Currently Approved Collection: Prison Population Reports: Summary of Sentenced Population Movement-National Prisoner Statistics | |
82 FR 10357 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations | |
82 FR 10360 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations | |
82 FR 10359 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations | |
82 FR 10362 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review | |
82 FR 10342 - DoD Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Care Board of Actuaries; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting | |
82 FR 10342 - DoD Board of Actuaries; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting | |
82 FR 10339 - 36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification | |
82 FR 10397 - Global Digital Trade I: Market Opportunities and Key Foreign Trade Restrictions; Institution of Investigation and Scheduling of Hearing | |
82 FR 10395 - Certain Electric Skin Care Devices, Brushes and Chargers Therefor, and Kits Containing the Same; Modification of Initial Determination; Issuance of a General Exclusion Order, a Limited Exclusion Order, and Cease and Desist Orders; Termination of Investigation | |
82 FR 10338 - Charter Renewal of Department of Defense Federal Advisory Committees | |
82 FR 10428 - Notice of Availability of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the Proposed Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership Line 67 Expansion Project and Announcement of a Public Meeting | |
82 FR 10416 - Product Change-Parcel Select & Parcel Return Service Negotiated Service Agreement | |
82 FR 10416 - Product Change-First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service Agreement | |
82 FR 10416 - Product Change-Parcel Select Negotiated Service Agreement | |
82 FR 10416 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement | |
82 FR 10417 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement | |
82 FR 10402 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Clean Water Act | |
82 FR 10429 - Notice of Receipt of TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P.'s Re-Application for a Presidential Permit To Construct, Connect, Operate, and Maintain Pipeline Facilities on the Border of the United States and Canada | |
82 FR 10417 - Program for Allocation of Regulatory Responsibilities Pursuant to Rule 17d-2; Order Approving and Declaring Effective a Proposed Amended Plan for the Allocation of Regulatory Responsibilities Among the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC, and MIAX PEARL, LLC | |
82 FR 10422 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Certain Rules Related to Flexible Exchange Options | |
82 FR 10418 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6)(v) To Add the EURO STOXX 50 Volatility Futures to the Definition of Futures Reference Asset | |
82 FR 10328 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Delaware Advisory Committee for a Meeting To Discuss and Vote on Project Proposal | |
82 FR 10415 - Submission for Review: We Need Information About Your Missing Payment, RI 38-31 | |
82 FR 10343 - Defense Science Board; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting | |
82 FR 10363 - Administration for Native Americans; Request for Information; Extension of Comment Period | |
82 FR 10398 - John P. Moore, III, M.D.; Decision and Order | |
82 FR 10343 - 36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification | |
82 FR 10372 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
82 FR 10371 - National Eye Institute; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
82 FR 10371 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
82 FR 10370 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
82 FR 10371 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
82 FR 10413 - Notice of Permit Modification Issued Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 | |
82 FR 10273 - Use of Non-LSC Funds, Transfers of LSC Funds, Program Integrity; Subgrants and Membership Fees or Dues; Cost Standards and Procedures | |
82 FR 10329 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Ohio Advisory Committee for a Meeting To Discuss Approval and Publication of a Report Regarding Civil Rights and Hate Crime in the State, and To Begin Discussion of the Committee's Next Topic of Civil Rights Study | |
82 FR 10328 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Kansas Advisory Committee To Discuss the Committee's Draft Report Regarding Voting Rights in the State, as Well as Other Civil Rights Issues for Future Inquiry | |
82 FR 10348 - Applications for New Awards; Upward Bound Math and Science Program | |
82 FR 10316 - Migratory Bird Subsistence Harvest in Alaska During the 2017 Season | |
82 FR 10313 - Anchorages; Captain of the Port Puget Sound Zone, WA | |
82 FR 10430 - Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions on Proposed Highways in Colorado | |
82 FR 10269 - Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments | |
82 FR 10313 - Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Kill Devil Hills, NC: Withdrawal | |
82 FR 10271 - Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments | |
82 FR 10378 - Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the Homeless | |
82 FR 10258 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
82 FR 10262 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
82 FR 10255 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
82 FR 10267 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH Helicopters | |
82 FR 10264 - Airworthiness Directives; Alexander Schleicher GmbH & Co. Gliders | |
82 FR 10434 - Inflation Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties |
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Economic Development Administration
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Patent and Trademark Office
Engineers Corps
Navy Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Children and Families Administration
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Fish and Wildlife Service
Drug Enforcement Administration
Employee Benefits Security Administration
Employment and Training Administration
Workers Compensation Programs Office
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
Foreign Assets Control Office
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A300 series airplanes; and Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes). This AD was prompted by a determination that certain inspection thresholds and intervals must be reduced. This AD requires repetitive detailed inspections for corrosion of the lower wing root joint, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective March 17, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of March 17, 2017.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-2125; fax (425) 227-1149.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Model A300 series airplanes; and Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes). 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 2013-0230, dated September 24, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A300 series airplanes; and Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes). The MCAI states:
Several cases of corrosion on the lower wing root joint, located in the wing bottom skin inboard and outboard of the external lower surface splice, have been reported by operators.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could affect the structural integrity of the airframe.
Prompted by these findings, [Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile] (DGAC) France issued AD 1997-006-210 [which corresponds to FAA AD 98-21-34, Amendment 39-10842 (63 FR 55524, October 16, 1998)] to require repetitive inspections to detect the presence of corrosion and prevent crack propagation at the wing bottom skin, inboard and outboard of the Rib 1 external lower surface splice, between Frame (FR) 40 and FR47.
DGAC France * * * issued [an AD] to expand the choice of applicable Service Bulletins (SB). [The] DGAC France AD * * * was issued to allow A300-600 operators to use Revision 04 of Airbus SB A300-57-6047, converting flight cycles/”Fatigue rating” into flight cycles (FC)/flight hours (FH).
Subsequently, Airbus modification 10599 was developed to improve the corrosion behaviour of the area. This improvement allowed refining the inspection programme of the A300-600 aeroplane. For post-modification 10599 A300-600 aeroplanes, the application of the Maintenance Review Board Report (MRBR) inspection tasks was deemed sufficient for maintaining an adequate level of safety on these aeroplanes.
Consequently, EASA issued AD 2008-0208 (later revised), retaining the requirements of [a] DGAC France AD * * *, which was superseded, to require the use of Airbus SB A300-57-6047 Revision 05 for the inspections and to exclude post-modification 10599 A300-600 aeroplanes from the Applicability.
Since EASA AD 2008-0208R1 was issued, a fleet survey and updated Fatigue and Damage Tolerance analyses have been performed in order to substantiate the second A300-600 Extended Service Goal (ESG2) exercise. The results of these analyses determined that the threshold and interval must be reduced to allow timely detection of these cracks and the accomplishment of an applicable corrective action.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD takes over and retains the requirements for A300 and A300-600 aeroplanes from EASA AD 2008-0208R1 (which has been revised, remaining applicable only to A310 aeroplanes) and requires accomplishment of the inspections within the new thresholds and intervals.
Required actions include repetitive detailed inspections for corrosion of the
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 Parcel Service (UPS) requested that we change the information in paragraph (c), Applicability, of the proposed AD. UPS explained that paragraph (c) of the proposed AD defines the airplane models applicable to the proposed rule, then has an exclusion later in paragraph (g) of the proposed AD. UPS reasoned that we should simplify by having related information in the same location, and suggested we combine paragraph (c) and paragraph (g) of the proposed AD into a single paragraph (c) of the proposed AD.
For the reasons stated by the commenter, we agree to include the phrase, “except those on which Airbus modification 10599 has been incorporated,” in paragraph (c)(2) of this AD. However, we disagree with moving the statement, “As of the effective date of this AD, the actions specified in AD 98-21-34, Amendment 39-10842 (63 FR 55524, October 16, 1998) (“AD 98-21-34”) are no longer required” from paragraph (g) of this AD to paragraph (c) of this AD because the Applicability should not include this type of information; it is appropriately included in other regulatory text such as paragraph (g) of this AD.
UPS requested that we revise the headings of paragraphs (h) and (i) of the proposed AD because the paragraph titles do not reflect what is contained within the respective paragraphs. UPS explained that paragraph (h) of the proposed AD does not contain any corrective actions, and paragraph (i) of the proposed AD contains fatigue inspection requirements.
For the reasons stated by the commenter, we agree and have revised the headings of both paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD.
UPS stated that upon its review of the fatigue inspection requirements, it identified that there is not a transition/grace period for airplanes on which inspections are already being accomplished, but for which the new repetitive inspection intervals have already been exceeded due to the service bulletin interval reductions.
We agree with the commenter's statement. We had erroneously specified Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6047, Revision 06, dated October 17, 2011, in the compliance time in paragraph (i)(2)(ii)(B) of the proposed AD; the correct reference is Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6047, Revision 05, dated May 27, 2008. We have changed paragraph (i)(2)(ii)(B) of this AD to include a grace period of 500 flight cycles or 1,050 flight hours (whichever occurs first), without exceeding the compliance time specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6047, Revision 05, dated May 27, 2008.
UPS requested that we delete paragraph (j) of the proposed AD. UPS explained that paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of the proposed AD identify differences between the service bulletin requirements specified by the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) and the proposed AD. UPS stated that in its review of paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of the proposed AD, it does not recognize a difference between contacting Airbus for corrective action, and using a method approved by the FAA for either situation. UPS reasoned that, as the discrepancy is located on primary structure and allowable/approved rework limits are exceeded, damage tolerance analysis is required as part of the repair definition process. UPS adds that the existing OEM process, the Repair Design Approval Sheet (RDAS), contains instructions for continued airworthiness and is approved by an EASA-designated airworthiness engineer. Based on the existing process and procedures in place, UPS does not believe that paragraph (j) of the proposed AD is necessary.
We disagree with the request to delete paragraph (j) of this AD. Paragraph (j)(1) of this AD is required to address certain inspection findings. The service information specifies that Airbus be contacted for corrective action; however, paragraph (j)(1) of this AD requires that one of the specific organizations identified must approve those corrective actions. Likewise, paragraph (j)(2) of this AD specifies the appropriate organizations for compliance time determinations. Therefore, we have not changed this AD in this regard.
UPS requested that we revise paragraph (k) of the proposed AD to match paragraph (i) of AD 2016-07-20, Amendment 39-18465 (81 FR 21255, April 11, 2016). UPS reasoned that AD 2016-07-20 clearly defines when the AFT value is calculated in subsequent repetitive inspection interval determinations. UPS explained that recent FAA ADs have included using AFT to determine repetitive inspection intervals, but the definition of calculating the AFT value has varied among ADs, which further complicates compliance across several mandatory ADs.
For the reasons stated by the commenter, we have added more specific criteria for establishing the AFT in paragraph (k) of this AD.
UPS requested that we revise paragraph (m) of the proposed AD to include approval for previous AMOCs. UPS explained that other final rules include approved AMOCs for prior or superseded ADs. UPS explained further that it received AMOC approval for AD 98-21-34 in which the intent is embodied within the proposed AD (
We agree for the reasons stated by the commenter. We added the previous AMOC approval information in paragraph (m)(1)(ii) of this final rule.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.
We reviewed Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0204, Revision 01, dated April 2, 1999; and Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6047, Revision 06, dated October 17, 2011. This service information describes procedures for repetitive detailed inspections for corrosion of the rib 1 external lower surface splice between FR40 and FR47, repetitive fatigue inspections for cracking of the fasteners and on the surface of the forward and aft lower surface panels if necessary, and corrective actions (including application of new protective coating, removal of corrosion, and measurement of the reworked depth) if necessary. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 29 airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 8 work-hours 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 $19,720, or $680 per product.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 8 work-hours, for a cost of $680 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations 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.
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 March 17, 2017.
This AD affects AD 98-21-34, Amendment 39-10842 (63 FR 55524, October 16, 1998) (“AD 98-21-34”).
This AD applies to Airbus airplanes, certificated in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD.
(1) All Model A300 B2-1A, B2-1C, B2K-3C, B2-203, B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203 airplanes.
(2) Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, B4-622, B4-605R, B4-622R, F4-605R, F4-622R, and C4-605R Variant F airplanes, except those on which Airbus modification 10599 has been incorporated.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.
This AD was prompted by reports of corrosion on the lower wing root joint located in the wing bottom skin inboard and outboard of the external lower surface splice, and the determination that certain existing inspection thresholds and intervals must be reduced. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct corrosion and cracking on the lower wing root joint, which could reduce the structural integrity of the airframe.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
For Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, B4-622, B4-605R, B4-622R, F4-605R, F4-622R, and C4-605R Variant F airplanes, on which Airbus modification 10599 has been incorporated: As of the effective date of this AD, the actions specified in AD 98-21-34 are no longer required. No action is required by this AD.
Within 60 months since the airplane's first flight, or within 60 months since accomplishment of the last inspection specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0204 or A300-57-6047, whichever occurs later: Do a detailed inspection for corrosion of the rib 1 external lower surface splice between frame (FR)40 and FR47, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0204, Revision 01, dated April 2, 1999; or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6047, Revision 06, dated October 17, 2011; as applicable. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 60 months. Accomplishment of the initial inspection required by this paragraph terminates the requirements of AD 98-21-34 for Model A300 and A300-600 series airplanes.
If any corrosion is found during any inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraph (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD.
(1) Before further flight, do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0204, Revision 01, dated April 2, 1999; or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6047, Revision 06, dated October 17, 2011; as applicable; except as required by paragraph (j)(1) of this AD.
(2) At the applicable time specified in paragraph (i)(2)(i) or (i)(2)(ii) of this AD, except as required by paragraph (j)(2) of this AD: Do fatigue inspections to detect cracks of
(i) For Model A300 series airplanes: Do the initial inspection at the applicable time specified in paragraph B.(5) of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0204, Revision 01, dated April 2, 1999.
(ii) For Model A300-600 series airplanes: Do the initial inspection at the later of the times specified in paragraphs (i)(2)(ii)(A) and (i)(2)(ii)(B) of this AD.
(A) At the applicable time specified in Figure A-FBGAA, Sheet 01, of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6047, Revision 06, dated October 17, 2011.
(B) Within 500 flight cycles or 1,050 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, without exceeding the compliance time specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6047, Revision 05, dated May 27, 2008.
(1) Where Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0204, Revision 01, dated April 2, 1999; or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6047, Revision 06, dated October 17, 2011; specifies to contact Airbus for appropriate corrective action, this AD requires repair before further flight using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA.
(2) Where Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6047, Revision 06, dated October 17, 2011, specifies to contact Airbus for the appropriate threshold or repetitive interval, this AD requires that the compliance time be determined using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA.
For the purposes of paragraph (i)(2) of this AD, the AFT must be established as specified in paragraphs (k)(1), (k)(2), and (k)(3) of this AD.
(1) For the initial inspection, the AFT is the total accumulated flight hours, counted from take-off to touch-down, divided by the total accumulated flight cycles at the effective date of this AD.
(2) For the first repeated inspection interval, the AFT is the total accumulated flight hours divided by the total accumulated flight cycles at the time of the inspection threshold.
(3) For all inspection intervals onward, the AFT is the flight hours accumulated between the two most recent inspections divided by the flight cycles accumulated between the two most recent inspections.
This paragraph provides credit for the inspections and corrective actions required by paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the applicable service information specified in paragraphs (l)(1) through (l)(3) of this AD.
(1) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6047, Revision 02, dated April 2, 1999.
(2) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6047, Revision 03, dated September 28, 1999.
(3) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6047, Revision 05, dated May 27, 2008.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(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. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
(ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 98-21-34 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD.
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2013-0230, dated September 24, 2013, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (o)(3) and (o)(4) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0204, Revision 01, dated April 2, 1999.
(ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6047, Revision 06, dated October 17, 2011.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2013-19-04 for certain The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, and -900 series airplanes. AD 2013-19-04 required repetitive inspections for cracking of the skin around the fasteners common to the ends of certain bulkhead chords, and related investigative actions and corrective actions if necessary; and
This AD is effective March 17, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of March 17, 2017.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Alan Pohl, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6450; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2013-19-04, Amendment 39-17586 (78 FR 59801, September 30, 2013) (“AD 2013-19-04”). AD 2013-19-04 applied to certain The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, and -900 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
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.
Boeing and United Airlines had no objections to the NPRM.
Aviation Partners Boeing stated that installation of winglets, as provided in Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST00830SE, does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions proposed in the NPRM.
We concur with the commenter. We have redesignated paragraph (c) of the proposed AD as (c)(1) and added paragraph (c)(2) to this AD to state that installation of STC ST00830SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST00830SE is installed, a “change in product” alternative method of compliance (AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.
All Nippon Airways requested that we clarify if the access and restoration instructions specified in the service information referenced in paragraph (k) of the proposed AD are required actions.
We agree to clarify this issue. Access and restoration actions are not part of the actions required to correct the unsafe condition identified in this AD. Therefore, access and restoration actions were excluded from the required actions in AD 2013-19-04 and are excluded from the required actions in this AD. We have added the service information referenced in paragraph (k) of this AD to paragraph (i)(4) of this AD. Paragraph (i)(4) of this AD specifies that the access and restoration actions specified in the referenced service information are not required by this AD.
Southwest Airlines (SWA) requested that we clarify the corrective action for drilling the new drag link assembly. SWA stated that the service information only provides instructions for parts constructed of aluminum and that the drag link assembly is made from titanium.
We agree that clarification is necessary. Boeing has informed us that revised service information is forthcoming. However, since the revised service information is not yet available, we do not consider that delaying this action until after the release of the manufacturer's revised service bulletin is warranted. When this service information becomes available, and upon satisfactory review, we plan to approve it as a global alternative method of compliance (AMOC) to the appropriate requirements of this AD. The issue raised by SWA affects only the on-condition repair instructions and not the required inspection to detect the identified unsafe condition. We have added paragraph (i)(5) to this AD to specify that repairs provided in Part 4 or Part 5 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1294, Revision 2, dated December 9, 2015 (“SASB 737-53-1294 R2”), must be done before further flight, using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this AD. We have revised paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD accordingly.
For clarity, we have changed the format of paragraph (g) of this AD to make it clear the exceptions apply to the entire paragraph, including the repetitive inspection sentence specified in paragraph (g) of this AD.
We have clarified paragraph (h) of this AD to specify that accomplishing the skin repair or preventive modification,
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously, and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.
We reviewed SASB 737-53-1294 R2. The service information describes procedures for inspecting the skin around the eight fasteners common to the ends of the STA 540 bulkhead chords between stringers S-22 and S-23, left and right sides, for cracking, repairing cracks, and installing a chord splice as a preventive modification. 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 903 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repairs and inspections that will be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these repairs:
According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this 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.
We have 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 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 March 17, 2017.
This AD replaces AD 2013-19-04, Amendment 39-17586 (78 FR 59801, September 30, 2013) (“AD 2013-19-04”).
(1) This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, and -900 series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1294, Revision 2, dated December 9, 2015 (“SASB 737-53-1294 R2”).
(2) Installation of Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST00830SE [
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by a report of cracks found in the skin at body station (STA) 540 just below the left side of stringer S-22. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking in the fuselage skin around the eight fasteners securing the STA 540 bulkhead chords, which could result in rapid decompression of the cabin.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as required by paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD: At the applicable time specified in table 1 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of SASB 737-53-1294 R2, do detailed and high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections for cracking of the skin in the area around the eight fasteners securing the STA 540 bulkhead chords between stringers S-22 and S-23; and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions; in accordance with Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the Accomplishment Instructions of SASB 737-53-1294 R2, except as required by paragraphs (i)(3), (i)(4), and (i)(5) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Except as required by paragraph (i)(2) of this AD, repeat the detailed and HFEC inspections thereafter at the intervals specified in table 1 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of SASB 737-53-1294 R2, until the optional preventive modification specified in paragraph (h) of this AD is done.
Accomplishing the skin repair or preventive modification, including an HFEC inspection for cracking of the skin and STA 540 bulkhead chords, and all applicable repairs, in accordance with paragraph 3.B, Part 2 or Part 4 (left side), or Part 3 or Part 5 (right side), as applicable, of the Accomplishment Instructions of SASB 737-53-1294 R2, except as required by paragraphs (i)(2) and (i)(5) of this AD, terminates the inspection requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD for the side on which the skin repair or preventive modification is done.
(1) Where paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of SASB 737-53-1294 R2, specifies a compliance time “after the Revision 2 date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
(2) For airplanes on which Boeing Business Jet Lower Cabin Altitude Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01697SE (
(3) If any cracking is found during any inspection required by this AD, and SASB 737-53-1294 R2, specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate action: Before further flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this AD.
(4) The access and restoration actions identified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1294, dated March 31, 2011; Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1294, Revision 1, dated June 14, 2013; or SASB 737-53-1294 R2; are not required by this AD. Operators may perform those actions in accordance with accepted maintenance procedures.
(5) For doing repairs specified in Part 4 or Part 5 of the Accomplishment Instructions of SASB 737-53-1294 R2: Before further flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this AD.
Table 2 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of SASB 737-53-1294 R2, specifies post-modification airworthiness limitation inspections in compliance with 14 CFR 25.571(a)(3) at the modified locations, which support compliance with 14 CFR 121.1109(c)(2) or 129.109(b)(2). As airworthiness limitations, these inspections are required by maintenance and operational rules. It is therefore unnecessary to mandate them in this AD. Deviations from these inspections require FAA approval, but do not require an AMOC.
This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1294, dated March 31, 2011, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD; or Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1294, Revision 1, dated June 14, 2013, which was incorporated by reference in AD 2013-19-04.
(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 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 ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (m)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) AMOCs approved previously for the optional preventive modification installed in accordance with paragraph (h) of AD 2013-19-04, and AMOCs approved previously for repairs for AD 2013-19-04, are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD, provided that such modification or repair included installation of the splice plate as specified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1294, except as provided by paragraph (l)(5) of this AD.
(5) The time-limited repair approved as specified in FAA Letter 120S-15-140, dated June 3, 2015, is approved as an AMOC to the corresponding requirements of this AD.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Alan Pohl, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6450; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (n)(3) and (n)(4) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1294, Revision 2, dated December 9, 2015.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For Boeing service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; Internet
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 747-400, -400D, and -400F series airplanes. This AD was prompted by widespread corrosion damage that was found on the skin inner surface along the upper bulkhead at certain stations between certain stringers. This AD requires repetitive inspections of the fuselage crown skin inner surface, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. This AD also allows for terminating actions for the repetitive inspections. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective March 17, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of March 17, 2017.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740; telephone 562-797-1717; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Nathan Weigand, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6428; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 747-400, -400D, and -400F series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
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 supported the content of the NPRM.
Boeing asked that we add accomplishment of Part 4 to the terminating action language specified in paragraph (i) of the proposed AD for clarification purposes. Boeing stated that Tables 1 and 2 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2878, dated May 19, 2016, specify that Action 1 is to complete Part 3: Skin Panel Modification or Repair; and Action 2 is to complete Part 4: Surface Finish Restoration. Boeing noted that both actions must be completed before further flight.
We agree with the commenter's request to add accomplishment of Part 4 of the referenced service information, for the reason provided. We have clarified the language in paragraph (i) of this AD to specify that both Part 3 and Part 4 of the referenced service information must be accomplished to terminate the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD. However, we do not agree that both actions must be done before further flight because the terminating action is optional; therefore, no specific compliance time is required.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the change described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.
We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2878, dated May 19, 2016. The service information describes procedures for inspecting the fuselage crown skin inner surface body at affected stations, and doing related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. 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 53 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repairs that will be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these repairs and on-condition inspections:
According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this 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 will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective March 17, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 747-400, -400D, and -400F series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2878, dated May 19, 2016.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by widespread corrosion damage that was found on the skin inner surface along the upper bulkhead at certain stations between certain stringers. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2878, dated May 19, 2016, except as required by paragraph (k)(1) of this AD: Do a detailed inspection of the skin inner surface for any missing or degraded finish, sign of corrosion, or crack, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2878, dated May 19, 2016. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2878, dated May 19, 2016, until the actions specified in paragraph (i) of this AD have been done.
If any damage is found during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, before further flight, do all applicable related investigative and correction actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2878, dated May 19, 2016, except as required by paragraph (k)(2) of this AD.
Modification or repair of the inner skin surfaces, and restoration of the surface finish, in accordance with part 3 and part 4, respectively, of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2878, dated May 19, 2016, terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
For airplanes on which a repair or modification has been done in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2878, dated May 19, 2016: Except as required by paragraph (k)(1) of this AD, at the applicable time specified in Table 3 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2878, dated May 19, 2016, do detailed inspections to detect damage of the repaired or modified areas, and do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with part 5 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2878, dated May 19, 2016, except as required by paragraph (k)(2) of this AD. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2878, dated May 19, 2016.
(1) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2878, dated May 19, 2016, specifies a compliance time “after the original issue date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
(2) If any cracking or corrosion is found during any inspection required by this AD, and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2878, dated May 19, 2016, specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate action: Before further flight, repair the cracking or corrosion using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this AD.
(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 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 ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (m) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) Except as required by paragraph (k)(2) of this AD: For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (l)(4)(i) and (l)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.
(i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.
(ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.
For more information about this AD, contact Nathan Weigand, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6428; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2878, dated May 19, 2016.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740; telephone 562-797-1717; Internet
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Alexander Schleicher GmbH & Co. Model ASK 21 gliders. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as cable slack in gliders equipped with a rudder hand control
This AD is effective March 17, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of March 17, 2017.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
For service information identified in this AD, contact Alexander Schleicher GmbH & Co. Segelflugzeugbau, Alexander-Schleicher-Str. 1, D-36163 Poppenhausen, Germany; phone: +49 (0) 06658 89-0; fax: +49 (0) 06658 89-40; Internet:
Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4165; fax: (816) 329-4090; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Alexander Schleicher GmbH & Co. Model ASK 21 gliders. The NPRM was published in the
A temporary rudder control blockage was reported, involving an ASK 21 sailplane equipped with a rudder hand control system. The subsequent investigation revealed significant cable slack in the rudder control system.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to reduced rudder control, possibly resulting in reduced controllability of the sailplane.
To address this potentially unsafe condition, Schleicher issued ASK 21 Technical Note (TN) 38 to provide instructions to amend the ASK 21 Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM), incorporating updated pre-flight inspection instructions to check the rudder control system of sailplanes modified in accordance with the instructions of Schleicher ASK 21 TN 25 (rudder actuated by hand lever for the front pilot seat) or TN 30 (rudder control by hand for the rear pilot seat).
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We reviewed Alexander Schleicher GmbH & Co. ASK 21 Technical Note No. 38, dated May 31, 2016. The service information describes procedures for inspecting gliders equipped with a rudder hand control system for proper tension and adjustment if necessary. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD will affect 64 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 2 work-hours 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 $10,880, or $170 per product.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 1 work-hour for cost of $85 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations 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.
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 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.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
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 airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective March 17, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to Alexander Schleicher GmbH & Co. ASK 21 gliders, all serial numbers, certificated in any category, that are modified with a rudder hand control system using either ASK 21 Technical Note No. 25, dated February 16, 1993, or ASK 21 Technical Note No. 30, dated January 22, 2007.
Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 27: Flight Controls.
This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as cable slack in gliders equipped with a rudder hand control system. We are issuing this proposed AD to correct any excess slack in the rudder hand control system, which could result in a short-term blockage of the rudder control system and reduced control.
Unless already done, do the actions in paragraphs (f)(1) through (4) of this AD:
(1) If the glider is equipped with a rudder actuated by means of a hand lever at the left cockpit wall in the front pilot seat by ASK 21 Technical Note (TN) No. 25, dated February 16, 1993, within the next 60 days after March 17, 2017 (the effective date of this AD), replace the flight manual (FM) and maintenance manual (MM) pages with the following pages in ASK 21 TN No. 38, dated May 31, 2016:
(i) FM: Check List/1, 16a, 19.1a., and 21.
(ii) MM: 13, 15.
(2) If the glider is equipped with a rudder actuated by means of a hand lever at the left cockpit wall in the rear pilot seat by ASK 21 TN No. 30, dated January 22, 2007, within the next 60 days after March 17, 2017 (the effective date of this AD), replace the FM and MM pages with the following pages in ASK 21 TN No. 38, dated May 31, 2016:
(i) FM: Check List/1, 16a, 18a, 19b, 19c, 19.1a, and 21.
(ii) MM: 13, 15.
(3) For all affected gliders, within the next 60 days after March 17, 2017 (the effective date of this AD) and repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed every 12 months, inspect the rudder cable tension and make any necessary corrections following the instructions from FM page 19.1a, Checking and Adjusting of the Cable Tension, as specified in ASK 21 TN No. 38, dated May 31, 2016.
(4) For all affected gliders, after March 17, 2017 (the effective date of this AD), any glider modified with a rudder hand control system in accordance with ASK 21 TN No. 25 or TN No. 30 must also have the FM and MM amended following the instructions in ASK 21 TN No. 38, dated May 31, 2016.
In addition to the provisions of 14 CFR 43.3 and 43.7, the actions required by paragraph (f)(1) through (2) of this AD may be performed by the owner/operator (pilot) holding at least a private pilot certificate and must be entered into the glider records showing compliance with this AD following 14 CFR 43.9 (a)(1) through (4) and 14 CFR 91.417(a)(2)(v). The record must be maintained as required by 14 CFR 91.417, 121.380, or 135.439.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.: 2016-0192, dated September 28, 2016; ASK 21 Technical Note No. 25, dated February 16, 1993; and ASK 21 Technical Note No. 30, dated January 22, 2007, for related information. The MCAI can be found 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) Alexander Schleicher GmbH & Co. ASK 21 Technical Note No. 38, dated May 31, 2016.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For Alexander Schleicher GmbH & Co service information identified in this AD, contact Alexander Schleicher GmbH & Co. Segelflugzeugbau, Alexander-Schleicher-Str. 1, D-36163 Poppenhausen, Germany; phone: +49 (0) 06658 89-0; fax: +49 (0) 06658 89-40; Internet:
(4) You may review this referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148. In addition, you can access this service information on the Internet at
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH (Airbus Helicopters) Model MBB-BK 117 C-2 and MBB-BK 117 D-2 helicopters. This AD requires inspections and a torque of certain attachment points. This AD was prompted by a design reassessment. These actions are intended to prevent an unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective March 17, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain documents listed in this AD as of March 17, 2017.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone (972) 641-0000 or (800) 232-0323; fax (972) 641-3775; or at
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Matt Fuller, Senior Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email
On June 21, 2016, at 81 FR 40203, the
The NPRM was prompted by AD No. 2015-0210R1, Revision 1, dated October 28, 2015, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, to correct an unsafe condition for the Airbus Helicopters Model MBB-BK117 C-2, MBB-BK117 C-2e, MBB-BK117 D-2, and MBB-BK117 D-2m helicopters. EASA advises that the hydraulic plate assembly on certain MBB-BK117 models has four attachment points on the fuselage secured by a single locking mechanism. According to EASA, a design reassessment revealed stiffness of the hydraulic plate may be insufficient to withstand the in-service loads in the event one of the four single locking attachment points fails. EASA states that if this condition is not detected and corrected, it may lead to loss of the hydraulic module plate and possible loss of control of the helicopter. Therefore, the EASA AD requires a repetitive inspection and one-time torque tightening of the attachment points in accordance with Airbus Helicopters' service information. EASA considers its AD an interim action and states further AD action may follow.
After we issued the NPRM, EASA revised its AD and issued EASA AD No. 2015-0210R2, Revision 2, dated December 2, 2016. AD 2015-0210R2 reduces the applicability by serial number to exclude helicopters with an improved hydraulic module plate installation that is not subject to the unsafe condition.
After our NPRM was published, we received comments from one commenter.
Airbus Helicopters requested revising the statements regarding what prompted this AD action and the intended effects of this AD action to more accurately describe the unsafe condition. Specifically, the commenter requested we state the design assessment showed that in case of a failure of a single attachment point, the stiffness of the hydraulic plate installation may be insufficient to withstand the in-service loads.
We agree. We have revised this statement in the Discussion paragraph of this Final Rule.
The commenter also requested that in our statement of what the proposed actions are intended to prevent, we change “subsequent loss of control of the helicopter” to “possible loss of control of the helicopter.”
We disagree. This AD states the unsafe condition “could result” in loss of the hydraulic module plate and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. This language indicates that loss of control of the helicopter is a possibility. Thus, the requested change is unnecessary.
These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of Germany and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with Germany, EASA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the EASA AD. We are issuing 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 helicopters of these same type designs and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed except for the change to the Applicability section previously described. This change is consistent with the intent of the proposals in the NPRM and will not increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of this AD.
The EASA AD requires contacting Airbus Helicopters customer support when replacing affected parts, and this AD does not.
We reviewed Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. ASB MBB-BK117 C-2-29A-003 for Model MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters and Airbus Helicopters ASB No. ASB MBB-BK117 D-2-29A-001 for Model MBB-BK 117 D-2 helicopters, both Revision 0, and both dated October 12, 2015. This service information specifies a repetitive visual inspection for condition and correct installation of the attachment points, and if there is a crack, replacing the affected parts and contacting Airbus Helicopters customer support. This service information also specifies a tightening torque check after the initial inspection and, if torque cannot be applied, replacing the affected parts and contacting Airbus Helicopters customer support.
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 Airbus Helicopters ASB No. ASB MBB-BK117 C-2-29A-003 for Model MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters and Airbus Helicopters ASB No. ASB MBB-BK117 D-2-29A-001 for Model MBB-BK 117 D-2 helicopters, both Revision 1 and both dated October 14, 2016. This service information specifies the same repetitive visual inspection for condition and correct installation of the attachment points except it reduces the applicability by serial number due to the introduction of a new locking design.
We estimate that this AD affects 134 helicopters of U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. We estimate the cost of labor at $85 per work-hour. Visually inspecting the four attachment points will take about 0.75 work-hour for an estimated cost of $64 per helicopter and $8,576 for the U.S. fleet per inspection cycle. Inspecting the torque of the four attachment points will take about 0.25 work-hour for an estimated cost of $21 per helicopter and $2,814 for the U.S. fleet. Replacing any of the attachment point parts will take a minimal amount of time and parts will cost about $48 per attachment point.
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 helicopters identified in this rulemaking action.
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.
We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.
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 applies to Model MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters, serial numbers up to and including 9750, and Model MBB-BK 117 D-2 helicopters, serial numbers up to and including 20110, with a hydraulic module plate assembly part number B291M0003103 with a single locking attachment point installed, certificated in any category.
This AD defines the unsafe condition as failure of a hydraulic module plate assembly attachment point (attachment point). This condition could result in loss of the hydraulic module plate and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
This AD becomes effective March 17, 2017.
You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.
(1) Within 100 hours time-in-service (TIS):
(i) Visually inspect the split pins, castellated nuts, plugs, nuts, and hexagon bolts of each attachment point for a crack and for proper installation by following the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs 3.B.1.2.a. through 3.B.1.2.e., of Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. ASB MBB-BK117 C-2-29A-003, Revision 0, dated October 12, 2015 (ASB MBB-BK117 C-2-29A-003), or Airbus Helicopters ASB No. ASB MBB-BK117 D-2-29A-001, Revision 0, dated October 12, 2015 (ASB MBB-BK117 D-2-29A-001), as applicable to your model helicopter. Replace any part that has a crack before further flight. If the split pins, castellated nuts, or hexagon bolts are not as depicted in Figure 2 of ASB MBB-BK117 C-2-29A-003 or ASB MBB-BK117 D-2-29A-001, before further flight, properly install them.
(ii) Apply a torque of 9 to 10 Nm to the left-hand and right-hand nuts of each attachment point. If a torque of 9 to 10 Nm cannot be applied, replace the affected nut before further flight.
(2) Thereafter, at intervals not to exceed 400 hours TIS, perform the inspection in paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this AD.
(1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Matt Fuller, Senior Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate,
(2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office, before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.
(1) Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. ASB MBB-BK117 C-2-29A-003 and Airbus Helicopters ASB No. ASB MBB-BK117 D-2-29A-001, both Revision 1, and both dated October 14, 2016, which are not incorporated by reference, contain additional information about the subject of this final rule. For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone (972) 641-0000 or (800) 232-0323; fax (972) 641-3775; or at
(2) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2015-0210R1, Revision 1, dated October 28, 2015, and EASA AD No. 2015-0210R2, Revision 2, dated December 2, 2016. You may view the EASA ADs on the Internet at
Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 2900, Hydraulic Power System.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference 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) Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin No. ASB MBB-BK117 C-2-29A-003, Revision 0, dated October 12, 2015.
(ii) Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin No. ASB MBB-BK117 D-2-29A-001, Revision 0, dated October 12, 2015.
(3) For Airbus Helicopters service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone (972) 641-0000 or (800) 232-0323; fax (972) 641-3775; or at
(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures (ODPs) for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.
This rule is effective February 10, 2017. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of February 10, 2017.
Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:
1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;
3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center at
Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Divisions, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125) Telephone: (405) 954-4164.
This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing, amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part § 97.20. The applicable FAA forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when required by an entry on 8260-15A.
The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the
The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the
The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.
This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as Amended in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C 553(d), good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures (ODPs) for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.
This rule is effective February 10, 2017. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of February 10, 2017.
Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:
1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;
3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center at
Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Divisions, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd. Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125) Telephone: (405) 954-4164.
This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing, amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when required by an entry on 8260-15A.
The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the
The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the
The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.
This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as Amended in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C 553(d), good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.
Final rule; delay of effective date.
In accordance with the memorandum of January 20, 2017, from the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff, entitled “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review,” this action delays for 60 days the effective date of the final rule entitled “Changes in Requirements for Affidavits or Declarations of Use, Continued Use, or Excusable Nonuse in Trademark Cases,” published in the
The effective date of FR Doc. 2017-00317, published in the
Catherine Cain, Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Trademark Examination Policy, by email at
On January 19, 2017, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO or Office) published in the
In accordance with the memorandum of January 20, 2017, from the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff, entitled “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review,” this action delays the effective date of that final rule 60 days from the date of the January 20, 2017 memo. The effective date of the January 19, 2017 final rule, which would have been February 17, 2017, is now March 21, 2017. The 60-day delay in the effective date is necessary to give agency officials the opportunity for further review of the issues of law and policy raised by the rule.
Legal Services Corporation.
Final rule.
This final rule revises the Legal Services Corporation's (LSC or Corporation) regulations governing subgrants. LSC published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on April 20, 2015, and a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) on April 26, 2016. This final rule identifies the factors to consider in determining whether an award from an LSC recipient to another organization is a subgrant, establishes a dollar threshold at which recipients must seek LSC's approval to award a subgrant, authorizes recipients to use property or services funded in whole or in part with LSC funds to support a subgrant, and establishes new processes for seeking prior approval of subgrants.
This final rule will be effective on April 1, 2017.
Stefanie K. Davis, Assistant General Counsel, Legal Services Corporation, 3333 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20007, (202) 295-1563 (phone), (202) 337-6519 (fax),
LSC provided a more complete history of the impetus for this rulemaking in the April 20, 2015 NPRM. 80 FR 21692, Apr. 20, 2015. In brief, LSC initiated this rulemaking to address an issue identified by LSC's Office of Inspector General (OIG) through an audit of the Corporation's Technology Initiative Grant (TIG) program. In its audit report, OIG disagreed with LSC management's (Management) interpretation and application of the rules governing subgrants and transfers of LSC funds because “[t]he subgrant rule appears to have been written with the LSC's principal legal service grants in mind, such that ordinarily, programmatic activities consist of the provision of legal services, and business services can easily be classified as ancillary. This division is not as easy to make in the case of TIG grants, and the rule does not seem to have anticipated this problem.” Audit of Legal Services Corporation's Technology Initiative Grant Program, Report No. AU-11-01, at 42, Dec. 2010.
LSC initiated this rulemaking in 2012 to resolve the conflict of opinions. In 2015, Management proposed expanding this rulemaking to update these rules more comprehensively. On April 12, 2015, the Operations and Regulations Committee (Committee) of LSC's Board of Directors (Board) voted to recommend that the Board approve publication of an NPRM in the
LSC received five comments during the comment period. One LSC funding recipient, Northwest Justice Project (NJP), submitted comments. The other four comments came from OIG; Metro Volunteer Lawyers (MVL), the pro bono program of the Denver Bar Association; the National Legal Aid and Defender Association, through its Civil Policy Group and its Regulations and Policy Committee (NLADA); and the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on Legal Aid and Indigent Defense (SCLAID). Collectively, the commenters identified five areas of concern with the NPRM: (1) An ambiguous definition of the term “programmatic”; (2) LSC's proposal to adopt the five characteristics of a subgrant from the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Uniform Guidance, 2 CFR part 200; (3) LSC's proposal to prohibit recipients from using services or property acquired in whole or in part with LSC funds as the basis for a subgrant; (4) LSC's proposal to remove a provision that deemed subgrants approved if LSC did not make a decision about whether to approve the subgrant within 45 days of submission; and (5) LSC's proposal to require subrecipients to maintain timekeeping records in accordance with 45 CFR part 1635. Commenters also responded to LSC's request for comments about whether to increase the dollar threshold at which fee-for-service arrangements, including judicare projects and contracts with private attorneys to provide legal assistance to eligible clients, are considered subgrants.
LSC reviewed all comments received and determined that revisions to the proposed rule were appropriate. LSC proposed to make significant changes to five provisions of the proposed rule:
• Removing the definition of the term
• Revising § 1627.3 to allow recipients to use property or services acquired in whole or in part with LSC funds to support a subgrant;
• Revising § 1627.4 to establish a $15,000 threshold at which recipients must seek LSC's prior written approval before awarding a subgrant;
• Committing LSC to publishing the time frames in which LSC will make decisions on requests for prior approval of subgrants in the
• Revising § 1627.5 to allow recipients flexibility to negotiate the creation and maintenance of timekeeping records with subrecipients.
LSC determined that the changes were significant enough to warrant a second round of notice and comment rulemaking. On April 18, 2016, the Committee authorized publication of an FNPRM in the
On October 16, 2016, LSC staff presented a proposed final rule to the Committee for consideration. During the public comment period of the Committee meeting, the Committee received comments from Kathleen Schoen of the Denver Bar Association, Robin Murphy of the National Legal Aid and Defender Association, and Terry Brooks of the American Bar Association.
The commenters remarked on two issues: Timekeeping and LSC's oversight of subgrants, including audit requirements. Subrecipient timekeeping was the subject of significant revision and public comment at both the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) and further notice of proposed rulemaking (FNPRM) stages of this rulemaking. Commenters did not raise concerns about LSC's oversight of subgrants until the FNPRM stage.
In response to the commenters' concerns, the Committee deferred voting on the final rule and directed LSC staff to reexamine whether LSC could (1) further tailor the level of detail proposed in the timekeeping requirement to reduce the burdens on bar associations receiving LSC-funded property or services to engage in pro bono activities while remaining sufficient to ensure compliance with LSC's governing statutes; and (2) reconsider the scope of the provisions governing oversight and auditing of subgrants as they apply to such bar associations.
LSC staff conducted the requested reexamination and developed revised language, on which they briefed the Committee and the public at an interim meeting on November 22, 2016. 81 FR 80686, Nov. 6, 2016. The Committee again received comments from ABA and NLADA during this meeting. NLADA also submitted a written comment, which LSC staff took under advisement.
On January 26, 2017, the Committee considered the final rule and voted to recommend its adoption and publication in the
Material regarding this rulemaking is available on the Rulemaking page of LSC's Web site at
LSC is making a technical amendment to newly redesignated § 1610.7(a)(2) to reflect the deletion of the term
In the NPRM, LSC proposed to define the term
LSC agreed that its proposed definition of the term
LSC found it difficult to redefine
In the FNPRM, LSC also proposed to define the term
In the existing rule, LSC excludes from the definition of
LSC continues to believe that providing a framework for analyzing third-party agreements is an improvement over the status quo, in which the existing definition provides little guidance. In addition, using the OMB factors enables recipients who have federal grants to use uniform standards for evaluating their third-party agreements. For these reasons, LSC will retain the characteristics of a subgrant in § 1627.3(b).
LSC will not adopt the recommendation to provide a safe harbor for recipients who make a good faith determination that a subaward to a third party is not a subgrant when LSC applies the characteristics of a subgrant and reaches the opposite conclusion for two reasons. First, the Uniform Guidance, from which LSC is adopting the characteristics, does not provide a safe harbor. Second, if a recipient has questions about whether a particular award would constitute a subgrant under the characteristics in § 1627.3(b), the recipient is encouraged to contact LSC for guidance before making the award.
Currently, LSC evaluates third-party agreements for whether they meet the definition of
In the Uniform Guidance, OMB described the characteristics of a procurement relationship and the characteristics of a subaward in the same section. 2 CFR 200.330(b). LSC compares the two sets of characteristics, as LSC would apply them, in the chart below.
LSC provides this comparison to help demonstrate the differences between subgrants and procurement contracts. Some types of subawards, such as those pursuant to which the third party is providing goods or services that require the third party to use substantive legal knowledge, will involve judgment calls about whether the awards more closely meet the characteristics of a subgrant or those of a contract. In those situations, LSC encourages recipients to contact LSC to work through the analysis of the characteristics.
In the NPRM, LSC published an analysis of two fact patterns to demonstrate how subawards of LSC funds to third parties would be analyzed under the subgrant characteristics. In the interest of providing more practical guidance about applying the characteristics of a subgrant, LSC is providing five additional examples.
An LSC funding recipient provides an award to a bar association to recruit pro bono attorneys by sending out email blasts to the association's subscriber list announcing a recipient's pro bono opportunities. This award would not be a subgrant because all of the characteristics under § 1627.3(b) are lacking. Sending an email message about pro bono opportunities would not make the association responsible for determining client eligibility under the LSC grant. This responsibility would remain with the recipient. Additionally, the bar association would not have its performance measured in relation to whether objectives of the recipient's Basic Field-General grant were met. The bar association's performance would not be measured by how well it achieves the objectives of the recipient's grant, but rather by how well it succeeds in sending an email to its membership. Furthermore, by sending a simple email blast, the bar association would have no responsibility for programmatic decision-making (such as setting new or different priorities than the priorities set by the recipient), nor would the bar association be responsible for adhering to applicable LSC program requirements specified in the LSC grant award. Finally, the association would be sending the email as a technical service for the benefit of the recipient.
An LSC funding recipient gives an award to a bar association that (1) recruits pro bono attorneys; (2) provides support to recipient-sponsored trainings; and (3) refers its members to the recipient to take pro bono cases. Recruitment consists of communicating about the upcoming training and pro bono opportunities in the form of newsletters, email blasts, and mailings. Support for the training involves logistical
Applying the five factors in proposed § 1627.3(b), this award would not constitute a subgrant. As in the prior example, the bar association does not determine who is eligible to receive legal assistance under the recipient's LSC grant. Nor does it have its performance measured in relation to whether objectives of the LSC grant were met. In this case, the recipient would simply assess whether the bar association recruited attorneys, provided technical support at trainings, and referred members to the recipient to take pro bono cases. Because the bar association is only recruiting, referring, and providing technical support, it is not responsible for making decisions about priorities or which services to deliver to eligible clients. The bar association would not be responsible for adhering to requirements set forth in the LSC grant award. Finally, the services provided by the bar association primarily benefit the recipient because they are recruitment and administrative tasks that the recipient would otherwise have to do. Consequently, this agreement does not constitute a subgrant.
An LSC recipient provides an award to a bar association to conduct part of its PAI program. Pursuant to the terms of the award, the bar association will recruit attorneys by sending its membership information about upcoming trainings and pro bono opportunities. The bar association will provide training to interested attorneys on substantive areas of law, will screen clients for eligibility, will refer cases of eligible clients to participating private attorneys to handle, and will supervise private attorneys who agree to accept cases. The bar association will report to the recipient about how many attorneys it recruits, how many cases it placed, the outcomes of those cases, the number of individuals who seek assistance through the award, and the number of eligible individuals referred to private attorneys.
In contrast to the two previous examples, this award would be considered a subgrant because the majority of characteristics under § 1627.3(b) are satisfied. First, the recipient would transfer screening and intake responsibilities to the bar association as part of the award. The bar association would be responsible for determining whether an applicant is eligible to receive legal assistance under the recipient's LSC grant. Second, the bar association would have its performance measured in relation to whether objectives—delivering legal services to eligible clients of the LSC grant—are met because it is referring cases to private attorneys and supervising their handling of clients' cases. Third, the bar association could have significant responsibility for programmatic decision-making. For example, the bar association may choose to set its own priorities for the types of cases the private attorneys it recruits will handle. Fourth, in conducting the program, the bar association would be responsible for adhering to applicable LSC program requirements specified in the LSC grant award (such as the restrictions, timekeeping, and recordkeeping requirements), but only with respect to the PAI award. Finally, this award would use LSC funds to carry out a public purpose described in the grant award and statute authorizing the grant. The more technical activities described in the prior examples are services provided to the recipient, while the bar association's conduct of a PAI program helps the recipient carry out a public purpose—delivery of legal assistance to eligible clients—specified in the LSC Act. Consequently, this award would constitute a subgrant.
An LSC recipient pays an expert to educate the recipient's staff members on an area of law unfamiliar to the staff members. The recipient pays the expert from its Basic Field-General grant award. This award would not be a subgrant because it lacks most, if not all, of the characteristics under § 1627.3(b). The expert would make no determinations about who is eligible to receive services under the recipient's grant; rather, the expert's objective would be to educate the recipient's staff members. The expert also would not have his or her performance measured in relation to the objectives of the Basic Field-General grant. Furthermore, the expert would not be responsible for programmatic decision-making (for example, setting new priorities or determining what services to provide), nor would the expert be responsible for adhering to applicable LSC program requirements specified in the LSC grant award (for example, complying with LSC's Case Service Report Handbook or Audit Guide). Finally, the award primarily benefits the recipient because it increases the recipient staff's knowledge.
An LSC recipient provides an award to an expert to disseminate legal information to the public through an in-person presentation. Under the terms of the award, the expert is not responsible for determining who is eligible to receive legal assistance. The expert will not have his or her performance measured in relation to whether objectives of the recipient's grant are met. However, the expert has responsibility for programmatic decision-making because under the award, he or she is responsible for deciding what legal information to convey directly to the public and how to convey it most effectively. Under the terms of the award, the expert must comply with the terms of the LSC Act, Public Law 104-134 to the extent it is adopted in the current year's appropriations statute, other applicable statutes, and LSC's regulations. Finally, the expert is being paid to provide legal information directly to the public. In contrast to the preceding example, the award in this situation would be a subgrant because it has many of the characteristics under § 1627.3(b).
In the FNPRM, LSC proposed to revise the language of § 1627.3 as presented in the NPRM. First, LSC proposed to incorporate in paragraph (a) language from the Uniform Guidance stating that recipients must determine on a case-by-case basis whether each award to a third party is a subgrant or procurement contract. LSC also proposed to replace the introductory language of paragraph (b) with language from the Uniform Guidance stating that the list of characteristics support the classification of an award as a subgrant. 2 CFR 200.330(a). Finally, as described in the preceding discussion of § 1627.2, LSC proposed to remove the term
NLADA objected to LSC's proposal to remove the rule deeming a subgrant approved if LSC did not respond within the prescribed time. NLADA stated that the proposal “leaves programs in a state of fiscal uncertainty as to subgrant agreements” and recommended leaving both provisions in the rule to “preserve[] an important backstop for
LSC disagreed with NLADA's recommendation to leave the existing rule in place. NLADA's comments did not reflect the greater assurance of a timely response from LSC provided by the consolidation of the Basic Field Grant competition and subgrant approval processes. Nor did they acknowledge that responsible grants management practices do not include allowing the expenditure of a large amount of funds without the approval of the funding agency.
As explained more fully in the FNPRM, LSC considered four options for responding to NLADA's comments. 81 FR 24544, 24548, Apr. 10, 2016. The first was to retain the language proposed in the NPRM. The second was to reinstate the existing rule in its entirety. The third was to reinstate the 45-day limit, but include a provision stating that if LSC does not respond, the subgrant is deemed denied. The last option was to include either a waiver provision or a notice provision similar to the ones provided in the Uniform Guidance. LSC chose the last, proposing to include in the
Commenters again opposed LSC's proposal. NLADA reiterated its concern that “LSC's proposal basically omits any time frame for LSC to take action on subgrants, leaving programs in a state of fiscal uncertainty as to subgrant agreements.” NLADA opined that the fixed 30-day time period for response provided in the Uniform Guidance was a “more equitable and workable time frame” than the flexible, annually determined period LSC had proposed.
NJP also submitted comments urging LSC to adopt the Uniform Guidance approach of committing to a 30-day period in which to make a decision on a subgrant application or to give the applicant notice of the date by which LSC expected to make a decision. Like NLADA, NJP opined that a fixed 30-day period was a reasonable time frame for LSC to make decisions on subgrant applications. NJP also urged LSC to adopt 45 days, or 15 days after the initial 30-day decision period ends, as an outside limit for making decisions on subgrant applications. Such a process, NJP concluded, “will provide recipients assurance that the approval process is underway and that a decision will be made in the very near term. This prevents uncertainty and administrative delay in the provision of critically needed legal help for clients.”
LSC appreciates the commenters' views on the value of a fixed response date, rather than the flexible option LSC proposed in the FNPRM. LSC also understands the commenters' desire for a 30-day initial response time. LSC's staffing and operations, however, make it impractical to commit to a 30-day initial time frame for response. The staff who review and make recommendations to Management about whether to approve, deny, or suggest changes to a subgrant application are the same staff who conduct site visits and issue reports of those visits. Because those staff balance subgrant review with their other oversight responsibilities, it is necessary for the initial response period to be longer than the 30-day period provided in the Uniform Guidance. Consequently, LSC is responding to the commenters by adopting a 45-day period in which LSC must make a decision on an application for a subgrant or give the requester notice of the date by which it expects to make a decision. LSC believes this rule appropriately balances recipients' need for certainty about when a decision will be made with LSC's need to afford its staff adequate time to carry out their responsibilities.
For both cash and in-kind subgrants, LSC proposed to set the prior approval threshold at $15,000. LSC believed this amount represents a significant enough investment of LSC funding or LSC-funded resources that LSC should have increased oversight over the award. For in-kind subgrants, LSC proposed to adopt language in paragraph (a)(2) that substantially adopts the provisions of the Uniform Guidance pertaining to valuation of goods and services used to satisfy a federal grantee's cost-sharing requirements. In paragraph (a)(2)(i), LSC proposed to require recipients to use the fair market value of the asset at the time the subgrant is made to evaluate whether the subgrant requires prior approval. In paragraph (a)(2)(ii), which pertains to valuations of leased space, LSC proposed that recipients should evaluate the fair rental value of the space. Finally, in paragraph (a)(2)(iii), LSC proposed to adopt language from the Uniform Guidance that requires recipients to document and support the fair rental value of the asset by the same methods used internally for its other in-kind valuations.
Although subgrants for less than the threshold amount are not subject to the
LSC understands from the substance of their comments that the commenters object to proposed § 1627.4(f) and (g). Paragraph (f) governs accounting for funds or property or services acquired in whole or in part with LSC funds that are used to support a subgrant. Paragraph (g) requires subgrant agreements to include terms providing the same oversight rights for LSC with respect to subrecipients as apply to recipients. 80 FR 21692, 21700, Apr. 20, 2015. LSC proposed no substantive changes to paragraph (g) in either the NPRM or the FNPRM. LSC did, however, propose to make one change in the final rule intended to address the commenters' objections to the FNPRM.
LSC proposed one salient change to paragraph (f) in the NPRM, which received no comments. 80 FR 21697. The current version of proposed § 1627.4(f) is located at § 1627.3(c). The last two sentences of this paragraph permit recipients and subrecipients, in lieu of accounting for subgranted funds in either of their audit reports, to negotiate a means of ensuring that subrecipients appropriately used the subgrants during the life of the subgrant. LSC must approve such alternative arrangements.
This language has been in part 1627 since 1983. 48 FR 28485, June 22, 1983. During the course of this rulemaking, LSC has proposed two substantive changes to this language. The first, explained and proposed in the NPRM, was to eliminate the option to enter into alternative auditing arrangements because, in LSC's extensive experience administering this rule, the option had never been used. 80 FR 21697. The second change, proposed in the FNPRM, was to include language reflecting the expansion of the rule to include in-kind subgrants. 81 FR 24548, 24550.
It is clear from the plain text of part 1627 that LSC does not require all subrecipients to submit to an audit that complies with LSC's Audit Guide. Since at least 1983, when this section of part 1627 was last revised, LSC explicitly has permitted recipients and subrecipients to develop alternative procedures for auditing the proper use of subgrant funds. LSC has not proposed to change the auditing provisions in any significant form except to extend them to subgrants supported by property or services acquired in whole or in part with LSC funds. Although LSC believes that the language proposed in the NPRM and the FNPRM provides recipients with sufficient flexibility to negotiate the accounting and auditing responsibilities appropriate to any particular subgrant, LSC proposes to reinstate the language that it proposed to remove. LSC believes that reinstating this language will ensure that recipients and subrecipients, whether bar associations or other legal aid providers, have ample options for negotiating a satisfactory method of demonstrating that LSC-funded resources supporting a subgrant were used appropriately. LSC will also add this language to paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this section, which governs accounting for subgrants made using property or services purchased in whole or in part with LSC funds.
LSC is making one minor modification to the reinstated language to direct recipients to submit alternative audit procedures to LSC, rather than to the Audit Division, which is no longer a functional division of LSC. To make clear that the flexibility provided by the reinstated language applies to the auditing requirements, LSC is also restructuring the language pertaining to the accounting requirements and the language governing auditing requirements into separate paragraphs. LSC does not intend the restructuring to have any substantive effect; rather, it is intended solely to distinguish between the accounting and auditing provisions of this section.
LSC is making one additional change to § 1627.4(f) to address the concerns raised by NLADA and the Denver Bar Association. LSC is adding paragraph (f)(2)(iii), which explicitly exempts from the Accounting Guide and the Audit Guide bar associations, pro bono programs, law firms or private attorneys who receive property or services acquired in whole or in part with LSC funds for the sole purpose of providing legal information or legal assistance on a pro bono or reduced fee basis to eligible clients, whether the costs allocated with the activity are allocated to the PAI requirement or not. These subrecipients must, however, have financial management systems in place that LSC deems sufficient to determine that any resources the subrecipient receives or uses under the subgrant are used consistent with 45 CFR part 1610.
With respect to the general oversight provision, currently at § 1627.3(e), LSC proposed in the NPRM to relocate the provision to § 1627.4 with no changes. 80 FR 21700. The provision currently requires that LSC have the same oversight rights with respect to subrecipients as LSC has with respect to its direct recipients.
In response to the comments provided by the Denver Bar Association during the FNPRM comment period, LSC proposed to revise this language to clarify that its oversight rights apply to the subgrant. LSC proposed to revise the language to state that subgrant agreements must provide the same oversight rights for LSC with respect to subgrants as apply to recipients. In other words, LSC must be able to visit subrecipients and review records and practices
The Office of Inspector General expressed concerns that the revised provision could be interpreted as limiting OIG's and LSC's access to subrecipients' financial, accounting, and timekeeping records. The revised language does not limit OIG's or LSC's authority to access a subrecipient's records, policies, and procedures when review of those documents is needed to carry out their oversight responsibilities under the Inspector General Act and the LSC Act. OIG and LSC must be able to ensure that resources related to a subgrant supported with LSC funding are used consistent with LSC's governing statutes and regulations. For example, under the proposed revision to § 1627.4(e), LSC and OIG must still have access to financial records when necessary to determine that a subrecipient is spending its non-LSC funds consistent with the restrictions or that the subrecipient is properly allocating costs across its sources of funding. As another example, if LSC or OIG has reason to believe that a subrecipient is conducting restricted activities in LSC-funded space, the oversight provision authorizes them to review the subrecipient's operations and records to determine whether the LSC-funded space is being used consistent with LSC's governing statutes and the terms of the subgrant.
Throughout the course of this rulemaking, LSC has been sensitive to the fact that subgrants of LSC funds or property or services acquired in whole or in part with LSC funds come with obligations to comply with the statutes under which those funds were appropriated. LSC considered whether options such as a de minimis rule for relatively small contributions of property or services from an LSC recipient to another organization to carry out legal assistance activities or an exception to the subgrant rule for bar associations receiving only property or services to carry out private attorney involvement activities were consistent with its statutory obligations. Because several restrictions placed on LSC recipients by Congress extend to all of the recipients' operations, rather than just to their use of LSC funds, LSC determined that it was inappropriate to enact a rule that would allow an organization benefiting from the expenditure of LSC funds, either by receipt of such funds by the organization itself or by the recipient providing property or services to the organization to carry out legal assistance activities, to operate free of the restrictions. LSC continues to believe that its obligations to ensure that its resources are used consistent with Congress' intent are the same regardless of whether the item of value being exchanged is property or services funded with LSC funds, and regardless of the amount of funds or the value of the LSC-funded property or services. LSC believes that the additional modifications to part 1627 proposed here fulfill that obligation while creating flexibility for recipients and subrecipients to meet the requirements of the regulation.
In the NPRM, LSC proposed to transfer existing 45 CFR 1610.7—Transfers of LSC funds to part 1627 and redesignate it as § 1627.5. LSC also proposed to revise the timekeeping requirement in current § 1610.7(c) to adopt the timekeeping standards applicable to recipients in part 1635. LSC received no comments on the proposal to transfer § 1610.7.
LSC considered three options for responding to the comments. The first was to keep the proposed language without change. The second was to draft a rule providing minimum standards for timekeeping that LSC believed would provide it with the information it needed to ensure that subgrant funds are properly accounted for, but that would not prescribe how the recipient or subrecipient keeps time. The third option was to adopt part 1635-compliant timekeeping as the default, but allow recipients to seek approval from LSC for an alternate timekeeping method that will ensure accountability for the use of subgrant funds. This option was similar to language LSC proposed to delete from existing § 1627.3(c) that authorized recipients and subrecipients to propose alternative auditing methods. LSC proposed deleting that language simply because it had never been used, rather than because it was ineffective.
LSC proposed to adopt the second option in the FNPRM. LSC proposed that, consistent with part 1635, recipients should be able to show how much time subrecipient attorneys and paralegals spent on cases and matters and aggregate information on pending and closed cases by legal problem type. LSC did not, however, propose to require that the subrecipient collect the information or otherwise dictate how the recipient and subrecipient collect and maintain the information. Those decisions were left to the recipient and subrecipient to negotiate as part of the subgrant agreement.
NLADA, NJP, and the Denver Bar Association (DBA) all submitted comments objecting to the revised proposal. All three commenters stated that the proposal did not grant recipients the flexibility LSC intended to grant. The comments also reflected a misunderstanding of the scope of the timekeeping requirement in that some of the commenters appeared to believe that LSC expects private attorneys, in addition to attorneys and paralegals working for the subrecipient, to keep time in compliance with part 1635.
NJP reiterated its comment responding to the NPRM that it is unreasonable for LSC to expect private attorneys to “use timekeeping systems that assign an LSC coded problem-type to each case handled under a subgrant or that their timekeeping systems are able to aggregate time record information by legal problem code for both closed and pending cases. No private attorney has any reason to assign an LSC problem code to a case or to aggregate time for both closed and pending cases.” NJP stated that it maintains case records with assigned LSC problem codes for each case assigned to a private attorney through a subgrant, but that “NJP does not keep track of the private attorney's time contemporaneously in its case management/timekeeping system.” NJP recommended that LSC either “drop the LSC specific timekeeping requirements for PAI subgrants or limit the requirement to the provisions of Part 1627.5(c)(1) and (c)(2),
NLADA similarly objected to LSC's proposal to require recipients to provide the part 1635-specific information, stating that the requirements “leave little, if any, room for negotiation” between recipients and subrecipients about how time spent on a subgrant will be kept. NLADA recommended that LSC consider implementing a requirement that subrecipients “would need to establish time keeping methods that would account for the time spent on categories of activities. For example, a staff attorney employed by a bar foundation as a full-time pro bono coordinator responsible for making pro bono referrals could record her time showing 7 or 8 hours per day making referrals to pro bono attorneys. Likewise, a pro bono attorney could report 10 hours spent on negotiating a child support agreement.”
DBA's comments expressed concerns similar to those expressed by NLADA, NJP, and Metro Volunteer Lawyers (MVL) in their comments responding to the NPRM. DBA stated that “[l]awyers who are giving their time and expertise to provide legal assistance through MVL are not going to comply with the timekeeping required in 45 CFR 1627.5.” DBA observed that its attorneys and paralegals “arguably would be subject to the same 15 minute time keeping requirements.” DBA observed that “the only way a recipient would be able to verify that time was kept as required by 1627.5(c) would be to insure the subgrantee maintains detailed timekeeping records as indicated in 1627.5(c).” They recommended that LSC “revise 1627.5(c) to allow the flexibility intended by its comments and, if necessary, allow CLS and MVL to negotiate a timekeeping arrangement to maintain accountability without requiring the level of detail called for by the proposed regulation.”
In the version of the final rule presented to the Committee in October, LSC clarified the scope of the timekeeping requirement as applied to subgrants. By its terms, the requirement applies to attorneys and paralegals working for subrecipients of LSC funds or property or services acquired in whole or in part with LSC funds. The timekeeping requirement does not extend to private attorneys who accept cases on a pro bono or reduced fee basis from a subrecipient, nor does it apply to private attorneys who receive a subgrant from an LSC recipient to provide legal assistance to eligible clients on a fee-for-service basis. Private attorneys who accept cases from subrecipients on a pro bono basis are not being compensated. Although an accounting of these hours could be useful to recipients for effective volunteer management, recipients need not collect hours contributed by these attorneys to track the expenditure of funds allocated to the PAI requirement. Private attorneys who accept cases on a reduced fee basis, either from the LSC recipient itself or from a subrecipient, must enter into contracts “that set forth payment systems, hourly rates, and maximum allowable fees.” 45 CFR 1614.7(a)(2). They must submit bills or invoices to the recipient or subrecipient demonstrating that they have incurred the fees before the recipient or subrecipient can pay them for services rendered to an eligible client.
LSC also proposed to retain the language of the timekeeping requirement from the FNPRM for several reasons. Section 504(a)(10) of LSC's fiscal year 1996 appropriations statute prohibits LSC from making awards to organizations unless the organizations agree “to maintain records of time spent on each case or matter with respect to which the person or entity is engaged[.]” Sec. 504(a)(10)(A), Public Law 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321, 1321-54, incorporated annually in LSC's annual appropriations thereafter. LSC believed that proper accountability for funds requires a more rigorous level of timekeeping than the current rule provides. LSC's position was supported by findings reported by OIG in its 2015 Subgrant Capstone Report. In that report, OIG reported that four subrecipients used LSC funds to pay the salaries of staff who engaged in restricted activities. LSC Office of Inspector General, “Report of Investigation: Subgrant Capstone Report” at 6, Sept. 30, 2015,
LSC continues to believe that some level of recordkeeping is essential to show that LSC-funded resources are being used for only LSC-permissible activities, regardless of whether the actor is employed by the recipient or a subrecipient and the resources being used are LSC funds or property or services acquired in whole or in part with LSC funds.
LSC will respond to the public comments by reframing the timekeeping requirement in § 1627.5 as a recordkeeping requirement. LSC is making two main changes:
1. Separating the timekeeping requirements for cases and for matters. LSC believes that separately stating this information will eliminate concern about the types of information LSC expects subrecipients to provide and the burdens associated with each.
2. Explicitly stating what information LSC expects subrecipients and recipients to provide for cases and for matters. LSC proposes that, with respect to matters, subrecipients must maintain adequate records to show that attorneys and paralegals used subgrant resources to carry out the purposes of the subgrant consistent with the restrictions contained in LSC's governing statutes. This is a more flexible provision than § 1635.3(b)(2), which requires recipient paralegals and attorneys to identify the category of action on which they spent time for each matter handled. For cases, LSC proposes to eliminate the requirements that subrecipients record time contemporaneously and in 15-minute increments. Instead, subrecipients must maintain records for each case that show the amount of time spent by an attorney or paralegal on each case by date, the type of activity conducted by date, and a unique client name or case number. LSC believes that attorneys and paralegals who handle cases routinely maintain these types of information on the cases that they handle, so any burden incurred in providing that information to the recipient is minimal. Subrecipients handling both cases and matters must provide the required information for cases and the required information for matters.
LSC will continue to allow recipients and subrecipients to negotiate which party will maintain records for each case that show the problem type and closing code for the case. This provision will allow recipients to maintain that information for subgrants to subrecipients whose case management systems do not keep track of the same types of information that LSC recipients' systems do. It will also allow recipients and subrecipients who both receive LSC funds to track and provide this
NLADA and DBA submitted written comments responding to the FNPRM and participated in the public comment portion of the October Committee meeting. DBA expressed concern that because Colorado Legal Services (CLS) does not allocate any of the costs CLS incurs in providing office space to DBA's pro bono program, MVL, this proposed change to the rule would prohibit DBA itself from engaging in restricted activities. DBA stated that “all the [Access to Justice] committee clinics and other projects would have to comply with LSC regulations and subject other DBA programs to LSC timekeeping and audit requirements. This would severely limit the assistance the DBA provides, outside of CLS offices, by requiring additional administration and limiting the types of cases that can be handled and the populations that can be served.” DBA further expressed concern that it would be prohibited from engaging in lobbying and other activities that LSC's governing statutes prohibit LSC funding recipients from undertaking. DBA recommended that LSC “carve out a cooperative agreement exception for bar associations, clearly indicating that . . . a bar association program that receives no direct LSC funding, whose cases are screened in compliance with LSC regulations, and is not counted towards recipients' private attorney involvement requirements, would not be a subgrant and would not be subject to the requirements of a subrecipient.”
NLADA concurred with DBA's comments on this proposal. NLADA stated that it had learned through discussions with LSC recipients that “there are private attorneys and local bar associations willing to offer pro bono services to eligible clients who do not want to be bound by the administrative requirements in LSC's subgrant regulation.” NLADA recommended that LSC adopt a second exception to the definition of
NLADA again proposed an exception to part 1627 at the November 22, 2016 Committee meeting and in a subsequent letter to LSC. NLADA proposed rule text that would require a recipient and a bar association or pro bono program, in lieu of being subject to part 1627, to enter into an agreement that would (1) bind the subrecipient to comply with the recipient's policies and client acceptance rules and regulations and to refrain from engaging in restricted activities when using the LSC-funded property or services; (2) require the subrecipient to maintain the records described in LSC's revised proposal for each case and matter handled by its attorneys and paralegals; (3) allow LSC to access “records for all matters and cases handled at the location”; and (4) grant the recipient and LSC “access to the state or local bar association or pro bono organization's annual audit.”
LSC understood the concerns raised by DBA and NLADA in response to the NPRM. As proposed, § 1627.5(d)(2) stated that the LSC restrictions listed in 45 CFR part 1610 apply “only to the subgranted funds or property or services” that a recipient provides to a subrecipient for the sole purpose of carrying out private attorney involvement (PAI) activities. If CLS were to allocate the costs associated with housing MVL to its PAI requirement, the prohibitions in part 1610 would only affect MVL—not DBA as a whole—because only MVL uses the space and resources provided by CLS.
Although LSC encourages recipients to allocate all costs they expend on engaging private attorneys to provide legal information and legal assistance to eligible clients to the PAI requirement, LSC understands that some recipients choose not to do so. LSC does not see a reason to treat subgrant activities that would constitute permissible PAI activities under 45 CFR part 1614 if a recipient chose to consider them part of the recipient's PAI program differently for purposes of applying the restrictions. LSC did not create a wholesale exception to the definition of
LSC understands that subrecipients who are receiving only space and overhead from an LSC funding recipient to provide pro bono assistance do not want to be bound by the same restrictions and requirements applicable to subrecipients who are receiving LSC funds. LSC is also aware from its experience administering subgrants that subawards to organizations to provide pro bono assistance take many forms. An arrangement like the one MVL has with CLS, in which resources acquired in whole or in part with LSC funds are used on an ongoing basis to support another organization, is one that requires more oversight by LSC to ensure that the resources are being used consistent with LSC's governing statutes and regulations. For this reason, LSC believes that limiting the application of part 1627 and the restrictions in § 1627.5 to activities carried out using those resources is a more appropriate way to address the concerns raised by MVL than a blanket exception to the application of the subgrant rule as a whole.
LSC proposed only non-substantive editorial changes to this section in the NPRM. In the FNPRM, LSC proposed to include language in paragraph (b) stating that subrecipients must audit any funds, or property or services acquired in whole or in part with LSC funds, that a recipient provides as a subgrant in the subrecipient's annual audit. LSC made this change to reflect its decision to permit recipients to make in-kind subgrants. LSC received no comments on those changes.
In the NPRM, LSC proposed to redesignate existing § 1627.8 as § 1627.7 without revision. LSC received no comments on this proposal.
In the NPRM, LSC proposed to redesignate existing § 1627.7 regarding recipient payments to tax-sheltered annuities, retirement accounts, and pensions, to part 1630. LSC also proposed to redesignate existing § 1627.8 as § 1627.7 without revision. LSC received no comments on this proposal.
In the NPRM, LSC proposed to move three sections of part 1627 to part 1630: §§ 1627.4—Membership fees or dues, 1627.5—Contributions, and 1627.7—Tax sheltered annuities, retirement accounts and pensions. LSC proposed to relocate these provisions to part 1630, which governs cost allocation. Through this transfer, LSC proposed to limit part 1627 to governing subgrants. LSC received no comments on this proposal.
Grant programs—law, Legal services.
Accounting, Government contracts, Grant programs—law, Hearing and appeal procedures, Legal services, Questioned costs.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Legal Services Corporation amends 45 CFR chapter XVI as follows:
42 U.S.C. 2996g(e).
(a) * * *
(2) The other organization receives no LSC funds from the recipient, and LSC funds do not subsidize restricted activities; and
5 U.S.C. App. 3, 42 U.S.C. 2996e, 2996f, 2996g, 2996h(c)(1); Pub. L. 105-119, 111 Stat. 2440; Pub. L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321.
42 U.S.C. 2996e(b)(1), 2996f(a), and 2996g(e); Pub. L. 104-208, 110 Stat 3009; Pub. L. 104-134, 110 Stat 1321.
42 U.S.C. 2996g(e).
The purpose of this part is to establish the requirements for subgrants of LSC funds from recipients to third parties to assist in the recipient's provision of legal assistance to eligible clients.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(2)
(f)
(a) In determining whether an agreement between a recipient and another entity should be considered a subgrant or a procurement contract, the substance of the relationship is more important than the form of the agreement. All of the characteristics listed in paragraph (b) of this section may not be present in all cases, and the recipient must use judgment in classifying each agreement as a subgrant or a procurement contract. The recipient must make case-by-case determinations whether each agreement that it makes with another entity constitutes a subgrant or a procurement contract.
(b) Characteristics that support the classification of the agreement as a subgrant include when the other entity:
(1) Determines who is eligible to receive legal assistance under the recipient's LSC grant;
(2) Has its performance measured in relation to whether objectives of the LSC grant were met;
(3) Has responsibility for programmatic decision-making regarding the delivery of legal assistance under the recipient's LSC grant;
(4) Is responsible for adherence to applicable LSC program requirements specified in the LSC grant award; and
(5) In accordance with its agreement, uses the LSC funds or property or services acquired in whole or in part with LSC funds, to carry out a program for a public purpose specified in LSC's governing statutes and regulations, as opposed to providing goods or services for the benefit of the recipient.
(a)
(2)
(ii) The valuation of the subgrant, either by fair market value or actual cost to the recipient of property or services, must be documented and to the extent feasible supported by the same methods used internally by the recipient.
(b)
(1)
(ii) LSC will notify a recipient of its decision to approve, disapprove, or suggest modifications to an application for subgrant approval prior to, or at the same time as LSC provides notice of its decision with respect to the applicant's proposal for Basic Field Grant funding.
(2)
(ii) A subgrant application must be submitted at least 45 days in advance of its proposed effective date. Within 45 days of the date of receipt, LSC will notify the recipient in writing of its decision to approve, disapprove, or suggest modifications to the subgrant; or, if LSC has not made a decision, the date by which LSC expects to make a decision. A subgrant that is disapproved or to which LSC has suggested modifications may be resubmitted for approval.
(3)
(4)
(5)
(ii) If a subgrant did not require prior approval, and the recipient proposes a change that will cause the total value of the subgrant to exceed the threshold for prior approval, the recipient must obtain LSC's prior written approval before making the change.
(c)
(2) For special grants (
(d)
(e)
(2) The recipient must ensure that the subrecipient properly spends, accounts for, and audits funds or property or services acquired in whole or in part with LSC funds received through the subgrant.
(3) The recipient must repay LSC for any disallowed expenditures by a subrecipient. Repayment is required regardless of whether the recipient is able to recover such expenditures from the subrecipient.
(f)
(ii) Subgranted funds may be separately disclosed and accounted for, and reported upon in the audited financial statements of a recipient; or such funds may be included in a separate audit report of the subrecipient. A subgrant agreement may provide for alternative means of assuring the propriety of subrecipient expenditures, especially in instances where an organization receives a small subgrant. Any request to use an alternative means of assuring propriety of subrecipient funds must be submitted to LSC for consideration as part of the subgrant approval process. If LSC approves a request to use an alternative means, the information provided thereby shall satisfy the recipient's annual audit requirement with regard to the subgrant funds.
(2)
(ii) Subgrants involving in-kind exchanges of property or services may be separately disclosed and accounted for, and reported upon in the audited financial statements of a recipient. A subgrant agreement may provide for alternative means of assuring the propriety of subrecipient expenditures and use of property or services acquired in whole or in part with LSC funds, especially in instances where an organization receives a small subgrant. Any request to use an alternative means of assuring propriety of subrecipient funds must be submitted to LSC for consideration as part of the subgrant approval process. If LSC approves a request to use an alternative means, the information provided thereby shall satisfy the recipient's annual audit requirement with regard to the subgrant funds.
(iii) If accounting for in-kind subgrants is not practicable, a recipient may convert the subgrant to a cash payment and follow the accounting procedures in paragraph (f)(1) of this section.
(iv) Subrecipients described in § 1627.5(d)(2) are not subject to the audit and financial requirements of the Audit Guide for Recipients and Auditors and the Accounting Guide for LSC Recipients. Such subrecipients must have financial management systems in place that would allow the recipient and LSC to determine that any resources the subrecipient receives or uses under the subgrant are used consistent with 45 CFR part 1610.
(g)
(a)
(b)
(1) Use the subgrant consistent with the recipient's priorities; or
(2) Establish their own priorities for the use of the subgrant consistent with 45 CFR part 1620.
(c)
(1) A subrecipient that handles matters as defined at 45 CFR 1635.2(b) must maintain adequate records to demonstrate that its attorneys and paralegals used the LSC funds or property or services funded in whole or in part with LSC funds:
(i) To carry out the activities described in the subgrant agreement; and
(ii) Consistent with the restrictions set forth at 45 CFR part 1610.
(2) A subrecipient that handles cases as defined at 45 CFR 1635.2(a):
(i) Must require its attorneys and paralegals to maintain records for each case that show the amount of time spent on the case and the activity conducted by date, and a unique client name or case number; and
(ii) Either the subrecipient or the recipient must maintain records for each case that show the problem type and the closing code for the case.
(iii) This requirement does not apply to subrecipients described in paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of this section.
(3) A subrecipient who handles both cases and matters must maintain the types of records described in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2).
(d)
(2)
(i) Conducting private attorney involvement activities (PAI) pursuant to 45 CFR part 1614; or
(ii) Providing legal information or legal assistance on a
(3)
(4)
(a) The requirements of this part apply to all subgrants from one recipient to another recipient.
(b) The subrecipient must audit any funds or property or services acquired in whole or in part with LSC funds provided by the recipient under a subgrant in its annual audit and supply a copy of this audit to the recipient. The recipient must either submit the relevant part of this audit with its next annual audit or, if an audit has been recently submitted, submit it as an addendum to that recently submitted audit.
(c) In addition to the provisions of § 1627.4(c)(3), LSC may hold the recipient responsible for any disallowed expenditures of subgrant funds. Thus, LSC may recover all of the disallowed costs from either the recipient or the subrecipient or may divide the recovery between the two. LSC's total recovery may not exceed the amount of expenditures disallowed.
Each recipient must adopt written policies and procedures to guide its staff in complying with this part and must maintain records sufficient to document the recipient's compliance with this part.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Final rule; delay of effective date.
In accordance with a January 20, 2017, memo from the White House, we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, are delaying the effective date of a rule we published on January 11, 2017.
The effective date of the rule that published on January 11, 2017, at 82 FR 3186, is delayed from February 10, 2017, to March 21, 2017.
Peter Fasbender, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Twin Cities Ecological Services Field Office, 4101 American Blvd. E., Bloomington, MN 55425; by telephone 952-252-0092, extension 210. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
On January 11, 2017, we published a rule to list the rusty patched bumble bee (
On January 20, 2017, the White House issued a memo instructing Federal
To the extent that 5 U.S.C. 553 applies to this action, it is exempt from notice and comment because it constitutes a rule of procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). Alternatively, our implementation of this action without opportunity for public comment, effective immediately upon publication in the
16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless otherwise noted.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
NMFS, upon request of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), hereby issues a regulation to govern the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to the rehabilitation of the Jetty System at the Mouth of the Columbia River (MCR), over the course of five years. This regulation, which allows for the issuance of a Letter of Authorization (LOA) for the incidental take of marine mammals during the described activities and specified timeframes, prescribes the permissible methods of taking and other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat, as well as requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.
Effective May 1, 2017, through April 30, 2022.
An electronic copy of the application, containing a list of references used in this document, and the associated Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) may be obtained by telephoning the contact listed below (see
Rob Pauline, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
This regulation, issued under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) (16 U.S.C. 1361
NMFS received an application from the Corps requesting five-year regulations and authorization to take multiple species of marine mammals. We anticipate take to occur in the vicinity of the MCR Jetty System by Level B harassment incidental to the use of vibratory pile driving and pedestrian surveys of the jetties. This regulation is valid for five years from the date of issuance. Please see “Background” later in this document for definitions of harassment.
Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA and the implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 216, subpart I provide the legal basis for issuing the five-year regulations and any subsequent Letters of Authorization.
The following provides a summary of some of the major provisions within this regulation for the MCR Jetty System rehabilitation project. We have determined that the Corps' adherence to the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures listed later in this regulation would achieve the least practicable adverse impact on the affected marine mammals. They include:
• Establishment and monitoring of shutdown zones to reduce likelihood of injury to marine mammals;
• Establishment and monitoring of Level B harassment zones or zones of influence (ZOI) to record instances of behavioral harassment;
• Implementation of hydroacoustic monitoring plan to ensure that shutdown zones and ZOIs have been delineated appropriately; and
• Shutdown between May 1 and July 1 when killer whales are sighted within the ZOIs to avoid take of Southern Resident killer whales which are listed
We provided
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.”
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: “any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).”
On February 13, 2015, NMFS received an application from the Corps for the taking of marine mammals incidental to the rehabilitation of the Jetty System at the MCR in Washington and Oregon. On June 9, 2015, NMFS received a revised application. NMFS determined that the application was adequate and complete on June 12, 2015. NMFS issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to the Corps on August 31, 2015 (80 FR 53777; September 8, 2015) to cover pile installation at Jetty A which is valid from May 1, 2016 through April 30, 2017. The Corps will conduct additional work under an LOA that may result in the incidental harassment of marine mammals. A notice of receipt was published in the
The Corps is seeking an LOA for continuation of work begun on Jetty A under an IHA issued by NMFS that expires on April 30, 2017. The activity will occur annually between the periods of May 1 through September 30 of each year between May 2017 and April 2022. If there is any remaining work from the IHA at Jetty A that may need to be completed under the LOA, it would likely include pile maintenance and pile removal of a barge offloading facility at that jetty. Any work on the North and South Jetties will be covered under the LOA. The following specific aspects of the activity are likely to result in the take of marine mammals: Vibratory pile driving and removal. Take, by Level B Harassment only, of individuals of seven species or stocks of marine mammals may result from the specified activity.
On August 4, 2016, NMFS released its Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (Guidance) (81 FR 51694). This new Guidance established new thresholds for predicting auditory injury, which equates to Level A harassment under the MMPA. NMFS explained the approach it would take during a transition period, wherein we balance the need to consider this new best available science with the fact that some applicants have already committed time and resources to the development of analyses based on our previous thresholds and have constraints that preclude the recalculation of take estimates, as well as consideration of where the action is in the agency's decision-making pipeline. In that notice, we included a non-exhaustive list of factors that would inform the most appropriate approach for considering the new Guidance, including: The scope of effects; how far in the process the applicant has progressed; when the authorization is needed; the cost and complexity of the analysis; and the degree to which the Guidance is expected to affect our analysis.
As described above, NMFS published a notice in the
The Guidance indicates that there is a greater likelihood of auditory injury in the form of permanent threshold shift (PTS) for low-frequency cetaceans (
In summary, we have considered the new Guidance and believe that the likelihood of injury is adequately addressed in the analysis contained herein and appropriate protective measures are in place in the regulations and LOAs.
There are numerous steps involved in the planned multi-year effort to rehabilitate the MCR Jetty System. This notice will focus only on those components of the project under the MMPA. Additional detailed information about the project in its entirety is contained in the application which may be found at:
The scheduled program of repair and rehabilitation priorities is described in detail in Section 1 of the Corps' LOA application. The sequence and timing for work under the LOA at the three MCR jetties includes:
1. The Jetty A scheduled repairs and head stabilization task will be covered under the current IHA. This would include pile installation related to construction of an offloading facility as well as construction and stone placement. There will be at least one season of in-water work but two seasons are likely to be required to complete these activities. The second season of pile maintenance and removal would occur in 2017 and be covered under the LOA.
2. The North Jetty scheduled repair and head stabilization task will occur under the LOA and include pile installation and removal at an offloading facility. Construction and placement will occur from 2017 through 2019 as this task will require three placement seasons.
3. The South Jetty interim repair and head determination task will occur under the LOA and will include pile installation and removal at two facilities with one being on the trunk near the head and the other at Clatsop Spit. This task will require four placement seasons running from 2018 through 2021.
Installation and removal of piles with a vibratory hammer will introduce sound waves into the MCR area intermittently for up to seven years (depending on funding streams and construction sequences). In terms of actual on-the-ground work it is possible, but unlikely, that driving will occur at multiple facilities on the same day. For the purposes of this LOA, NMFS will be assuming that driving will occur only at a single facility on any given day.
The
In the
Since the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published, the Corps has submitted an Addendum revising their project estimates to include only 5 hours of daily vibratory operations. The addendum is available at:
The current IHA, for which take has been authorized, is valid from May 1, 2016, through April 30, 2017. The LOA will be valid from May 1, 2017, through April 30, 2022. The work season generally extends from April through October, with extensions, contractions, and additional work windows outside of the summer season varying by weather patterns. To avoid the presence of Southern Resident killer whales, the Corps will prohibit pile installation or removal from October 1 until April 30 because that is the killer whales' primary feeding season when they may be present at the MCR plume. Installation and removal will occur from May 1 to September 30 each year.
This activity will take place at the three MCR jetties in Pacific County, Washington, and Clatsop County, Oregon. These are Jetty A, North Jetty and South Jetty. See Figure 1 in the application for a map of the MCR Jetty system and surrounding areas.
The notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (81 FR 58443; August 25, 2016) contains a full detailed description of project activities and timelines. Other than the decreased hours of pile diving per day, reduction in the number of piles being driven, and reduction in pile driving days contained as shown in Table 1, the information in that NPRM has not changed and is not repeated here.
The proposed rule was published in the
Marine mammals known to occur in the Pacific Ocean offshore at the MCR include whales, orcas, dolphins, porpoises, sea lions, and harbor seals. Most cetacean species observed by Green and others (1992) occurred in Pacific slope or offshore waters 182 m to 1,828 m (600 to 6,000 ft) in depth. Harbor porpoises (
We have reviewed the Corps' detailed species descriptions, including life history information, for accuracy and completeness and refer the reader to the application instead of reprinting the information here. We provided additional information for marine mammals with potential for occurrence in the area of the specified activity in our
This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that stressors, (
Sound travels in waves, the basic components of which are frequency, wavelength, velocity, and amplitude. Frequency is the number of pressure waves that pass by a reference point per unit of time and is measured in hertz (Hz) or cycles per second. Wavelength is the distance between two peaks of a sound wave; lower frequency sounds have longer wavelengths than higher frequency sounds and attenuate (decrease) more rapidly in shallower water. Amplitude is the height of the sound pressure wave or “loudness” of a sound and is typically measured using the decibel (dB) scale. A dB is the ratio between a measured pressure (with sound) and a reference pressure (sound at a constant pressure, established by scientific standards). It is a logarithmic unit that accounts for large variations in amplitude; therefore, relatively small changes in dB ratings correspond to large changes in sound pressure. When referring to sound pressure levels (SPLs; the sound force per unit area), sound is referenced in the context of underwater sound pressure to 1 microPascal (μPa). One pascal is the pressure resulting from a force of one newton exerted over an area of one square meter. The source level (SL) represents the sound level at a distance of 1 m from the source (referenced to 1 μPa). The received level is the sound level at the listener's position. Note that all underwater sound levels in this document are referenced to a pressure of 1 μPa, and all airborne sound levels in this document are referenced to a pressure of 20 μPa.
Root mean square (rms) is the quadratic mean sound pressure over the duration of an impulse. Rms is calculated by squaring all of the sound amplitudes, averaging the squares, and then taking the square root of the average (Urick 1983). Rms accounts for both positive and negative values; squaring the pressures makes all values positive so that they may be accounted for in the summation of pressure levels (Hastings and Popper 2005). This measurement is often used in the context of discussing behavioral effects, in part because behavioral effects, which often result from auditory cues,
When underwater objects vibrate or activity occurs, sound-pressure waves are created. These waves alternately compress and decompress the water as the sound wave travels. Underwater sound waves radiate in all directions away from the source (similar to ripples on the surface of a pond), except in cases where the source is directional. The compressions and decompressions associated with sound waves are detected as changes in pressure by aquatic life and man-made sound receptors such as hydrophones.
Even in the absence of sound from the specified activity, the underwater environment is typically loud due to ambient sound. Ambient sound is defined as environmental background sound levels lacking a single source or point (Richardson
•
•
•
•
The sum of the various natural and anthropogenic sound sources at any given location and time—which comprise “ambient” or “background” sound—depends not only on the source levels (as determined by current weather conditions and levels of biological and shipping activity) but also on the ability of sound to propagate through the environment. In turn, sound propagation is dependent on the spatially and temporally varying properties of the water column and sea floor and is frequency-dependent. As a result of the dependence on a large number of varying factors, ambient sound levels can be expected to vary widely over both coarse and fine spatial and temporal scales. Sound levels at a given frequency and location can vary by 10-20 dB from day to day (Richardson
Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals, and exposure to sound can have deleterious effects. To appropriately assess these potential effects, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine mammals are able to hear. Current data indicate that not all marine mammal species have equal hearing capabilities (
In the absence of mitigation, impacts to marine species would be expected to result from physiological and behavioral responses to both the type and strength of the acoustic signature (Viada
Marine mammal hearing plays a critical role in communication with conspecifics, and interpretation of environmental cues for purposes such as predator avoidance and prey capture. Depending on the degree (elevation of threshold in dB), duration (
Currently, TTS data only exist for four species of cetaceans (bottlenose dolphin, beluga whale, harbor porpoise, and Yangtze finless porpoise) and three species of pinnipeds (northern elephant seal, harbor seal, and California sea lion) exposed to a limited number of sound sources (
Relationships between TTS and PTS thresholds have not been studied in marine mammals but are assumed to be similar to those in humans and other terrestrial mammals. Available data from humans and other terrestrial mammals indicate that a 40 dB threshold shift approximates PTS onset (see Ward
PTS onset acoustic thresholds for marine mammals have not been directly measured and must be extrapolated from available TTS onset measurements. Thus, based on cetacean measurements from TTS studies (see Southall
Measured source levels from impact pile driving can be as high as 214 dB rms. Although no marine mammals have been shown to experience TTS or PTS as a result of being exposed to pile driving activities, captive bottlenose dolphins and beluga whales exhibited changes in behavior when exposed to strong-pulsed sounds (Finneran
Disturbance includes a variety of effects, including subtle changes in behavior, more conspicuous changes in activities, and displacement. Behavioral responses to sound are highly variable and context-specific and reactions, if any, depend on species, state of maturity, experience, current activity, reproductive state, auditory sensitivity, time of day, and many other factors (Richardson
Habituation can occur when an animal's response to a stimulus wanes with repeated exposure, usually in the absence of unpleasant associated events (Wartzok
Controlled experiments with captive marine mammals showed pronounced behavioral reactions, including avoidance of loud sound sources (Ridgway
With both types of pile driving, it is likely that the onset of pile driving could result in temporary, short term changes in an animal's typical behavior and/or avoidance of the affected area. These behavioral changes may include (Richardson
The biological significance of many of these behavioral disturbances is difficult to predict, especially if the detected
• Drastic changes in diving/surfacing patterns (such as those thought to cause beaked whale stranding due to exposure to military mid-frequency tactical sonar);
• Habitat abandonment due to loss of desirable acoustic environment; and
• Cessation of feeding or social interaction.
The onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic sound depends on both external factors (characteristics of sound sources and their paths) and the specific characteristics of the receiving animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography) and is difficult to predict (Southall
Masking occurs at the frequency band which the animals utilize so the frequency range of the potentially masking sound is important in determining any potential behavioral impacts. Because sound generated from in-water vibratory pile driving is mostly concentrated at low frequency ranges, it may have less effect on high frequency echolocation sounds made by porpoises. However, lower frequency man-made sounds are more likely to affect detection of communication calls and other potentially important natural sounds such as surf and prey sound. It may also affect communication signals when they occur near the sound band and thus reduce the communication space of animals (Clark
Masking has the potential to impact species at the population or community levels as well as at individual levels. Masking affects both senders and receivers of the signals and can potentially have long-term chronic effects on marine mammal species and populations. Recent research suggests that low frequency ambient sound levels have increased by as much as 20 dB (more than three times in terms of SPL) in the world's ocean from pre-industrial periods, and that most of these increases are from distant shipping (Hildebrand 2009). All anthropogenic sound sources, such as those from vessel traffic, pile driving, and dredging activities, contribute to the elevated ambient sound levels, thus intensifying masking.
Vibratory pile driving is relatively short-term, with rapid oscillations occurring for 10 to 30 minutes per installed pile. It is possible that vibratory pile driving resulting from this action may mask acoustic signals important to the behavior and survival of marine mammal species, but the short-term duration and limited affected area would result in insignificant impacts from masking. Any masking event that could possibly rise to Level B harassment under the MMPA would occur concurrently within the zones of behavioral harassment already estimated for vibratory pile driving, and which have already been taken into account in the exposure analysis.
The primary potential impacts to marine mammal habitat are associated with elevated sound levels produced by vibratory and impact pile driving and removal in the area. However, other potential impacts to the surrounding habitat from physical disturbance are also possible.
Natural tidal currents and flow patterns in MCR waters routinely disturb sediments. High volume tidal events can result in hydraulic forces that re-suspend benthic sediments, temporarily elevating turbidity locally. Any temporary increase in turbidity as a result of the action is not anticipated to measurably exceed levels caused by these normal, natural periods.
In order to issue an LOA under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, “and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for taking” for certain subsistence uses.
The Corps' calculation of the Level A harassment zones utilized the methods presented in Appendix D of NMFS' Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (the Guidance, available at
The User Spreadsheet accounts for effective hearing ranges using Weighting Factor Adjustments (WFAs), and the Corps' application uses the recommended values for vibratory driving therein. NMFS' new acoustic thresholds use SEL
For this project, the Corps worked with NMFS to develop the following mitigation measures to minimize the potential impacts to marine mammals in the project vicinity. The primary purposes of these mitigation measures are to minimize sound levels from the activities, avoid unnecessary exposure to elevated sound levels, and to monitor marine mammals within designated ZOIs corresponding to NMFS' Level A and B harassment thresholds. The following measures would apply to the Corps' mitigation through shutdown zone and ZOI:
The Corps will implement a marine mammal monitoring plan as described in Sections 13 and 16 of the application as well as the November 2016 Addendum to the application. This plan includes the following measures:
• The Corps will conduct briefings between construction supervisors and crews, the marine mammal monitoring team, and Corps staff prior to the start of all pile driving activity in order to explain responsibilities, communication procedures, marine mammal monitoring protocol, and operational procedures.
• All pile driving and removal activities will be conducted only using a vibratory hammer.
• For in-water heavy machinery work other than pile driving (using,
• If the shutdown zone is obscured by fog or poor lighting conditions, pile driving will not be initiated until the entire shutdown zone is visible.
• If a marine mammal approaches or enters the shutdown zone during pile driving, work will be halted and delayed until either the animal's voluntary departure has been visually confirmed beyond the disturbance zone, or 15 minutes have passed without re-detection of the animal.
• Marine Mammal Observers (MMO) will scan the waters starting 30 minutes before and continuing through duration of all pile driving. If any species for which take is not authorized are observed within the area of potential sound effects during or 30 minutes before pile driving, the observer(s) will immediately notify the on-site supervisor or inspector, and require that pile driving either not initiate or temporarily cease until the animals have moved outside of the area of potential sound effects.
• Work will occur only during daylight hours, when visual monitoring of marine mammals can be conducted.
• In order to minimize impact to Southern Resident killer whales, in-water pile driving work will not be conducted during their primary feeding season extending from October 1 until April 30. Installation will occur from May 1 through September 30 each year. In order to avoid take of endangered Southern Resident killer whales, which may be indistinguishable from transient whales, if between May 1 and July 1 any killer whales are observed within the area of ZOI, comprising the shutdown and Level B thresholds, the Corps will immediately shut down all pile installation, removal, or maintenance activities. Operations will either remain shutdown or will not be initiated until all killer whales have moved outside of the area of the ZOI. After July 1 until September 30 all killer whales will be assumed to be transients because the presence of Southern Resident killer whales at that time would be highly improbable. No shutdown is required for killer whales observed after July 1 until September 30 in the Level B harassment zone, but animals must be recorded as Level B takes in the approved monitoring forms.
NMFS has carefully evaluated the applicant's mitigation measures and considered a range of other measures in the context of ensuring that NMFS prescribes the means of affecting the least practicable impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and their habitat. Our evaluation of potential measures included consideration of the following factors in relation to one another:
• The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure is expected to minimize adverse impacts to marine mammals;
• The proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to minimize adverse impacts as planned; and
• The practicability of the measure for applicant implementation.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, as well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has determined that these mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on marine mammals species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
In order to issue an Incidental Take Authorization (ITA) for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth “requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.” The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for ITAs must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the action area. The Corps submitted information regarding marine mammal monitoring to be conducted during pile driving and removal operations as part of the application. That information can be found in sections 13 and 16 of the application as well as the November 2016 Addendum.
Monitoring measures prescribed by NMFS should contribute to or accomplish one or more of the following top-level goals:
1. An increase in our understanding of the likely occurrence of marine mammal species in the vicinity of the action,
2. An increase in our understanding of the nature, scope, or context of the likely exposure of marine mammal species to any of the potential stressor(s) associated with the action (
3. An increase in our understanding of how individual marine mammals respond (behaviorally or physiologically) to the specific stressors associated with the action (in specific contexts, where possible,
4. An increase in our understanding of how anticipated individual responses, to individual stressors or anticipated combinations of stressors, may impact either: the long-term fitness and survival of an individual; or the population, species, or stock (
5. An increase in our understanding of how the activity affects marine mammal habitat, such as through effects on prey sources or acoustic habitat (
6. An increase in understanding of the impacts of the activity on marine mammals in combination with the impacts of other anthropogenic activities or natural factors occurring in the region.
7. An increase in our understanding of the effectiveness of mitigation and monitoring measures.
8. An increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals (through improved technology or methodology), both specifically within the safety zone (thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation) and in general, to better achieve the above goals.
The following monitoring measures are required as part of this authorization.
• Visual vessel-based monitoring—The Corps will employ two vessels to monitor disturbance zones associated with pile-driving and removal activities at the North Jetty and South Jetty offloading facilities. Section 16 of the Corps' application indicates roughly where these vessels will be located. These vessels will be traversing across the delineated disturbance zones while pile driving is occurring.
• Visual shore-based monitoring will be conducted by qualified, trained MMOs. Visual monitoring will be implemented during all pile installation activities at all jetties. An observer must meet the qualifications stated in the application, have prior training and experience conducting marine mammal monitoring or surveys, and have the ability to identify marine mammal species and describe relevant behaviors that may occur in proximity to in-water construction activities.
• MMOs must be approved in advanced by NMFS.
• Trained MMOs will be placed at the best vantage points practicable (
• During pedestrian surveys, personnel will avoid as much as possible direct approach towards pinnipeds that are hauled out. If it is absolutely necessary to make movements towards pinnipeds, approach in a slow and steady manner to reduce the behavioral harassment to the animals as much as possible.
• MMOs will use a hand-held or boat-mounted GPS device
• MMOs will be equipped with camera and video capable of recording any necessary take information, including data required in the event of an unauthorized Level A take.
• MMOs will scan the waters within the area of potential sound effects using high-quality binoculars (
• MMOs shall be equipped with radios or cell phones for maintaining immediate contact with other observers, Corps engineers, and personnel operating pile equipment.
• Monitoring would be conducted before, during, and after pile driving and removal activities. In addition, observers shall record all incidents of marine mammal occurrence, regardless of distance from activity, and shall document any behavioral reactions in concert with distance from piles being driven. Observations made outside the shutdown zone will not result in shutdown; that pile segment would be completed without cessation, unless the animal approaches or enters the shutdown zone, at which point all pile driving activities would be halted.
• Monitoring will take place from 30 minutes prior to initiation through 30 minutes post-completion of pile driving activities. Pile driving activities include the time to remove a single pile or series of piles, as long as the time elapsed between uses of the pile driving equipment is no more than 30 minutes.
A hydroacoustic monitoring plan submitted by the Corps has been approved by NMFS and will be implemented during construction. This will ensure that the shutdown and harassment isopleths are aligned with the initial distances established as part of these regulations. The complete hydroacoustic monitoring plan may be found in the November 2016 Addendum to the application at
Observers shall use approved data forms. Among other pieces of information, the Corps will record detailed information about any implementation of shutdowns, including the distance of animals to the pile and description of specific actions that ensued and resulting behavior of the animal, if any. In addition, the Corps will attempt to distinguish between the number of individual animals taken and the number of incidents of take. We require that, at a minimum, the following information be collected on the sighting forms:
• Date and time that monitored activity begins or ends;
• Construction activities occurring during each observation period;
• Weather parameters
• Water conditions (
• Species, numbers, and, if possible, sex and age class of marine mammals;
• Description of any observable marine mammal behavior patterns, including bearing and direction of travel and distance from pile driving activity;
• Distance from pile driving activities to marine mammals and distance from the marine mammals to the observation point;
• Locations of all marine mammal observations; and
• Other human activity in the area.
The Corps will submit an annual report to NMFS' Permits and Conservation Division within 90 days of the end of every operating season (September 30) during the 5-year authorization period. The annual report would detail the monitoring protocol, summarize the data recorded during monitoring, and estimate the number of marine mammals that may have been harassed. If no comments are received from NMFS within 30 days, the draft final report will become final. If comments are received, a final report must be submitted up to 30 days after receipt of comments. Reports shall contain the following information:
• Summaries of monitoring effort (
• Analyses of the effects of various factors influencing detectability of marine mammals (
• Species composition, occurrence, and distribution of marine mammal sightings, including date, numbers, age/size/gender categories (if determinable), and group sizes;
• Observed behavioral responses to pile driving including bearing and direction of travel and distance from pile driving activity; and
• Results of hydroacoustic monitoring program.
In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the LOA, such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury or mortality (
• Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
• Name and type of vessel involved (if applicable);
• Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident (if applicable);
• Description of the incident;
• Status of all sound source used in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
• Water depth;
• Environmental conditions (
• Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
• Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
• Fate of the animal(s); and
• Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if equipment is available).
Activities will not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS will work with the Corps to determine necessary actions to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. The Corps will not be able to resume their activities until notified by NMFS via letter, email, or telephone.
In the event that the Corps discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead MMO determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (
In the event that the Corps discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead MMO determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the activities authorized in the LOA (
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines “harassment” as: “. . . any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).”
All anticipated takes would be by Level B harassment resulting from vibratory pile driving and removal and may result in temporary changes in behavior. Injurious or lethal takes are not expected due to the expected source levels and sound source characteristics associated with the activity, and the mitigation and monitoring measures are expected to further minimize the possibility of such take.
If a marine mammal responds to a stimulus by changing its behavior (
Upland work can generate airborne sound and create visual disturbance that could potentially result in disturbance to marine mammals (specifically, pinnipeds) that are hauled out or at the water's surface with heads above the water. The Corps will also be conducting pedestrian surveys on each of the jetties during the summer, lasting about two days for each survey. During the life of this action, about six days of surveys over three seasons will occur at the South Jetty, which is the only jetty survey with the potential to impact pinnipeds.
The Corps requested authorization for the incidental taking of small numbers of killer whale, gray whale, humpback whale, harbor porpoise, Steller sea lion, California sea lion, and harbor seal near the MCR project area that may result from vibratory pile driving and removal during construction activities associated with the rehabilitation of the Jetty system at the MCR. In order to estimate the potential incidents of take that may occur incidental to the specified activity, we must first estimate the extent of the sound field that may be produced by the activity and then consider that in combination with information about marine mammal density or abundance in the project area. We first provide information on applicable sound thresholds for determining effects to marine mammals before describing the information used in estimating the sound fields, the available marine mammal density or abundance information, and the method of estimating potential incidences of take.
We use sound exposure thresholds to determine when an activity that produces sound might result in impacts to a marine mammal such that a “take” by harassment might occur. As discussed above, NMFS has recently revised PTS (and TTS) onset acoustic thresholds for impulsive and non-impulsive sound as part of its new acoustic guidance. Information on applicable sound thresholds for determining Level A auditory injury harassment may be found in the new Guidance document (81 FR 51694; August 4, 2016). NMFS' calculation of the Level A harassment zones utilized the methods presented in Appendix D of the new Guidance and the accompanying Optional User Spreadsheet. The spreadsheet accounts for a marine mammal hearing group's potential susceptibility to noise-induced hearing loss at different frequencies (
These values were then used to develop mitigation measures for pile driving activities. The new Guidance indicates that there is a greater likelihood of auditory injury for low-frequency cetaceans (
The Guidance does not address Level B harassment or airborne noise harassment; therefore, the Corps uses the current NMFS acoustic exposure criteria to determine exposure to airborne and underwater noise sound pressure levels for Level B harassment (Table 7).
Underwater Sound Propagation Formula—Pile driving generates underwater noise that can potentially result in disturbance to marine mammals in the project area. Transmission loss (TL) is the decrease in acoustic intensity as an acoustic pressure wave propagates out from a source. TL parameters vary with frequency, temperature, sea conditions, current, source and receiver depth, water depth, water chemistry, and bottom composition and topography. The general formula for underwater TL is:
This formula neglects loss due to scattering and absorption, which is assumed to be zero here. The degree to which underwater sound propagates away from a sound source is dependent on a variety of factors, most notably the water bathymetry and presence or absence of reflective or absorptive conditions including in-water structures and sediments. Spherical spreading occurs in a perfectly unobstructed (free-field) environment not limited by depth or water surface, resulting in a 6 dB reduction in sound level for each doubling of distance from the source (20*log[range]). Cylindrical spreading occurs in an environment in which sound propagation is bounded by the water surface and sea bottom, resulting in a reduction of 3 dB in sound level for each doubling of distance from the source (10*log(range)). A practical spreading value of 15 is often used under conditions where water increases with depth as the receiver moves away from the shoreline, resulting in an expected propagation environment that would lie between spherical and cylindrical spreading loss conditions. Practical spreading loss (15*log(range)) with a 4.5 dB reduction in sound level for each doubling of distance is assumed here.
The Corps does not have information or modeling results related to pile installation activities. However, some features of the action are similar to those recently carried out by the Navy, the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), and other entities which were issued IHA/LOAs. For these reasons, NMFS considered
NMFS considered representative results from underwater monitoring for steel and wood piles that were installed via both impact and vibratory hammers in water depths from 5 to 15 meters (Illingworth and Rodkin 2007; WSDOT 2011 cited in Naval Base Kitsap 2014; Navy 2014; and NMFS 2011b). Transmission loss and propagation estimates are affected by the size and depth of the piles, the type of hammer and installation method, frequency, temperature, sea conditions, currents, source and receiver depth, water depth, water chemistry, and bottom composition and topography. NMFS reviewed several documents that included relevant monitoring results for radial distances and proxy sound levels encompassed by underwater pile driving noise. These distances for vibratory driving for 24-in steel piles were summarized previously in Table 16 in the application.
Because no site-specific, in-water noise attenuation data is available, the practical spreading model described and used by NMFS was used to determine transmission loss and the distances at which impact and vibratory pile driving or removal source levels are expected to attenuate down to the pertinent acoustic thresholds. The underwater practical spreading model is provided below:
NMFS used representative sound levels from different studies to determine appropriate proxy sound levels and to model estimated distances until pertinent thresholds (R
Results of the practical spreading model provided the distance of the radii that were used to establish a ZOI or area affected by the noise criteria. At the MCR, the channel is about 3 miles across between the South and North Jetty. These jetties, as well as Jetty A, could attenuate noise, but the flanking sides on two of the jetties are open ocean, and Jetty A is slightly further interior in the estuary. Clatsop Spit, Cape Disappointment, Hammond Point, and the Sand Islands are also land features that would attenuate noise. Therefore, as a conservative estimate, NMFS is using (and showing on ZOI maps) the maximum distance and area (See Figures 1, 2, 3, and 4 in the November 2016 Addendum to the application). The actual area ensonified by pile driving activities is significantly constrained by local topography relative to the total threshold radius. The ensonified area was determined using a straight line-of-sight projection from the anticipated pile driving locations. Note that figures are provided for the ZOIs for both the South Jetty and the South Jetty Clatsop Spit. Only one of those two offloading facilities will be constructed, resulting in a total of three offloading facilities for the entire project.
NMFS selected proxy values for impact installation methods and calculated distances to acoustic thresholds for comparison and contextual purposes. NMFS ultimately relied most heavily on the proxy values developed by the Navy (2014).
For vibratory pile driving source level installation, NMFS used a figure of 163 dB re 1 µPa rms at 10 m. The proxy value of 163 dB re 1 µPa rms at 10 m is greater than the 24-in pipe pile proxy and equal to the sheet pile values proposed by Navy (2014) at 161 dB re 1 µPa rms and 163 dB re 1 µPa rms, respectively, and is also higher than the Friday Harbor Ferry sample (162 dB re 1 µPa rms) (Navy 2014 and Laughlin 2010a cited in Washington State Ferries 2013, respectively). NMFS also used 163 dB re 1 µPa rms to represent sheet pile installation, which registered higher than the pipe pile levels in the proxy study. Given the comparative differences between the substrate and context used in the Navy study relative to the MCR, 163 dB re 1 µPa rms is a very conservative evaluation level.
Airborne construction sound may also cause behavioral responses. Again, the Corps does not have specific, in-situ data and has used monitoring results from similar actions to obtain representative proxy SPLs. This also included the Navy (2014) proxy study for acoustic values from both vibratory and impact installation methods.
During the Navy study (2014), a maximum level of 110 re 20 µPa at 15 m was measured for a single 24-inch pile installed via impact hammer and was selected as the most representative value for modeling analysis under the Navy proxy study. The site was located in the Puget Sound. A single 30-second measurement was made for 24-inch piles during the Test Pile Program at NBK, Bangor via vibratory installation, and because these data fit the overall trend of smaller and larger pile sizes, the limited data set for 24-inch steel pipe supported the Navy (2014) representative proxy value of 92 dB re 20 µPa at 15 m (Navy 2014) for vibratory installation. The rms L
The method used for calculating potential exposures to vibratory pile driving noise for each threshold was estimated using local marine mammal data sets, the Biological Opinion and data from LOA/IHA estimates on similar projects with similar actions. All estimates are conservative and include the following assumptions:
• During construction, each species could be present in the project area each day. The potential for a take is based on a 24-hour period. The model assumes that there can be one potential take (Level B harassment exposure) per individual per 24-hours;
• All pilings installed at each site would have an underwater noise disturbance equal to the piling that causes the greatest noise disturbance (
• Exposures were based on estimated work days. Construction and maintenance at the three jetties will result in 49 days of pile driving activity as shown in Table 1. Additionally, six days of pedestrian surveys are planned to occur on South Jetty which may result in pinniped disturbance at haulout sites; and
• In absence of site specific underwater acoustic propagation modeling, the practical spreading loss model was used to determine the ZOI.
Note that pinnipeds that occur near the project sites could be exposed to airborne sounds associated with pile driving that have the potential to cause behavioral harassment, depending on their distance from pile driving activities. Cetaceans are not expected to be exposed to airborne sounds that would result in harassment as defined under the MMPA. Airborne noise will primarily be an issue for pinnipeds that are swimming or hauled out near the project site within the range of noise levels elevated above the airborne acoustic criteria. NMFS recognizes that pinnipeds in the water could be exposed to airborne sound that may result in behavioral harassment when looking with heads above water. However, these animals would previously have been taken by exposure to underwater sound above the behavioral harassment thresholds, which are in all cases larger than those associated with airborne sound. Thus, the behavioral harassment of these animals is already accounted for in these estimates of potential take. Multiple incidents of exposure to sound above NMFS' thresholds for behavioral harassment are not believed to result in increased behavioral disturbance, in either nature or intensity of disturbance reaction. Therefore, we do not believe that authorization of incidental take resulting from airborne sound for pinnipeds is warranted, and airborne sound is not discussed further here.
Level B Take ZOI calculations are based on revised PTS isopleths and subsequent revised shutdown zones as well as the revised location of North Jetty barge offloading facility (moved 3,000 ft to the east). The ZOI is calculated by taking the area within the vibratory driving disturbance area established at the 120 dB level (7,356 m radius) and subtracting the shutdown zone radii, land mass and land mass shadow. Revised ZOI are provided in Table 8 below.
To determine the total number of days required to calculate take, it is assumed that pile driving installation will take longer than extraction. Therefore, the number of pile driving days for installation is assumed to be 10 while extraction will take up to 7 days, for a total of 41 days [17 + 17 + 7] of vibratory activity. Furthermore, the South Jetty pile installation is anticipated to require maintenance after the installation due to harsher wave conditions during offloading activities that may loosen the 24 inch pile dolphins at that location. As such, we are assuming eight (8) additional days, four days per season, for maintenance activities most likely to occur in the May-June timeframe. Therefore, the total number of days is 41 + 8 = 49 days as is shown in Table 1.
In general, the following equation is used to calculate exposure estimate Level B Take for cetaceans:
However, because densities vary depending on season, a more expanded equation is necessary to more accurately reflect potential exposure for some species based on the activities expected and described above. Calculations are shown in Table 9.
Southern Resident killer whales have been observed offshore near the study area and ZOI. While killer whales do occur in the Columbia River plume, where fresh water from the river intermixes with salt water from the ocean, they are rarely seen in the interior of the Columbia River Jetty system. Because Southern Residents have been known to feed in the area offshore, the Corps has limited its pile installation window in order to avoid peak salmon runs and any overlap with the presence of Southern Residents. To ensure no Level B acoustical harassment of endangered Southern Resident killer whales occurs, the Corps will prohibit pile installation from October 1 until April 30 of each season. The Corps will use vessels to survey and to implement a shut-down procedure if killer whales occur in the ZOI during pile installation/removal/repair activities from May 1 to July 1 to avoid take. After July 1, any animals taken are assumed to be transient killer whales rather than Southern Residents. As such NMFS is not anticipating any acoustic exposure to Southern Residents. Therefore, NMFS has determined that authorization of take for Southern Residents is not warranted.
Western transient killer whales may be traversing offshore over a greater duration of time than the feeding Southern Resident killer whales. While the calculated exposure is 11 (11.08) whales using Navy data (Hanser
Humpback whales have been observed on both the ocean side of the Jetty System as well as in the Columbia River. Based on the Hanser
Anecdotal evidence indicates gray whales occur near the MCR but are not a common visitor, as they mostly remain in the vicinity of the further offshore shelf-break (Griffith 2015). According to NOAA's Cetacean Mapping classification the waters in the vicinity of the MCR are classified as a Biologically Important Area (BIA) for gray whales. These whales use the area as a migration corridor (Calambokidis
Based on the Navy data (Hanser
Harbor porpoises are known to occupy shallow, coastal waters and, therefore, are likely to be found in the vicinity of the MCR. They have also been documented within the project area (Griffith 2015). The Navy data (Hanser
There are haulout sites on the South Jetty used by pinnipeds, especially Steller sea lions. It is likely that pinnipeds that use the haulout area would be exposed to 120 dB threshold acoustic threshold if they enter the water during pile driving activities. The number of exposures would vary based on weather conditions, season, and daily fluctuations in abundance. Based on a survey by the WDFW (2014), the number of affected Steller sea lions could range from 209 to 824 animals per day depending on the particular month. California sea lion numbers could range from 1 to 249 per day and the number of harbor seals could be as low as 1 to as high as 57 per day. Exposure and take estimates, below, are based on past pinniped data from Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW) (2000-2014 data), which had a more robust monthly sampling frequency relative to Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) (2014) counts. The exception to this was for harbor seal counts, for which ODFW (also 2000-2014 data) had more sampling data in certain months. Therefore, ODFW harbor seal data was used for the month of May, which indicated zero harbor seal sightings in May. NMFS will conservatively assume that all pinnipeds both hauled out and in-water would enter the water at some point during a single day of driving and transit into one of the three ensonified zones associated with each offloading facility. Therefore, they would be exposed to noise at or above the Level B thresholds.
To calculate take for pinnipeds the average daily count of each pinniped from the months of May through September was multiplied by 49 pile installation/removal/maintenance days. As was stated previously, the total vibration pile driving days is 49 which includes 17 days each for both North and South Jetties for install and extraction, 7 days for Jetty A extraction and 8 days for South Jetty maintenance. This figure was added to 1 percent of the highest average daily count for months May-August multiplied by six days. Calculations are shown in Table 10.
Based on the above equation, NMFS authorizes the Level B take of 23,471 Steller sea lions, 6,774 California sea lions, and 836 harbor seals over the 5-year authorization period.
Negligible impact is “an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival” (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (
To avoid repetition, the discussion of our analyses applies to all the species listed in Table 2, with the exception of Southern Resident killer whales and gray whales, given that the anticipated effects of this pile driving project on marine mammals are expected to be relatively similar in nature. There is no information about the size, status, or structure of any species or stock that would lead to a different analysis for this activity. Thus species-specific factors cannot be identified and analyzed.
Pile driving activities associated with the rehabilitation of the Jetty system at the MCR, as outlined previously, have the potential to disturb or displace marine mammals. Specifically, the planned activities may result in take, in the form of Level B harassment (behavioral disturbance) only, from underwater sounds generated from pile driving. Potential takes could occur if individuals of these species are present in the ensonified zone when pile driving is happening. No injury, serious injury, or mortality is anticipated given the nature of the activity and measures designed to minimize the possibility of injury to marine mammals. The potential for these outcomes is minimized through the construction method and the implementation of the planned mitigation measures. Specifically, vibratory hammers will be the only method of installation utilized. No impact driving is planned. Vibratory driving does not have significant potential to cause injury to marine mammals due to the relatively low source levels produced and the lack of potentially injurious source characteristics. The likelihood of marine mammal detection ability by both land-based and vessel-based observers is high under the environmental conditions described for the rehabilitation of the Jetty System. MMO's ability to readily implement shutdowns as necessary during Jetty System construction activities will result in avoidance of injury, serious injury, or mortality.
The Corps' pile driving activities are localized and of short duration. The entire project area is limited to three jetty offloading facilities and their immediate surroundings. Pile driving activities covered under these regulations would take approximately 5 hours per day for 49 days over a 5-year period. Six days of pedestrian surveys at a single jetty across the five-year period are also planned. The piles would be a maximum diameter of 24 inches and would only be installed by vibratory driving method. The possibility exists that smaller diameter piles may be used, but for this analysis it is conservatively assumed that 24-inch piles will be driven.
These localized and short-term noise exposures may cause brief startle reactions or short-term behavioral modification by the animals. These reactions and behavioral changes are expected to subside quickly when the exposures cease. Moreover, the mitigation and monitoring measures are expected to reduce potential exposures and behavioral modifications even further. Additionally, no important feeding and/or reproductive areas for marine mammals are known to be near the action areas.
The project also is not expected to have significant adverse effects on affected marine mammals' habitat, as analyzed in detail in the
Effects on individuals that are taken by Level B harassment, on the basis of reports in the literature as well as monitoring from other similar activities, will likely be limited to reactions such as increased swimming speeds, increased surfacing time, or decreased foraging (if such activity were occurring) (
While NMFS is not aware of comparable construction projects near the MCR Jetty system, the pile driving activities analyzed here are similar to other in-water construction activities that have received incidental harassment authorizations previously, including a Unisea dock construction project in neighboring Iliuliuk Harbor, and at Naval Base Kitsap Bangor in Hood Canal, Washington, and at the Port of Friday Harbor in the San Juan Islands. These projects were completed with no reported injuries or mortalities to marine mammals, and no known long-term adverse consequences to marine mammals from behavioral harassment.
Note that NMFS has not authorized take for the endangered Southern Resident killer whales. Take has not been authorized because the Corps will prohibit pile driving from October 1 through April 30, which is considered the primary feeding season for Southern Residents and when their presence in the project areas is likely to be greatest. Additionally, the Corps will shut down all pile driving activities between May 1 and July 1 if any killer whale is observed approaching the ZOI. While unlikely, Southern Residents may occur near the project areas during this time. Because it may be difficult to differentiate between Southern Resident and transient populations, this conservative measure will ensure that no Southern Residents are taken. After July1 it would be highly unlikely for Southern Residents to occur in the project area. Therefore, shut down for Southern Residents will not be necessary, and any killer whales observed in the ZOI during this time are assumed to be transient killer whales.
The area offshore of MCR has been identified as a BIA for migrating gray whales (Calambokidis
In summary, this negligible impact analysis is founded on the following factors: (1) The possibility of injury, serious injury, or mortality may reasonably be considered discountable; (2) the anticipated incidents of Level B harassment consist of, at worst, temporary modifications in behavior; (3) the absence of any other known areas or features of special significance for reproduction within the project area; and (4) the presumed efficacy of the mitigation measures in reducing the effects of the specified activity to the level of least practicable impact. In combination, we believe that these factors, as well as the available body of evidence from other similar activities, demonstrate that the potential effects of the specified activity will have only short-term effects on individuals. The specified activity is not expected to impact rates of recruitment or survival and will therefore not result in population-level impacts.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from the Corps' rehabilitation of the MCR Jetty System will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks.
Table 11 illustrates the number of animals that could be exposed to received noise levels that could cause Level B behavioral harassment for the work associated with the rehabilitation of the Jetty System at MCR. The total number of allowed takes was estimated and then divided equally over five years, which is the length of the LOA.
Note that the work at the three jetty offloading facilities will not be spread evenly over the five-year authorization period. Because the schedule for pile driving over the five-year period is uncertain and susceptible to change depending on future funding availability, it is not possible for NMFS to estimate exposure and subsequent take for specific years. As such, the actual take per species may be higher or lower than the annual average for a specific year. Because the take numbers generated by NMFS are annualized averages, NMFS will assume that in any one year the actual take will be up to two times greater than the projected average annual take. As such, the greatest percentage of a total stock taken annually is not likely to exceed 14.7 percent (9,388 Steller sea lions). Furthermore, the small numbers analyses of annual averages shown in Table 11 represents between <0.01 and 7.4 percent of the populations of these stocks that could be affected by Level B behavioral harassment. The numbers of animals authorized to be taken for all species would be considered small relative to the relevant stocks or populations even if each estimated taking occurred to a new individual—an extremely unlikely scenario. For pinnipeds occurring in the vicinity of the offloading facilities, especially those hauled out at South Jetty, there will almost certainly be overlap in individuals present day-to-day, and these takes are likely to occur only within some small portion of the overall regional stock.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the mitigation and monitoring measures, which are expected to reduce the number of marine mammals potentially affected by the action, NMFS finds that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the populations of the affected species or stocks.
There are no subsistence uses of marine mammals in the project area and, thus, no subsistence uses impacted by this action.
NMFS, Permits and Conservation Division (PR1), Office of Protected Resources sent a request for consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the ESA to the West Coast Region (WCR), Protected Resources Division 1 (PR1) on August 12, 2016, for the issuance of an LOA to the Corps. To meet the requirements under section 7(a)(2), the WCR sent a memo to PR1 on August 25, 2016, referencing an existing formal consultation that analyzed the same effects and take as the issuance of the LOA. The WCR previously consulted with the Corps on the major rehabilitation of MCR Jetty System and issued a biological opinion on March 18, 2011. NMFS analyzed the effects of the action and concluded in the biological opinion that the effects of pile driving and pile removal activities at the MCR jetties were likely to adversely affect, but not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of humpback whales.
Since the biological opinion was finalized, NMFS has published a final rule that identified 14 distinct population segments (DPSs) of humpback whales (81 FR 62259; September 8, 2016). Three DPSs could occur in the action area, the Hawaii DPS, the Mexico DPS and the Central America DPS. The Mexico DPS is listed as threatened while the Central America DPS is listed as endangered.
Subsequent to the completion of the 2011 biological opinion, the WCR prepared an Incidental Take Statement (ITS) to be appended to the biological opinion. The WCR compared the ITS, as well as the effects analysis and conclusions in the biological opinion, with the amount of and conditions of take listed in the LOA. The WCR determined that the effects of NMFS' issuing an LOA to the Corps for the taking of humpback whales incidental to construction activities are consistent with those described in the 2011 biological opinion. The extent of the takes analyzed in the biological opinion ranged from 0-19 whales per day, which is more than the 15 individual takes being authorized under the MMPA over the 5-year authorization period. In addition, the short-term potential displacement or deflection around the action area and the small number of takes would also not be expected to have population level impacts or jeopardize any of the DPSs that could occur in the action area. The 2011 biological opinion remains valid and the MMPA authorization provides no new information about the effects of the action, nor does it change the extent of effects of the action. Based on the conclusions in the biological opinion, the takes would not jeopardize the continued existence of the two humpback whale DPSs currently listed under the ESA, and no further consultation was needed.
The Corps issued the
The Office of Management and Budget has determined that this rule is not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. NMFS has considered all provisions of E.O. 12866 and analyzed this action's impact. Based on that review, this action is not expected to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or have an adverse effect in a material way on the economy. Furthermore, this action would not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; or materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or raise novel or policy issues.
Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration at the proposed rule stage that this rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA requires Federal agencies to prepare an analysis of a rule's impact on small entities whenever the agency is required to publish a notice of proposed
This rule does not contain a collection-of-information requirement subject to the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) because the applicant is a federal agency. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Exports, Fish, Imports, Indians, Labeling, Marine mammals, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seafood, Transportation.
For reasons set forth in the preamble, 50 CFR part 217 is amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1361
(a) Regulations in this subpart apply only to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and those persons it authorizes to conduct activities on its behalf for the taking of marine mammals that occurs in the area outlined in paragraph (b) of this section and that occurs incidental to the jetty rehabilitation program.
(b) The taking of marine mammals by the Corps may be authorized in a Letter of Authorization (LOA) only if it occurs within the nearshore marine environment at the Mouth of the Columbia River in Oregon and Washington.
Regulations in this subpart are effective May 1, 2017 through April 30, 2022.
Under LOAs issued pursuant to § 216.106 of this chapter and § 217.236, the Holder of the LOA (hereinafter “Corps”) may incidentally, but not intentionally, take marine mammals within the area described in § 217.230(b), provided the activity is in compliance with all terms, conditions, and requirements of the regulations in this subpart and the appropriate LOA.
(a) Notwithstanding takings contemplated in § 217.230 and authorized by an LOA issued under § 216.106 of this chapter and § 217.236, no person in connection with the activities described in § 217.230 may:
(1) Take any marine mammal not specified in § 217.236;
(2) Take any marine mammal specified in § 217.236(a) other than by incidental Level B harassment;
(3) Take a marine mammal specified in § 217.236 if the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) determines such taking results in more than a negligible impact on the species or stocks of such marine mammal;
(4) Take a marine mammal specified in § 217.236 if NMFS determines such taking results in an unmitigable adverse impact on the species or stock of such marine mammal for taking for subsistence uses; or
(5) Violate, or fail to comply with, the terms, conditions, and requirements of this subpart or an LOA issued under § 216.106 of this chapter and § 217.236.
(b) [Reserved]
(a) When conducting the activities identified in § 217.130(a), the mitigation measures contained in any LOA issued under § 216.106 of this chapter and § 217.236 must be implemented. These mitigation measures include, but are not limited to:
(1) General conditions:
(i) The Corps shall conduct briefings as necessary between vessel crews, the marine mammal monitoring team, and other relevant personnel prior to the start of all pile driving and removal activity, and when new personnel join the work, in order to explain responsibilities, communication procedures, marine mammal monitoring protocol, and operational procedures;
(ii) Each Marine Mammal Observer (MMO) will maintain a copy of the LOA at their respective monitoring location, as well as a copy in the main construction office;
(iii) Pile activities are limited to the use of a vibratory hammer. Impact hammers are prohibited;
(iv) Pile installation/maintenance/removal activities are limited to the time frame starting May 1 and ending September 30 each season; and
(v) The Corps must notify NMFS' West Coast Regional Office (562-980-3232), at least 24-hours prior to start of activities impacting marine mammals.
(2) [Reserved]
(b) Establishment of Level B harassment zone:
(1) The Corps shall establish Level B behavioral harassment Zone of Influence (ZOI) where received underwater sound pressure levels (SPLs) are higher than 120 dB (rms) re 1 μPa for non-pulse sources (
(2) For vibratory driving, the level B harassment area is comprised of a radius
(c) Establishment of shutdown zone:
(1) Under LOAs issued pursuant to § 216.106 of this chapter and § 217.236, the Corps shall establish shutdown zones that are in compliance with all terms, conditions, and requirements of the regulations in this subpart and the appropriate LOA;
(2) For in-water heavy machinery work other than pile driving (using,
(3) If a marine mammal approaches or enters the shutdown zone during the course of vibratory pile driving operations, the activity will be halted and delayed until the animal has voluntarily left and been visually confirmed beyond the shutdown zone or 15 minutes have passed with the animal being resighted;
(4) If a marine mammal is seen above water within or approaching a shutdown zone then dives below, the contractor would wait 15 minutes. If no marine mammals are seen by the observer in that time it will be assumed that the animal has moved beyond the exclusion zone;
(5) If the shutdown zone is obscured by fog or poor lighting conditions, pile driving shall not be initiated until the entire shutdown zone is visible;
(6) Disturbance zones shall be established as described in paragraph (b) of this section, and shall encompass the Level B harassment zones established by LOAs issued pursuant to § 216.106 of this chapter and § 217.236 provided the activity is in compliance with all terms, conditions, and requirements of the regulations in this subpart and the appropriate LOA. These zones shall be monitored to maximum line-of-sight distance from established vessel- and shore-based monitoring locations. If marine mammals other than those listed in § 216.106 and § 217.236 are observed within the disturbance zone, the observation shall be recorded and communicated as necessary to other MMOs responsible for implementing shutdown/power down requirements and any behaviors documented;
(7) Between May 1 and July 1, the observation of any killer whales within the ZOI shall result in immediate shut-down all of pile installation, removal, or maintenance activities. Pile driving shall not resume until all killer whales have moved outside of the ZOI; and
(8) After July 1, no shutdown is required for Level B killer whale take, but animals must be recorded as Level B take in the monitoring forms described below.
(d) If the allowable number of takes for any marine mammal species in § 216.106 of this chapter and § 217.236 is exceeded, or if any marine mammal species not listed in § 216.236 is exposed to SPLs greater than or equal to 120 dB re 1 µPa (rms), the Corps shall immediately shutdown activities involving the use of active sound sources (
(a)
(2) All MMOs must be approved by NMFS;
(3) A qualified MMO is a third-party trained biologist with the following minimum qualifications:
(i) Visual acuity in both eyes (correction is permissible) sufficient to discern moving targets at the water's surface with ability to estimate target size and distance. Use of binoculars or spotting scope may be necessary to correctly identify the target;
(ii) Advanced education in biological science, wildlife management, mammalogy or related fields (Bachelor's degree or higher is preferred);
(iii) Experience and ability to conduct field observations and collect data according to assigned protocols (this may include academic experience);
(iv) Experience or training in the field identification of marine mammals (cetaceans and pinnipeds);
(v) Sufficient training, orientation or experience with vessel operation and pile driving operations to provide for personal safety during observations;
(vi) Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of observations; and
(vii) Ability to communicate orally, by radio, or in-person with project personnel to provide real time information on marine mammals observed in the area, as needed.
(4) MMOs must be equipped with the following:
(i) Binoculars (10x42 or similar), laser rangefinder, GPS, big eye binoculars and/or spotting scope 20-60 zoom or equivalent; and
(ii) Camera and video capable of recording any necessary take information, including data required in the event of an unauthorized take; and
(5) MMOs shall conduct monitoring as follows;
(i) During all pile driving and removal activities;
(ii) Only during daylight hours from sunrise to sunset when it is possible to visually monitor mammals;
(iii) Scan the waters for 30 minutes before and during all pile driving. If any species for which take is not authorized are observed within the area of potential sound effects during or 30 minutes before pile driving, the MMO(s) will immediately notify the on-site supervisor or inspector, and require that pile driving either not initiate or temporarily cease until the animals have moved outside of the area of potential sound effects;
(iv) If weather or sea conditions restrict the observer's ability to observe, or become unsafe for the monitoring vessel(s) to operate, pile installation shall not begin or shall cease until conditions allow for monitoring to resume;
(v) Trained land-based observers will be placed at the best vantage points practicable. The observers' position(s) will either be from the top of jetty or adjacent barge at the location of the pile activities and from Cape Disappointment Visitors Center during work at North and South Jetty, and Clatsop Spit for work at Jetty A;
(vi) Vessel-based monitoring for marine mammals must be conducted for all pile-driving activities at the North Jetty and two South Jetty offloading facilities. Two vessels may be utilized as necessary to adequately monitor the offshore ensonified zone;
(vii) Any marine mammals listed in § 217.236 entering into the Level B harassment zone will be recorded as take by the MMO and listed on the appropriate monitoring forms described below;
(viii) During pedestrian surveys, personnel will avoid as much as possible direct approach towards pinnipeds that are hauled out. If it is absolutely necessary to make movements towards pinnipeds, personnel will approach in a slow and steady manner to reduce the behavioral harassment to the animals as much as possible; and
(ix) Hydroacoustic monitoring shall be performed using methodology described in the November 2016 Addendum containing the Hydroacoustic Monitoring Plan.
(b)
(i) Date and time that pile removal and/or installation begins and ends;
(ii) Construction activities occurring during each observation period;
(iii) Weather parameters (
(iv) Water conditions [
(v) Species, numbers, and, if possible, sex and age class of marine mammals;
(vi) Marine mammal behavior patterns observed, including bearing and direction of travel, and, if possible, the correlation to SPLs;
(vii) Distance from pile removal and/or installation activities to marine mammals and distance from the marine mammal to the observation point;
(viii) Locations of all marine mammal observations; and
(ix) Other human activity in the area.
(2) [Reserved]
(c)
(2) The Corps shall submit a final annual report to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, within 30 days after receiving comments from NMFS on the draft report.
(d)
(i) The report must include the following information:
(A) Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
(B) Description of the incident;
(C) Environmental conditions (
(D) Description of marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
(E) Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
(F) Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
(G) Fate of the animal(s); and
(H) Photographs or video footage of the animal(s). Activities shall not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS shall work with the Corps to determine what measures are necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. The Corps may not resume their activities until notified by NMFS.
(ii) In the event that the Corps discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead MMO determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (
(iii) In the event that the Corps discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead MMO determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the activities authorized in the LOA (
(a) To incidentally take marine mammals pursuant to these regulations, the Corps must apply for and obtain an LOA.
(b) An LOA, unless suspended or revoked, may be effective for a period of time not to exceed the expiration date of these regulations.
(c) If an LOA expires prior to the expiration date of these regulations, the Corps may apply for and obtain a renewal of the Letter of Authorization.
(d) In the event of projected changes to the activity or to mitigation and monitoring measures required by an LOA, the Corps must apply for and obtain a modification of the Letter of Authorization as described in § 217.237.
(e) The LOA shall set forth:
(1) Permissible methods of incidental taking;
(2) Means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact (
(3) Requirements for monitoring and reporting.
(f) Issuance of the LOA shall be based on a determination that the level of taking will be consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under these regulations.
(g) Notice of issuance or denial of an LOA shall be published in the
(a) An LOA issued under § 216.106 of this chapter and § 217.236 for the activity identified in § 217.230(a) shall be renewed or modified upon request by the applicant, provided that:
(1) The specified activity and mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures, as well as the anticipated impacts, are the same as those described and analyzed for these regulations (excluding changes made pursuant to the adaptive management provision in paragraph (c)(1) of this section); and
(2) NMFS determines that the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures required by the previous LOA under these regulations were implemented.
(b) For LOA modification or renewal requests by the applicant that include changes to the activity or the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting (excluding changes made pursuant to the adaptive management provision in § 217.247(c)(1)) that do not change the findings made for the regulations or result in no more than a minor change in the total estimated number of takes (or distribution by species or years), NMFS may publish a notice of LOA in the
(c) An LOA issued under § 216.106 of this chapter and § 217.236 for the activity identified in § 217.230(a) may be modified by NMFS under the following circumstances:
(1)
(i) Possible sources of data that could contribute to the decision to modify the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures in an LOA:
(A) Results from the Corps' monitoring from the previous year(s);
(B) Results from other marine mammal and/or sound research or studies; and
(C) Any information that reveals marine mammals may have been taken in a manner, extent or number not authorized by these regulations or subsequent LOAs; and
(ii) If, through adaptive management, the modifications to the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures are substantial, NMFS will publish a notice of LOA in the
(2)
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
NMFS issues regulations to implement management measures described in a framework action to the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP), as prepared by the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) Fishery Management Council (Gulf Council). This final rule revises the yellowtail snapper commercial and recreational fishing year and removes the requirement to use circle hooks for the commercial harvest of yellowtail snapper in the Gulf exclusive economic zone (EEZ) south of Cape Sable, Florida. The purpose of this final rule is to increase the operational efficiency of the yellowtail snapper component of the commercial sector of the Gulf reef fish fishery, achieve optimum yield, and decrease the regulatory burden of compliance with differing regulations established by separate regulatory agencies across the adjacent Gulf and South Atlantic jurisdictions.
This final rule is effective March 13, 2017.
Electronic copies of the framework action, which includes an environmental assessment, Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) analysis, and a regulatory impact review, may be obtained from
Cynthia Meyer, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, email:
The Gulf reef fish fishery includes yellowtail snapper and is managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the Gulf Council and is implemented by NMFS through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
On October 17, 2016, NMFS published a proposed rule for the framework action and requested public comment (FR 81 71471). The proposed rule and the framework action outline the rationale for the actions contained in this final rule. A summary of the management measures described in the framework action and implemented by this final rule is provided below.
In the southeastern United States, yellowtail snapper are harvested by both commercial and recreational fishers, with landings coming almost exclusively from waters adjacent to Florida. Yellowtail snapper are managed separately in the Gulf and South Atlantic but are a single genetic stock. The 2012 Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR 27) combined the two areas for stock assessment purposes and indicated that yellowtail snapper in the Gulf and South Atlantic were not overfished and not experiencing overfishing.
This final rule revises the fishing year for Gulf yellowtail snapper and the fishing gear requirements for the Gulf yellowtail snapper commercial sector.
Previously, the fishing year for both the commercial and recreational sectors for yellowtail snapper in the Gulf and the South Atlantic was January 1 through December 31. The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council changed the yellowtail snapper fishing year in the South Atlantic to begin on August 1, and end on July 31, for both the commercial and recreational sectors (81 FR 45245, July 13, 2016). This final rule similarly revises the fishing year for Gulf yellowtail snapper for both the commercial and recreational sectors to be August 1 through July 31, each year. Although the harvest of yellowtail snapper in the Gulf has not exceeded the stock ACL since ACLs were implemented in 2011 (76 FR 82044, December 29, 2011), this fishing year revision may more closely align any required ACL closure in the Gulf, if one were to occur, with any ACL closure in the South Atlantic. In addition, having the same fishing year for both the Gulf and South Atlantic would benefit those commercial fishers that harvest yellowtail snapper in both regions by decreasing the compliance burden of different regulations for the same species in adjacent management areas.
In the Gulf, a person harvesting reef fish, including yellowtail snapper, is required to use non-stainless steel circle hooks when fishing with natural bait (50 CFR 622.30(a)). This measure was put in place to reduce the post-release mortality of Gulf reef fish. This final rule revises this requirement to also allow the use of other non-stainless steel hook types, such as J-hooks, when commercial fishing with natural bait for yellowtail snapper in the area south of a line extending due west from 25°09′ N. lat. off the west coast of Monroe County, Florida, to the Gulf and South Atlantic Councils' shared boundary. The northern boundary of the area for this fishing gear exemption coincides with a state of Florida species management boundary already put in place by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.
The Gulf Council determined that allowing other hook types for the commercial harvest of yellowtail snapper in Federal waters off south
NMFS received a total of seven comments on the proposed rule. One comment supportive of the proposed rule and one comment outside the scope of the proposed rule are not addressed in this final rule. Specific comments related to the framework action and the proposed rule, and NMFS' responses, have been grouped together by topic and are summarized below.
Additionally, establishing identical fishing seasons for the Gulf and South Atlantic is unlikely to affect the opportunity to fish for yellowtail snapper because the Gulf stock ACL has not been exceeded since ACLs were implemented in 2011. However, aligning the fishing years may improve regulatory compliance and reduce the enforcement burden. It can be challenging for fishers to abide by different regulations in the areas where the Gulf and South Atlantic Councils' jurisdictions are adjacent, because a single fishing trip may involve fishing in multiple jurisdictions. The change to the fishing year was also widely supported in comments provided to the Gulf Council during the development of the framework action.
Commercial yellowtail snapper fishers use chum bags on the surface to attract yellowtail snapper to the stern of the fishing vessel, and then use natural bait on small hooks to catch and land the fish. Circle hooks are designed to be swallowed by the fish, come back up the fish's esophagus as the fish swims away, and finally hook the fish in the mouth. This practice requires fishers to allow the fish to swim off with the bait and then become hooked. Directed commercial yellowtail snapper fishing practices do not accommodate allowing a fish to swim off with the bait, which prevents the use of circle hooks as they are designed. Commercial yellowtail snapper fishers also use a fishing method that allows them to release yellowtail snapper which have been caught with J-hooks more easily than those caught with circle hooks, resulting in decreased handling times for fish which are to be discarded. Decreased handling times of yellowtail snapper by fishers may help reduce discard mortality rates. In addition, fishers can proactively prevent other fish species from taking bait at the surface, largely due to the close proximity of the fisher to the bait, which facilitates a direct view of feeding activity and identification of the fish.
The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS has determined that this final rule is consistent with the framework amendment, the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for this rule. No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified. In addition, no new reporting, record-keeping, or other compliance requirements are introduced by this final rule.
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 final rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this determination was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. No significant issues were received regarding the certification from public comments on the proposed
Fisheries, Fishing, Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, Yellowtail snapper, Gear, Bycatch.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(g)
(a)
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Proposed rule; extension of comment period.
We are extending the comment period for a proposed rule to allow the importation of Hass avocados from Colombia into the continental United States. This action will allow interested persons additional time to prepare and submit comments.
The comment period for the proposed rule published on October 27, 2016 (81 FR 74722) is extended. We will consider all comments that we receive on or before March 20, 2017.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
Mr. David B. Lamb, Senior Regulatory Policy Specialist, USDA/APHIS/PPQ, 4700 River Road, Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 851-2103;
On October 27, 2016, we published in the
Comments on the proposed rule were required to be received on or before December 27, 2016. On January 17, 2017, we published in the
We are extending the comment period on Docket No. APHIS-2016-0022 for an additional 30 days. This action will allow interested persons additional time to prepare and submit comments.
7 U.S.C. 450, 7701-7772, and 7781-7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Proposed rule; extension of comment period.
We are extending the comment period for our proposed rule that would revise our regulations regarding the importation, interstate movement, and environmental release of certain genetically engineered organisms in order to update the regulations in response to advances in genetic engineering and understanding of the plant pest and noxious weed risk posed by genetically engineered organisms, thereby reducing burden for regulated entities whose organisms pose no plant pest or noxious weed risks. This action will allow interested persons additional time to prepare and submit comments.
The comment period for the proposed rule published on January 19, 2017 (82 FR 7008) is extended. We will consider all comments that we receive on or before June 19, 2017.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
Dr. Sidney Abel, Assistant Deputy Administrator, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 147, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238; (301) 851-3896.
On January 19, 2017, we published in the
Comments on the proposed rule were required to be received on or before May 19, 2017. We are extending the comment period on Docket No. APHIS-2015-0057 for an additional 30 days. This action will allow interested persons additional time to prepare and submit comments.
7 U.S.C. 7701-7772 and 7781-7786; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), withdrawal.
A Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published in the
Effective 0901 UTC. As of February 10, 2017 the proposed rule published December 12, 2016, at 81 FR 89399, is withdrawn.
John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-6364.
On December 12, 2016, the FAA published in the
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the notice of proposed rulemaking, as published in the
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes the creation of several new anchorages and holding areas as well as a non-anchorage area, the expansion of one existing general anchorage, and the establishment of new and clarification of existing regulations governing such anchorages and areas in the Puget Sound area. This action is necessary to provide enhanced safety for maritime traffic in the Puget Sound area. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before May 11, 2017.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2016-0916 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Mr. Laird Hail, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Puget Sound; telephone 206-217-6051, email
Previous rulemakings defined a number of anchorages and one non-anchorage area throughout the greater Puget Sound area. Since those rulemakings, additional informal anchorages, holding areas, and a non-anchorage area have been utilized to accommodate the wide variety of vessels now calling on Puget Sound ports. Coast Guard Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) Puget Sound, working with shipping agents, pilots, and other stakeholders, identified and started using these anchorages and areas to improve the safety of maritime traffic. Because these anchorages and areas are not formally established, however, they are not included on nautical charts, referenced in the Coast Pilot, or subject to regulations. Accordingly, this proposed rule would formally designate these anchorages and areas. In addition, it would establish new and clarify existing regulations governing the use of all anchorages and areas in the Puget Sound area. The purpose of these actions is to improve the safety of all Puget Sound waterway users. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under the authority established in 33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236, 2071; 33 CFR 1.05-1; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
This rulemaking proposes the creation of several new anchorages, holding areas, and a non-anchorage area as well as the expansion of one existing general anchorage in the Puget Sound area, as detailed in the proposed regulatory text. Graphic depictions of the anchorages, holding areas, and non-anchorage area are included in the docket. In general, they are located in the vicinity of Port Townsend, Commencement Bay, Port Angeles, Vendovi Island, Quartermaster Harbor, and Budd Inlet. The proposed anchorages and areas have been used for many years informally, however, they
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.
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 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. 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.
This determination is based on the fact that the affected areas of the Puget Sound have been used historically as informal anchorages and areas in the manner proposed and the new and updated regulations will not impose significant limitations on the current use of the existing or new anchorages or areas.
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 of the maritime users intending to use the affected areas of the Puget Sound may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A. above this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on such entities.
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. Regardless, the Coast Guard consulted with the Indian Tribal Governments having an interest in the affected waters when considering this rule. Their primary concerns were related to potential restriction of access to Usual & Accustomed fishing grounds, and as such, the Coast Guard has included specific provisions in the anchorage regulations created by this rule to accommodate those concerns. 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 rulemaking 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 the establishment and changing the size of anchorage grounds. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(f) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist and Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under
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
Anchorage grounds.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 110 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236, 2071, 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(3) * * *
(iii)
(13)
(i)
(ii)
(14)
(i)
(A) No vessel may anchor in this non-anchorage area at any time.
(B) Dragging, seining, fishing, or other activities which may foul underwater installations within this non-anchorage area are prohibited.
(C) Vessels may transit this non-anchorage area, but must proceed by the most direct route and without unnecessary delay.
(D) The city of Port Angeles will mark this area with signs on the shoreline visible (during normal daylight) 1 mile to seaward reading, “Do not Anchor in This Area.”
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(15)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(16)
(17)
(i)
(ii)
(b)
(2) Any vessel not covered in paragraph (b)(1) of this section may anchor and/or operate in a designated anchorage described in paragraph (a) of this section at any time so long as such anchorage or operations do not interfere with the anchorage or operation of a vessel covered in paragraph (b)(1) of this section that is utilizing the designated anchorage.
(3) All vessels anchoring or operating in a designated anchorage described in paragraph (a) of this section must follow any lawful direction given to them by the COTP Puget Sound or VTS Puget Sound regarding the movement, operation, or anchorage of their vessel, to include any order to depart the designated anchorage.
(4) Any vessel in a condition such that it is likely to sink or otherwise become a menace or obstruction to the anchorage or operation of other vessels is prohibited from anchoring or operating in a designated anchorage described in paragraph (a) of this section except as may be necessary for safety or security reasons, unless otherwise authorized by the COTP Puget Sound.
(5) Any vessel greater than 1600 gross tons anchored in a designated anchorage described in paragraph (a) of this section must maintain the capability to get underway within 30 minutes, unless otherwise authorized by the COTP Puget Sound.
(6) No vessel may anchor in a “dead ship” status (propulsion or control unavailable for normal operations) in a designated anchorage described in paragraph (a) of this section, unless otherwise authorized by the COTP Puget Sound.
(7) Within the Anacortes Anchorages described in paragraph (a)(10) of this section, lightering operations must only be conducted in the Anacortes West and Anacortes Center anchorages, unless otherwise authorized by the COTP Puget Sound.
(8) Tug and barge holding areas are for the use of tug and barge combinations and fishing vessels less than 200 feet, for a period not to exceed 10 days. Other vessels may anchor or operate in such areas at any time so long as such anchorage or operations do not interfere with the anchorage or operation of a tug and barge combination or fishing vessel less than 200 feet utilizing the area.
(9) Within the Cap Sante and Hat Island Tug and Barge Anchorages, described in paragraphs (a)(11) and (12) of this section, tugs and barges are required to ensure their vessels and barges do not project beyond the holding area's boundaries, unless otherwise authorized by the COTP Puget Sound.
(10) Within any tug and barge holding area, a tug must be manned, remain in attendance with the barge, and maintain a communications guard with VTS on an appropriate VTS VHF working frequency as defined in 33 CFR 161.12(c) at all times.
(11) The COTP Puget Sound and VTS Puget Sound will, to the maximum extent possible, manage the use of the designated anchorages described in paragraph (a) of this section to avoid or minimize any impact of the use of such anchorages on Indian tribal fisheries. In so doing, the COTP and VTS Puget Sound will maintain close liaison with the Indian tribes that could be affected to ensure Coast Guard awareness of such fisheries.
(c)
(1) Explosives anchorages are reserved for vessels carrying explosives. Other vessels may anchor or operate in such anchorages only when no vessel anchored in the explosive anchorage is displaying by day a red flag at least 16 square feet in area at its mast head or at least 10 feet above the upper deck if the vessel has no mast, and by night a red light in the same position specified for the flag, unless otherwise authorized by the COTP.
(2) All vessels carrying explosives in the COTP Puget Sound Zone must be within an explosives anchorage when anchored, except as may be necessary for safety or security reasons or otherwise authorized by the COTP, and must at all time have a competent watchman on board the vessel or a tug in attendance.
(3) Whenever any vessel carrying explosives not fitted with mechanical power anchors is anchored in the COTP Puget Sound Zone, the COTP may require the attendance of a tug upon such vessel, when, in his or her judgment, such action is necessary.
(4) Any vessel carrying explosives at anchor in an explosives anchorage must display by day a red flag at least 16 square feet in area at its mast head or at least 10 feet above the upper deck if the vessel has no mast, and by night a red light in the same position specified for the flag. These signals shall be in addition to day signals and lights required to be shown by all vessels when at anchor.
(5) No explosives handling in any explosives anchorage will be undertaken by any vessel unless COTP personnel are on board to supervise the handling operations.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or we) is proposing migratory bird subsistence harvest regulations in Alaska for the 2017 season. These proposed regulations would allow for the continuation of customary and traditional subsistence uses of migratory birds in Alaska and prescribe regional information on when and where the harvesting of birds may occur. These proposed regulations were developed under a co-management process involving the Service, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and Alaska Native representatives. The rulemaking is necessary because the regulations governing the subsistence harvest of migratory birds in Alaska are subject to annual review. This rulemaking would establish region-specific regulations that would go into effect on April 2, 2017, and expire on August 31, 2017.
We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before March 13, 2017. We must receive requests for public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in
You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
•
•
We will not accept email or faxes. We will post all comments on
Donna Dewhurst, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 E. Tudor Road, Mail Stop 201, Anchorage, AK 99503; (907) 786-3499.
To ensure that any action resulting from this proposed rule will be as accurate and as effective as possible, we request that you send relevant information for our consideration. The comments that will be most useful and likely to influence our decisions are those that you support by quantitative information or studies and those that include citations to, and analyses of, the applicable laws and regulations. Please make your comments as specific as possible and explain the basis for them. In addition, please include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial data you include.
You must submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed rule by one of the methods listed above in
If you mail or hand-carry a hardcopy comment directly to us that includes personal 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. To ensure that the electronic docket for this rulemaking is complete and all comments we receive are publicly available, we will post all hardcopy comments on
In addition, comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation used in preparing this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection in two ways:
(1) You can view them on
(2) You can make an appointment, during normal business hours, to view the comments and materials in person at the Division of Migratory Bird Management, MS: MB, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803; (703) 358-1714.
As stated above in more detail, before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Implementation of the Service's 2013 supplemental environmental impact statement on the hunting of migratory birds has resulted in changes to the overall timing of the annual regulatory schedule for the establishment of migratory bird hunting regulations and the Alaska migratory bird subsistence-harvest regulations. That is, moving the annual Service Regulations Committee meeting from July to October has greatly shortened our period to publish the proposed regulations and solicit comments. We are further bounded by a subsistence-harvest start date of April 2, 2017, making a 60-day comment period problematic and increasing the risk of not having regulations established before the start of the subsistence season. Thus, we have established a 30-day comment period for this proposed rule (see
This rulemaking is necessary because, by law, the migratory bird harvest season is closed unless opened by the Secretary of the Interior, and the regulations governing subsistence harvest of migratory birds in Alaska are subject to public review and annual approval. This proposed rule would establish regulations for the taking of migratory birds for subsistence uses in Alaska during the spring and summer of 2017. This proposed rule also sets forth a list of migratory bird season openings and closures in Alaska by region.
Background information, including past events leading to this rulemaking, accomplishments since the Migratory Bird Treaties with Canada and Mexico were amended, and a history, were originally addressed in the
Recent
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing migratory bird subsistence-
The Alaska Migratory Bird Co-management Council (Co-management Council) held meetings on April 6-7, 2016, to develop recommendations for changes that would take effect during the 2017 harvest season. The Co-management Council also amended the consent agenda package of carry-over regulations to request a limited emperor goose harvest for 2017; these recommended changes were presented first to the Pacific Flyway Council and then to the Service Regulations Committee (SRC) for approval at the SRC meeting on July 31, 2015.
Eligibility to harvest under the regulations established in 2003 was limited to permanent residents, regardless of race, in villages located within the Alaska Peninsula, Kodiak Archipelago, the Aleutian Islands, and in areas north and west of the Alaska Range (50 CFR 92.5). These geographical restrictions opened the initial migratory bird subsistence harvest to about 13 percent of Alaska residents. High-populated, roaded areas such as Anchorage, the Matanuska-Susitna and Fairbanks North Star boroughs, the Kenai Peninsula roaded area, the Gulf of Alaska roaded area, and Southeast Alaska were excluded from eligible subsistence harvest areas.
In response to petitions requesting inclusion in the harvest in 2004, we added 13 additional communities consistent with the criteria set forth at 50 CFR 92.5(c). These communities were Gulkana, Gakona, Tazlina, Copper Center, Mentasta Lake, Chitina, Chistochina, Tatitlek, Chenega, Port Graham, Nanwalek, Tyonek, and Hoonah, with a combined population of 2,766. In 2005, we added three additional communities for glaucous-winged gull egg gathering only in response to petitions requesting inclusion. These southeastern communities were Craig, Hydaburg, and Yakutat, with a combined population of 2,459, according to the latest census information at that time.
In 2007, we enacted the Alaska Department of Fish and Game's request to expand the Fairbanks North Star Borough excluded area to include the Central Interior area. This action excluded the following communities from participation in this harvest: Big Delta/Fort Greely, Healy, McKinley Park/Village, and Ferry, with a combined population of 2,812.
In 2012, we received a request from the Native Village of Eyak to include Cordova, Alaska, for a limited season that would legalize the traditional gathering of gull eggs and the hunting of waterfowl during spring. This request resulted in a new, limited harvest of spring waterfowl and gull eggs starting in 2014.
Under subpart C, General Regulations Governing Subsistence Harvest, we are proposing to amend § 92.22, the list of birds open to subsistence harvest, by adding emperor goose (
The Co-management Council proposed a new emperor goose limited subsistence hunt for the 2016 season. Since 2012, the Co-management Council has received regulatory proposals from the Sun'aq Tribe of Kodiak, the Kodiak-Aleutians Subsistence Regional Advisory Council, the Yaquillrit Keutisti Council (Bristol Bay), and the Bering Strait/Norton Sound Migratory Bird Council (Kawerak) to open the harvest of emperor geese for the subsistence season. Since the hunting season has been closed since 1987 for emperor geese, the Co-management Council created a subcommittee to address these proposals. The emperor goose harvest was guided by the 2006 Pacific Flyway Management Plan and the 2005-2006 Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta Goose Management Plan. Between 80 and 90 percent of the emperor goose population breeds on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta of Alaska, and most emperor geese winter in remote western Alaska, with the remainder wintering in Russia.
Two studies were conducted concurrently by the Service and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. The first study provided a comprehensive evaluation of all available emperor goose survey data and assessed harvest potential of the population. The second study developed a Bayesian state space population model to improve estimates of population size by integrating current population assessment methods using all available data sets. The model provides a framework from which to make inferences about survival rates, age structure, and population size. The results of these studies will assist in amending the management plans.
The 2016 spring emperor goose survey was conducted April 21-24, 2016. The spring index was 79,348 birds, which represented a 19.2 percent decrease from the previous count in 2015. The current 3-year (2014-2016) average count of 85,795 is 4.8 percent above the previous 3-year (2012-2015 [no survey in 2013]) average of 81,875. Further, it is above the threshold for consideration of an open hunting season on emperor geese as specified in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta Goose Management Plan and the Pacific Flyway Council Management Plan for emperor geese.
As a result of this new information, the Co-management Council amended their motion of the consent agenda to add an allowance for a limited emperor goose harvest in 2016. The Pacific Flyway Council met in July 2015, and supported the Co-management Council's recommendation to work with the State of Alaska and the Service to develop harvest regulations and monitoring for a limited emperor goose harvest in 2016. On July 31, 2015, the SRC supported the Co-management Council's proposed limited harvest of emperor geese for the 2016 Alaska spring and summer subsistence season. However, the approval was provisional based upon the following:
(1) A limited harvest of 3,500 emperor geese to ensure that population growth continues toward the Flyway management plan objective;
(2) A harvest allocation (
(3) Agreement on a monitoring program to index abundance of the emperor goose population; and
(4) A revised Pacific Flyway Emperor Goose Management Plan, including harvest allocation among all parties (including spring/summer and fall/winter), population objective, population monitoring, and thresholds for season restriction or closure.
The harvest allocation design and harvest monitoring plan were to be completed by November 1, 2016. Additionally, there was an explicit statement that the limited, legalized harvest of 3,500 birds was not in addition to existing subsistence harvest (approximately 3,200 emperor geese). The 3,500-bird allowable harvest was to be allocated to subsistence users during
On August 13-14, and September 21, 2015, the Co-management Council Native Caucus met separately and with all partners to discuss options available to limit and monitor the harvest, as well as options to allocate the 3,500 birds across the six regions where emperor geese occur. Given the limited time provided to address the four conditions placed on this new harvest by the SRC, all partners agreed that the best course of action would be to spend additional time working together to develop a culturally sensitive framework tailored to each participating region that conserves the population and adequately addresses the data needs of all partners. In support of this recommendation, the Co-management Council took action to: Postpone an emperor goose harvest until 2017; work with all partners to develop the harvest framework; and work with their Emperor Goose Subcommittee and the Pacific Flyway Council on updating the Pacific Flyway Emperor Goose Management Plan.
In 2016, work continued on the Alaska Migratory Bird Co-management Council draft Management Plan for emperor geese. The Co-management Council's Management Plan was the first of its kind developed cooperatively for managing the emperor goose population of Alaska and was signed by the Co-management Council on September 1, 2016. Adoption of the Co-management Council's Emperor Goose Management Plan was contingent on the adoption of the Pacific Flyway Emperor Goose Management Plan by the Pacific Flyway Council. The Pacific Flyway Council adopted the 2016 Pacific Flyway Emperor Goose Management Plan on September 30, 2016. The Co-management Council's Management Plan specifies regulations for the spring/summer subsistence hunt period and will serve as a companion to the 2016 revision of the Pacific Flyway Management Plan for the Emperor Goose, which specifies regulations for the fall/winter harvest of emperor geese. The Co-management Council's Management Plan supersedes the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta Goose Management Plan for emperor goose management. In both management plans, the spring survey index was been replaced by a summer survey index of indicated total birds (total bird index) derived from aerial surveys of emperor goose abundance on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta (YKD Coastal Zone Survey). The total bird index is less biased and more precise than the spring survey index and is based on statistical sampling theory. The 2016 survey index was 34,109 (SE = 2,490) emperor geese, which equates to a total range-wide population of about 177,000 geese. The most recent three-year (2014-2016) average population index is 30,965 emperor geese; representing a total range-wide population of about 161,000 geese. The Co-management Council's Plan for the emperor goose establishes a population objective consistent with the abundance achieved in 2016 (
The total bird index and population objective are viewed as interim strategies that will be reevaluated after 3 years of the Co-management Council's Management Plan implementation, while other population-assessment models are further evaluated, refined and an agreement developed on the most appropriate short- and long-term survey protocols. The Co-management Council's Management Plan outlines an emperor goose harvest strategy based on using a total bird index from the YKD Coastal Zone Survey to assess population status relative to a regulatory harvest threshold. The total bird index is a relative measure of population size based on the number of geese detected from aerial surveys on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta during the early nesting period. The Co-management Council's Plan allows for an open subsistence harvest when the YKD Coastal Zone Survey index equals or exceeds 28,000 geese, which equates to a total range-wide population size of about 146,000 geese based on current model-based estimates. A more restrictive harvest quota will be considered if the population index declines below 28,000 geese to help reduce the probability for a subsequent closed season. The harvest season will be closed if the population index declines below 23,000 emperor geese, which equates to a total range-wide population size of about 120,000 geese. The decision to restrict the harvest quota when the population is between 23,000 and 28,000 geese depends on Co-management Council recommendations to the Service after review of current year population status relative to the objective, trends, and other information. The Service maintains authority to establish a more conservative quota for allowable take if determined appropriate.
The population thresholds for consideration of hunting season restrictions and closure represent about 80% and 70% of the population objective (
The term of this harvest strategy is 5 years. However, during the 3-year period (2017-2019) following implementation, the Subcommittee will annually review available data (
(1) The harvest strategy seeks to maintain a population of emperor geese above an index of 23,000 birds based on the total bird index from the most recent YKD Coastal Zone Survey;
(2) If the total bird index from the previous year is greater than 23,000 birds, then spring/summer subsistence harvest of emperor geese will be open to customary and traditional practices;
(3) If the total bird index from the previous year drops below 28,000 birds, the Co-management Council will consider implementing conservation measures that include: increased outreach and education programs, reduced season length (
(4) If the total bird index from the previous year is less than 23,000 birds, then emperor goose hunting will be closed.
The Service finds that this proposal will provide for the preservation and maintenance of emperor geese in Alaska. See 16 U.S.C. 712(1).
The Association of Village Council Presidents' Waterfowl Conservation Committee submitted a proposal to open egg gathering of the cackling goose subspecies of Canada goose (
The regulations we are proposing for subpart D, Annual Regulations Governing Subsistence Harvest, include changes from our 2016 regulations for the Prince William Sound East and Northwest Arctic regions as discussed below.
The Chugach Regional Resource Commission submitted a proposal to open the Cordova subsistence harvest, in the barriers islands of Prince William Sound, to include residents of Tatitlek and Chenega Bay. This would allow residents of these two small communities to also be able to take advantage of this limited harvest opportunity in their area. The number of participants from Cordova is much smaller than originally anticipated; thus, it is likely that added eligibility for these two small communities would not pose a significant increase in harvest. The Co-management Council supported this proposal with the provision that registration would be available in each community, and outreach on the regulations.
The Northwest Arctic Regional Council submitted a proposal to amend hunting season dates to reflect a trend for earlier spring migration and to be able to hunt molting geese that stage in their area. In subsequent meetings between the Service and the Regional Council, dates were adjusted and clarified to have waterfowl harvest, including hunting and egg gathering, from April 2 through June 14, which would resume July 16, after the required 30-day nesting closure. The harvest of nonbreeding, molting geese would run July 1 through July 15. The Co-management Council unanimously supported the amended dates at their Statewide meeting in April 2016.
We have monitored subsistence harvest for the past 25 years through the use of household surveys in the most heavily used subsistence harvest areas, such as the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta. In recent years, more intensive surveys combined with outreach efforts focused on species identification have been added to improve the accuracy of information gathered from regions still reporting some subsistence harvest of listed or candidate species.
Based on our monitoring of the migratory bird species and populations taken for subsistence, we find that this proposed regulation will provide for the preservation and maintenance of migratory bird stocks as required by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The Act's 16 U.S.C. 712(1) provision states that Service “is authorized to issue such regulations as may be necessary to assure that the taking of migratory birds and the collection of their eggs, by the indigenous inhabitants of the State of Alaska, shall be permitted for their own nutritional and other essential needs, as determined by the Secretary of the Interior, during seasons established so as to provide for the preservation and maintenance of stocks of migratory birds.” Communication and coordination between the Service, the Co-management Council, and the Pacific Flyway Council have allowed us to set harvest regulations to ensure the long-term viability of the migratory bird stocks. In addition, Alaska migratory bird subsistence harvest rates have continued to decline since the inception of the subsistence-harvest program, reducing concerns about the program's consistency with the preservation and maintenance of stocks of migratory birds.
As for the ensuring the conservation of Endangered Species Act-listed species, Spectacled eiders
The Service has dual objectives and responsibilities for authorizing a subsistence harvest while protecting migratory birds and threatened species. Although these objectives continue to be challenging, they are not irreconcilable, provided that (1) regulations continue to protect threatened species, (2) measures to address documented threats are implemented, and (3) the subsistence community and other conservation partners commit to working together. With these dual objectives in mind, the Service, working with North Slope partners, developed measures in 2009 to further reduce the potential for shooting mortality or injury of closed species. These conservation measures included: (1) Increased waterfowl hunter outreach and community awareness through partnering with the North Slope Migratory Bird Task Force; and (2) continued enforcement of the migratory bird regulations that are protective of listed eiders.
This proposed rule continues to focus on the North Slope from Barrow to Point Hope because Steller's eiders from the listed Alaska breeding population are known to breed and migrate there, and harvest survey data and direct observations indicate take during subsistence harvest has occurred there. These proposed regulations are designed to address several ongoing eider-management needs by clarifying for subsistence users that (1) Service law enforcement personnel have authority to verify species of birds possessed by hunters, and (2) it is illegal to possess any species of bird closed to harvest. This proposed rule also describes how the Service's existing authority of emergency closure would be implemented, if necessary, to protect Steller's eiders. We are always willing to discuss regulations with our partners on the North Slope to ensure protection of closed species while providing subsistence hunters an opportunity to maintain the culture and traditional migratory bird harvest of the community. The proposed regulations pertaining to bag checks and possession of illegal birds are deemed necessary to monitor take of closed eider species during the subsistence hunt.
In collaboration with North Slope partners, a number of conservation efforts have been implemented to raise awareness and educate hunters on
In-season harvest-monitoring information will be used to evaluate the efficacy of regulations, conservation measures, and outreach efforts. Conservation measures are being continued by the Service, with the amount of effort and emphasis being based on regulatory adherence.
The longstanding general emergency-closure provision at 50 CFR 92.21 specifies that the harvest may be closed or temporarily suspended upon finding that a continuation of the regulation allowing the harvest would pose an imminent threat to the conservation of any migratory bird population. With regard to Steller's eiders, the proposed regulations at 50 CFR 92.32, carried over from the past 6 years, clarify that we will take action under 50 CFR 92.21 as is necessary to prevent further take of Steller's eiders, and that action could include temporary or long-term closures of the harvest in all or a portion of the geographic area open to harvest. When and if mortality of threatened eiders is documented, we will evaluate each mortality event by criteria such as cause, quantity, sex, age, location, and date. We will consult with the Co-management Council when we are considering an emergency closure. If we determine that an emergency closure is necessary, we will design it to minimize its impact on the subsistence harvest.
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1536) requires the Secretary of the Interior to “review other programs administered by him (or her) and utilize such programs in furtherance of the purposes of the Act” and to “insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out * * * is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of [critical] habitat . . . .” Prior to issuance of annual spring and summer subsistence regulations, we would consult under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531
We derive our authority to issue these regulations from the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, at 16 U.S.C. 712(1), which authorizes the Secretary of the Interior, in accordance with the treaties with Canada, Mexico, Japan, and Russia, to “issue such regulations as may be necessary to assure that the taking of migratory birds and the collection of their eggs, by the indigenous inhabitants of the State of Alaska, shall be permitted for their own nutritional and other essential needs, as determined by the Secretary of the Interior, during seasons established so as to provide for the preservation and maintenance of stocks of migratory birds.”
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this proposed rule is not significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
The Department of the Interior certifies that, if adopted, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as defined under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:
(a) Would not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. It would legalize and regulate a traditional subsistence activity. It would not result in a substantial increase in subsistence harvest or a significant change in harvesting patterns. The commodities that would be regulated under this proposed rule are migratory birds. This rule deals with legalizing the subsistence harvest of migratory birds and, as such, does not involve commodities traded in the marketplace. A small economic benefit from this proposed rule would derive from the sale of equipment and ammunition to carry out subsistence hunting. Most, if not all, businesses that sell hunting equipment in rural Alaska qualify as small businesses. We have no reason to believe that this proposed rule would lead to a disproportionate distribution of benefits.
(b) Would not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers; individual industries; Federal, State, or local government agencies; or geographic regions. This proposed rule does not deal with traded commodities and, therefore, would not have an impact on prices for consumers.
(c) Would not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. This proposed rule deals with the harvesting of wildlife for personal consumption. It would not regulate the marketplace in any way to generate substantial effects on the economy or the ability of businesses to compete.
We have determined and certified under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
Under the criteria in Executive Order 12630, this proposed rule would not have significant takings implications. This proposed rule is not specific to particular land ownership, but applies to the harvesting of migratory bird resources throughout Alaska. A takings implication assessment is not required.
Under the criteria in Executive Order 13132, this proposed rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. We discuss effects of this proposed rule on the State of Alaska in the
The Department, in promulgating this proposed rule, has determined that it will not unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
Consistent with Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249; November 6, 2000), “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”, and Department of Interior policy on Consultation with Indian Tribes (December 1, 2011), we will send letters via electronic mail to all 229 Alaska Federally recognized Indian tribes. Consistent with Congressional direction (Pub. L. 108-199, div. H, Sec. 161, Jan. 23, 2004, 118 Stat. 452, as amended by Pub. L. 108-447, div. H, title V, Sec. 518, Dec. 8, 2004, 118 Stat. 3267), we also send letters to approximately 200 Alaska Native corporations and other tribal entities in Alaska soliciting their input as to whether or not they would like the Service to consult with them on the 2017 migratory bird subsistence-harvest regulations.
We implemented the amended treaty with Canada with a focus on local involvement. The treaty calls for the creation of management bodies to ensure an effective and meaningful role for Alaska's indigenous inhabitants in the conservation of migratory birds. According to the Letter of Submittal, management bodies are to include Alaska Native, Federal, and State of Alaska representatives as equals. They develop recommendations for, among other things: Seasons and bag limits, methods and means of take, law enforcement policies, population and harvest monitoring, education programs, research and use of traditional knowledge, and habitat protection. The management bodies involve village councils to the maximum extent possible in all aspects of management. To ensure maximum input at the village level, we required each of the 11 participating regions to create regional management bodies consisting of at least one representative from the participating villages. The regional management bodies meet twice annually to review and/or submit proposals to the Statewide body.
This proposed rule does not contain any new collections of information that require Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Voluntary annual household surveys that we use to determine levels of subsistence take (OMB Control Number 1018-0124, expires October 31, 2019).
• Permits associated with subsistence hunting (OMB Control Number 1018-0075, expires June 30, 2019).
The annual regulations and options are considered in a November 2016 environmental assessment, “Managing Migratory Bird Subsistence Hunting in Alaska: Hunting Regulations for the 2017 Spring/Summer Harvest.” Copies are available from the person listed under
Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This is not a significant regulatory action under this Executive Order; it would allow only for traditional subsistence harvest and improve conservation of migratory birds by allowing effective regulation of this harvest. Further, this proposed rule is not expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action under Executive Order 13211, and a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
Hunting, Treaties, Wildlife.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, we amend title 50, chapter I, subchapter G, of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
16 U.S.C. 703-712.
The addition and revision to read as follows:
(a)(3) Emperor goose (
(a)(6) Canada goose, subspecies cackling goose.
The 2017 season dates for the eligible subsistence-harvest areas are as follows:
(a)
(i) Season: April 2-June 30.
(ii) Closure: July 1-August 31.
(2) Central Unit (Aleutian Region's eastern boundary on the Alaska Peninsula westward to and including Unalaska Island):
(i) Season: April 2-June 15 and July 16-August 31.
(ii) Closure: June 16-July 15.
(iii) Special Black Brant Season Closure: August 16-August 31, only in Izembek and Moffet lagoons.
(iv) Special Tundra Swan Closure: All hunting and egg gathering closed in Game Management Units 9(D) and 10.
(3) Western Unit (Umnak Island west to and including Attu Island):
(i) Season: April 2-July 15 and August 16-August 31.
(ii) Closure: July 16-August 15.
(b)
(2) Closure: 30-day closure dates to be announced by the Service's Alaska Regional Director or his designee, after consultation with field biologists and the Association of Village Council President's Waterfowl Conservation Committee. This 30-day period will occur between June 1 and August 15 of each year. A press release announcing the actual closure dates will be forwarded to regional newspapers and radio and television stations.
(3) Special Black Brant and Cackling Canada Goose Season Hunting Closure: From the period when egg laying begins until young birds are fledged. Closure dates to be announced by the Service's Alaska Regional Director or his designee, after consultation with field biologists and the Association of Village Council President's Waterfowl Conservation Committee. A press release announcing the actual closure dates will be forwarded to regional newspapers and radio and television stations.
(c)
(2) Closure: June 15-July 15 (general season); July 16-August 31 (seabird egg gathering).
(d)
(i) Season: April 15-June 14 and July 16-August 31.
(ii) Closure: June 15-July 15.
(2) Remainder of the region:
(i) Season: April 2-June 14 and July 16-August 31 for waterfowl; April 2-July 19 and August 21-August 31 for all other birds.
(ii) Closure: June 15-July 15 for waterfowl; July 20-August 20 for all other birds.
(e)
(1) Season: April 2-June 30 and July 31-August 31 for seabirds; April 2-June 20 and July 22-August 31 for all other birds.
(2) Closure: July 1-July 30 for seabirds; June 21-July 21 for all other birds.
(f)
(2) Closure: June 15-July 15, except for the taking of seabird eggs and molting/non-nesting waterfowl as provided in paragraph (f)(1) of this section.
(g)
(i) Season: April 2-June 29 and July 30-August 31 for seabirds; April 2-June 19 and July 20-August 31 for all other birds.
(ii) Closure: June 30-July 29 for seabirds; June 20-July 19 for all other birds.
(iii) Special Black Brant Hunting Opening: From June 20-July 5. The open area consists of the coastline, from mean high water line outward to include open water, from Nokotlek Point east to longitude line 158°30′ W. This includes Peard Bay, Kugrua Bay, and Wainwright Inlet, but not the Kuk and Kugrua river drainages.
(2) Northern Unit (At Peard Bay, everything east of the longitude line 158°30′ W. and north of the latitude line 70°45′ N. to west bank of the Ikpikpuk River, and everything north of the latitude line 69°45′ N. between the west bank of the Ikpikpuk River to the east bank of Sagavinirktok River):
(i) Season: April 2-June 6 and July 7-August 31 for king and common eiders; April 2-June 15 and July 16-August 31 for all other birds.
(ii) Closure: June 7-July 6 for king and common eiders; June 16-July 15 for all other birds.
(3) Eastern Unit (East of eastern bank of the Sagavanirktok River):
(i) Season: April 2-June 19 and July 20-August 31.
(ii) Closure: June 20-July 19.
(4) All Units: yellow-billed loons. Annually, up to 20 yellow-billed loons total for the region inadvertently entangled in subsistence fishing nets in the North Slope Region may be kept for subsistence use.
(5) North Coastal Zone (Cape Thompson north to Point Hope and east along the Arctic Ocean coastline around Point Barrow to Ross Point, including Iko Bay, and 5 miles inland).
(i) No person may at any time, by any means, or in any manner, possess or have in custody any migratory bird or
(ii) Upon request from a Service law enforcement officer, hunters taking, attempting to take, or transporting migratory birds taken during the subsistence harvest season must present them to the officer for species identification.
(h)
(2) Closure: June 15-July 15.
(i)
(1) Season: April 15-May 26 and June 27-August 31.
(2) Closure: May 27-June 26.
(3) The Copper River Basin communities listed above also documented traditional use harvesting birds in Game Management Unit 12, making them eligible to hunt in this unit using the seasons specified in paragraph (h) of this section.
(j)
(i) Season: April 2-May 31 and July 1-August 31.
(ii) Closure: June 1-30.
(2) Prince William Sound Area East (Harvest area: Game Management Units 6[B]and [C]—Barrier Islands between Strawberry Channel and Softtuk Bar), (Eligible Chugach communities: Cordova, Tatitlek, and Chenega Bay):
(i) Season: April 2-April 30 (hunting); May 1-May 31 (gull egg gathering).
(ii) Closure: May 1-August 31 (hunting); April 2-30 and June 1-August 31 (gull egg gathering).
(iii) Species Open for Hunting: Greater white-fronted goose; snow goose; gadwall; Eurasian and American wigeon; blue-winged and green-winged teal; mallard; northern shoveler; northern pintail; canvasback; redhead; ring-necked duck; greater and lesser scaup; king and common eider; harlequin duck; surf, white-winged, and black scoter; long-tailed duck; bufflehead; common and Barrow's goldeneye; hooded, common, and red-breasted merganser; and sandhill crane. Species open for egg gathering: glaucous-winged, herring, and mew gulls.
(iv) Use of Boats/All-Terrain Vehicles: No hunting from motorized vehicles or any form of watercraft.
(v) Special Registration: All hunters or egg gatherers must possess an annual permit, which is available from the Cordova offices of the Native Village of Eyak and the U. S. Forest Service.
(3) Kachemak Bay Area (Harvest area: Game Management Unit 15[C] South of a line connecting the tip of Homer Spit to the mouth of Fox River) (Eligible Chugach Communities: Port Graham, Nanwalek):
(i) Season: April 2-May 31 and July 1-August 31.
(ii) Closure: June 1-30.
(k)
(1) Season: April 2-May 31—That portion of Game Management Unit 16(B) south of the Skwentna River and west of the Yentna River, and August 1-31—That portion of Game Management Unit 16(B) south of the Beluga River, Beluga Lake, and the Triumvirate Glacier.
(2) Closure: June 1-July 31.
(l)
(i) Season: Glaucous-winged gull egg gathering only: May 15-June 30.
(ii) Closure: July 1-August 31.
(2) Communities of Craig and Hydaburg (Harvest area: small islands and adjacent shoreline of western Prince of Wales Island from Point Baker to Cape Chacon, but also including Coronation and Warren islands):
(i) Season: Glaucous-winged gull egg gathering only: May 15-June 30.
(ii) Closure: July 1-August 31.
(3) Community of Yakutat (Harvest area: Icy Bay (Icy Cape to Point Riou), and coastal lands and islands bordering the Gulf of Alaska from Point Manby southeast to and including Dry Bay):
(i) Season: Glaucous-winged gull egg gathering: May 15-June 30.
(ii) Closure: July 1-August 31.
Upon finding that continuation of these subsistence regulations would pose an imminent threat to the conservation of threatened Steller's eiders
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
NMFS proposes to implement measures described in Amendment 8 to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the Reef Fish Fishery of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) (Reef Fish FMP), Amendment 7 to the FMP for the Spiny Lobster Fishery of Puerto Rico and the USVI (Spiny Lobster FMP), and Amendment 6 to the FMP for Corals and Reef Associated Plants and Invertebrates of Puerto Rico and the USVI (Coral FMP), as prepared and submitted by the Caribbean Fishery Management Council (Council). This proposed rule refers to these amendments, in combination, as the Accountability Measure (AM) Timing Amendment. This proposed rule to implement the AM Timing Amendment would modify the date for the implementation of AM-based closures for all species and species groups managed by the Council under the subject FMPs. The purpose of the AM Timing Amendment and this proposed rule is to minimize, to the extent practicable, the adverse socio-
Written comments must be received on or before March 13, 2017.
You may submit comments on the proposed rule identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2016-0013” by either of the following methods:
•
•
Electronic copies of the AM Timing Amendment, which includes an environmental assessment, a Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) analysis, and a regulatory impact review, may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office Web site at
María del Mar López, telephone: 727-824-5305; email:
In the U.S. Caribbean exclusive economic zone (EEZ), the reef fish, spiny lobster, and corals and reef associated plants and invertebrates (corals) fisheries are managed under their respective FMPs. The FMPs were prepared by the Council and are implemented through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) (16 U.S.C. 1801
The current AMs in the U.S. Caribbean EEZ for reef fish, spiny lobster, and corals require NMFS to reduce the length of the Federal fishing season in the year following a determination that the landings for a species or species group exceeded the applicable ACL. As specified in the FMPs, the landings determination is based on the applicable 3-year landings average. However, if NMFS determines the ACL for a particular species or species group was exceeded because of enhanced data collection and monitoring efforts, instead of an increase in total catch, NMFS will not reduce the length of the fishing season the following fishing year. The fishing year for Council-managed species in Caribbean Federal waters is the calendar year of January 1 through December 31. If an AM-based closure is required, the closure period currently extends from December 31 backward into the fishing year of the closure (closure year), for the number of days necessary to constrain harvest to the applicable ACL. Fishers in the USVI and Puerto Rico have stated that implementing AM-based closures at the end of the fishing year results in negative socio-economic impacts, for example, by resulting in multiple and potentially overlapping closures during the important December holiday season. Additionally, fishers in Puerto Rico have stated that timing AM-based closures with a September 30 end date would be expected to reduce adverse socio-economic impacts.
This proposed rule would modify the date for implementation of an AM-based closure in the event of an ACL overage for a species or species group managed by the Council in Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/St. John, and St. Croix under the Reef Fish, Coral, and Spiny Lobster FMPs. Specifically, an AM-based closure would be implemented from September 30 of the closure year backward, toward the beginning of the fishing year, for the number of days necessary to achieve the reduction in landings required to ensure landings do not exceed the applicable ACL. If the length of the required fishing season reduction exceeds the period of January 1 through September 30, any additional fishing season reduction would be applied from October 1 forward, toward the end of the fishing year (December 31). Caribbean fishers have indicated that this approach to implementing AM-based closures is desirable, because it would be expected to reduce the likelihood that these fishers would lose market access during periods of high demand for fish. Modifying the date for the implementation of AM-based closures through this proposed rule would not change the level of harvest reduction if an AM-based closure were required. This proposed rule to implement the AM Timing Amendment is thus expected to minimize adverse socio-economic effects from the implementation of AMs, while still helping to ensure that AM-based closures constrain harvest to the ACL and prevent overfishing. NMFS notes that the method for calculating the landings determination using the 3-years landings average for a species or species group will not change through this proposed rule.
The FMP for the Queen Conch Resources of Puerto Rico and the USVI is not included in the AM Timing Amendment because queen conch are managed with an in-season closure when the ACL is reached or projected to be reached, rather than a post-season reduction in the fishing year.
In addition to the measure discussed above, the AM Timing Amendment requires that the Council revisit the practice of using September 30 as the end date for AM-based closures no longer than 2 years from the implementation of the AM Timing Amendment and no longer than every 2 years thereafter. Any associated formal review would allow NMFS and the Council to consider changing the implementation date for AM-based closures based on new information, and would be expected to result in additional positive social and economic effects.
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the FMPs, the AM Timing Amendment, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable laws, subject to further consideration after public comment.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) that this proposed rule, if implemented, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
In approving the AM Timing Amendment, the Council determined that AM-based closures need to be better timed so that they successfully achieve their conservation objective and, to the extent practicable, minimize adverse social and economic impacts to fishers and fishing communities. The purpose of this proposed rule is to change the end date from which AM-based closures are calculated, so that adverse social and economic effects are minimized to the extent practicable, while still ensuring that harvest does not exceed the applicable ACLs required under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and implementing regulations.
This proposed rule, if implemented, would directly affect all entities that commercially harvest federally managed species under the Reef Fish, Coral, and Spiny Lobster FMPs in the U.S. Caribbean EEZ. This proposed rule would be expected to directly affect approximately 1,000-1,200 commercial fishermen in Puerto Rico, 200-250 commercial fishermen in St. Croix, and 70 commercial fishermen in St. Thomas and St. John, resulting in a total of 1,270-1,520 fishermen. The average annual revenue from commercial fishing for 2012-2014 is estimated to be approximately $7,250-$8,700 for Puerto Rico fishermen, $10,500-$13,100 for St. Croix fishermen, and $29,600 for St. Thomas and St. John fishermen (2014 dollars). Total average annual revenue (2014 dollars) for all fishermen for 2012-2014 was approximately $8.7 million for Puerto Rico, $2.6 million for St. Croix, and $2.1 million for St. Thomas and St. John. More recent information is not available.
For Regulatory Flexibility Act purposes only, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (NAICS code 11411) 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 not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide. All of the commercial fishing businesses directly regulated by this proposed rule are believed to be small entities.
NMFS has not identified any other small entities that would be expected to be directly affected by this proposed rule. Although this proposed rule would also directly affect recreational anglers, recreational anglers are not small entities under the RFA. Changes in angler demand for for-hire services (charter vessels and headboats, as applicable) as a result of this proposed rule could affect for-hire businesses; however, these changes would be indirect effects of this proposed rule and, therefore, are outside the scope of the RFA.
The AM Timing Amendment contains two actions. The first action would modify the implementation date for any AM-based closure implemented under the subject FMPs, and the second action would require the Council to periodically reconsider its proposed approach. Changing the end date for required AM-based closures to September 30 would be expected to result in unquantifiable economic benefits to the directly affected commercial fishing businesses. An AM-based closure is required in the year following the determination that the ACL is exceeded. The fishing year for Caribbean fisheries is the calendar year of January 1 through December 31, and the current date for determining the AM-based closure period is December 31. If an AM-based closure is required, the closure period extends from December 31 backward into the fishing year until a sufficient number of days are closed to constrain harvest to the applicable ACL and prevent another ACL overage. Fishermen have reported that AM-based closures extending from December 31 backward into the closure year conflict with periods of high consumer demand. Because the end of the year is a period of high consumer demand, AM-based closures during this period result in reduced revenue and profits to affected fishermen. This proposed rule would change the time period of any necessary AM-based closure. The intent of the closure would be to allow the ACL to be harvested, but not exceeded, regardless of the timing or duration of the AM-based closure. AM closures would be applied from September 30 of the closure year and extend backward into the fishing year, in order to better time the closure and reduce or avoid conflict with economically and socially important seasons. Although the amount of harvest reduction during an AM-based closure would be unaffected by changing the implementation date, avoiding closures during periods of increased demand would be expected to enable fishermen to better meet market demand and maintain product flow, and to receive higher prices and associated profits. Available data are insufficient to document seasonal price variability or to demonstrate the benefits of allowing the possibility of keeping fisheries open, and thus supplying fish during these periods of high demand. Quantitative documentation of demand-driven price increases during the end-of-year and special seasons is not currently available. Additionally, any future ACL overages and associated closures cannot be reasonably predicted. Therefore, it is not feasible to provide quantitative estimates of the potential expected economic benefits of changing the timing of these closures. Nevertheless, the Council selected the proposed action based on extensive input from fishers and expects that the action would result in increases in revenue and associated profits, even if these predicted increases cannot be quantified.
The second action in the AM Timing Amendment would specify when the Council must revisit and possibly review the practice of using September 30 as the end date for AM-based closures. This is an administrative action because it would establish a procedural requirement as part of the Council's management process. This second action would not be expected to have any direct economic effects on any small entities. Although the review could lead to the Council's subsequent consideration of management changes that may have economic effects on fishing businesses, these would be indirect effects of this action to establish the timing for the Council's review and deliberation, and indirect economic effects are outside the scope of the RFA.
Based on the discussion above, NMFS determines that this proposed rule, if implemented, would not have a significant adverse economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
Accountability measures, Annual catch limits, Caribbean, Fisheries, Fishing.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is proposed to be amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(a) If landings from a Caribbean island management area, as specified in Appendix E to this part, except for landings of queen conch (see § 622.491(b)), or landings from the Caribbean EEZ for tilefish and aquarium trade species, are estimated by the SRD to have exceeded the applicable ACL, as specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section for Puerto Rico management area species or species groups, paragraph (a)(2) of this section for St. Croix management area species or species groups, paragraph (a)(3) of this section for St. Thomas/St. John management area species or species groups, or paragraph (a)(4) of this section for the Caribbean EEZ, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register, at or near the beginning of the following fishing year, to reduce the length of the fishing season for the applicable species or species groups that year by the amount necessary to ensure landings do not exceed the applicable ACL. As described in the respective FMPs, for each species or species group in this paragraph, any required fishing season reduction will be applied from September 30 backward, toward the beginning of the fishing year. If the length of the required fishing season reduction exceeds the time period of January 1 through September 30, any additional fishing season reduction will be applied from October 1 forward, toward the end of the fishing year. If NMFS determines the ACL for a particular species or species group was exceeded because of enhanced data collection and monitoring efforts instead of an increase in total catch of the species or species group, NMFS will not reduce the length of the fishing season for the applicable species or species group the following fishing year. Landings will be evaluated relative to the applicable ACL based on a moving multi-year average of landings, as described in the FMPs. With the exceptions of Caribbean queen conch in the Puerto Rico and St. Thomas/St. John management areas, goliath grouper, Nassau grouper, midnight parrotfish, blue parrotfish, and rainbow parrotfish, ACLs are based on the combined Caribbean EEZ and territorial landings for each management area. The ACLs specified in paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(4) of this section are given in round weight.
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 that the Kansas Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Wednesday, February 22, 2017, at 12:00 p.m. CST. The meeting will include a discussion of a draft report on voting rights in the state, and a discussion of other current civil rights concerns in Kansas for future study.
The meeting will take place on Wednesday, February 22, 2017, at 12:00 p.m. CST.
Melissa Wojnaroski, DFO, at
Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-601-3869, conference ID: 6588019. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Regional Programs Unit, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60615. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Corrine Sanders at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via
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 that the Delaware Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Monday, February 24, 2017, at 10:00 a.m. EST for the purpose of discussing and voting on a project proposal regarding policing in Delaware's communities of color.
The meeting will be held on Friday, February 24, 2017, at 10:00 a.m. EST.
Public call information: Dial: 888-601-3861, Conference ID: 636552.
Ivy Davis, DFO, at
Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-601-3861, conference ID: 636552. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Eastern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1331 Pennsylvania Ave NW., Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (202) 376-7548, or emailed to Evelyn Bohor at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Midwestern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via
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 that the Ohio Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Monday, February 27, 2017, at 4:00 p.m. EST for the purpose of discussing completion of a draft report regarding civil rights and human trafficking in the state. The Committee will also discuss a proposal for their next topic of civil rights study: Barriers to equal access to education in Ohio.
The meeting will be held on Monday, February 27, 2017, at 4:00 p.m. EST.
Melissa Wojnaroski, DFO, at
Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-708-5689, conference ID: 3923908. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Midwestern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60615. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Carolyn Allen at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Midwestern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via
Economic Development Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice and opportunity for public comment.
Pursuant to Section 251 of the Trade Act 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2341
Any party having a substantial interest in these proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A written request for a hearing must be submitted to the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms Division, Room 71030, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than ten (10) calendar days following publication of this notice.
Please follow the requirements set forth in EDA's regulations at 13 CFR 315.9 for procedures to request a public hearing. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official number and title for the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
As a result of the determinations by the Department of Commerce (the Department) and the International Trade Commission (ITC) that revocation of the antidumping duty (AD) orders on certain polyester staple fiber from the Republic of Korea (Korea) and Taiwan would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, the Department is publishing this notice of continuation of the AD orders.
Effective February 10, 2017.
Mary Kolberg, Office I, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1785.
On May 25, 2000, the Department published the
Polyester staple fiber covered by the orders is defined as synthetic staple fibers, not carded, combed or otherwise processed for spinning, of polyesters measuring 3.3 decitex (3 denier, inclusive) or more in diameter. This merchandise is cut to lengths varying from one inch (25 mm) to five inches (127 mm). The merchandise subject to the orders may be coated, usually with a silicon, or other finish, or not coated. Polyester staple fiber is generally used as stuffing in sleeping bags, mattresses, ski jackets, comforters, cushions, pillows, and furniture. Merchandise of less than 3.3 decitex (less than 3 denier) currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) at subheading 5503.20.00.25 is specifically excluded from the orders. Also, specifically excluded from the orders are polyester staple fibers of 10 to 18 denier that are cut to lengths of 6 to 8 inches (fibers used in the manufacture of carpeting). In addition, low-melt polyester staple fiber is excluded from the orders. Low-melt polyester staple fiber is defined as a bi-component fiber with an outer sheath that melts at a significantly lower temperature than its inner core. The merchandise subject to the orders is currently classifiable in the HTSUS at subheadings 5503.20.00.45 and 5503.20.00.65. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes only; the written description of the merchandise covered by the scope of the orders is dispositive.
As a result of the determinations by the Department and the ITC that revocation of the
The effective date of the continuation of the
This five-year sunset review and this notice are in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and published pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Effective February 10, 2017.
Stephanie Moore, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-3692.
Section 702 of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (as amended) (the Act) requires the Department of Commerce (the Department) to determine, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, whether any foreign government is providing a subsidy with respect to any article of cheese subject to an in-quota rate of duty, as defined in section 702(h) of the Act, and to publish quarterly updates to the type and amount of those subsidies. We hereby provide the Department's quarterly update of subsidies on articles of cheese that were imported during the periods July 1, 2016, through September 30, 2016.
The Department has developed, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, information on subsidies, as defined in section 702(h) of the Act, being provided either directly or indirectly by foreign governments on articles of cheese subject to an in-quota rate of duty. The appendix to this notice lists the country, the subsidy program or programs, and the gross and net amounts of each subsidy for which information is currently available. The Department will incorporate additional programs which are found to constitute subsidies, and additional information on the subsidy programs listed, as the information is developed.
The Department encourages any person having information on foreign government subsidy programs which benefit articles of cheese subject to an in-quota rate of duty to submit such information in writing to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20230.
This determination and notice are in accordance with section 702(a) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (“Department”) is amending the final results of the third administrative review of the antidumping duty (“AD”) order on Multilayered Wood Flooring (“MLWF”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) to correct a ministerial error. The Department has reviewed Linyi Anying's allegation and determined that there was an error in the review of Linyi Anying's No Shipment Certification.
William Horn, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2615.
On July 19, 2016, the Department published the final results of the third administrative review of the AD order on MLWF from the PRC.
The merchandise covered by the order includes MLWF, subject to certain exceptions.
The Department will, if appropriate, correct any ministerial errors by amending the final results of review. Section 751(h) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), and 19 CFR 351.224(f) define a “ministerial error” as an error “in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical error resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any other similar type of unintentional error which the Secretary considers ministerial.”
On August 12, 2016, Anying submitted a ministerial error allegation. On August 18, 2016, Anying filed a complaint with the U.S. Court of International Trade (“CIT”) contesting the application of the PRC-entity rate on the same grounds as the ministerial error allegation.
Anying alleges that, although the it submitted a “no shipments” certificate in the third administrative review, the Department failed to rescind the administrative review for Anying. As a result, it was incorrectly included within the PRC-entity and subject to the PRC-wide rate. We have determined that we made a ministerial error and we have determined that Anying had no shipments during the POR.
Because the Department has determined that Anying had no shipments during the POR, we hereby rescind the review with respect to Anying. As a result, Anying will maintain its cash deposit rate from the most recently completed review in which it participated. This correction to the final results of administrative review is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(h) and 777(i)(2)(i) of the Act.
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), the Department determines, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise, where applicable, in
The following cash deposit requirement will be effective July 19, 2016, for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after that date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act. For Anying, which had no reviewable transactions during the POR, the cash deposit rate will remain unchanged from the rate assigned in the most recently completed review of the company.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 35 1.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This correction to the final results of administrative review is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(h) and 777(i)(2)(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.224(e) of the Department's regulations.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Court of International Trade (CIT or Court) sustained the Department of Commerce's (the Department's) second remand results pertaining to the sixth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain activated carbon from the People's Republic of China (PRC) covering the period of April 1, 2012, through March 31, 2013. The Department is notifying the public that the final judgment in this case is not in harmony with the final results of the administrative review, and that the Department is amending the final results.
Robert Palmer, AD/CVD Operations Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-9068.
On November 25, 2014, the Department issued
On May 25, 2016, the Department filed Remand I with the Court.
Additionally, we recalculated the margin for those separate rate companies whose entries were subject to this litigation using the same method we used in
On November 18, 2016, the Court in
On January 3, 2017, the Department filed Remand II with the Court.
In its decision in
Because there is now a final court decision, the Department amends
In the
Because there have been subsequent administrative reviews for the companies identified above, the cash deposit rates will remain the rates established in the most recently-completed
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(e)(1), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Additions to and Deletions from the Procurement List.
This action adds products and a service to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes products from the Procurement List previously furnished by such agencies.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia, 22202-4149.
Amy B. Jensen, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email
On 11/28/2016 (81 FR 85538-85540) and 12/30/2016 (81 FR 96442-96443), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices of proposed additions to the Procurement List.
After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the products and services and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the products and service listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the products and service to the Government.
2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and service to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the products and service proposed for addition to the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following products and services are added to the Procurement List:
On 12/23/2016 (81 FR 94340) and 12/30/2016 (81 FR 96442-96443), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices of proposed deletions from the Procurement List.
After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the products listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.
2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the products deleted from the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following products are deleted from the Procurement List:
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed additions to and deletions from the Procurement List.
The Committee is proposing to add products and a service to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and delete products previously furnished by such agencies.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.
Amy B. Jensen, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email
This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.
If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the products and service listed below from the nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
The following products and service are proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agency listed:
The following products are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:
Department of Defense.
Renewal of Federal Advisory Committee.
The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this notice to announce that it is renewing the charter for the Board on Coastal Engineering Research (“the Board”).
Jim Freeman, Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, 703-692-5952.
This committee's charter is being renewed in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended) and 41 CFR 102-3.50(d). The charter and contact information for the Board's Designated Federal Officer (DFO) can be obtained at
The Board provides the Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory, which includes the Coastal Engineering Research Center, through the Chief of Engineers/Commander (“the Chief of Engineers”), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“the Corps of Engineers”), independent advice and recommendations on coastal engineering research priorities and additional functions as assigned by the Chief of Engineers. The Board, pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 426-2, shall be composed of seven members who are appointed by the Secretary of Defense or the Deputy Secretary of Defense. Pursuant to legislation, the DoD shall appoint four officers of the Corps of Engineers as ex-officio appointments, with one position being occupied by the Deputy Commanding General for Civil and Emergency Operations, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the remaining positions occupied by three of the eight coastal division commanders. The three civilian Board members shall be civilian engineers with expertise in the field of beach erosion, shore protection, and coastal processes and infrastructure. Members who are not full-time or permanent part-time Federal officers or employees are appointed as experts or consultants pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109 to serve as special government employee members. Members who are full-time or permanent part-time Federal officers or employees are appointed pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.130(a) to serve as regular government employee members. Each member is appointed to provide advice on behalf of the Government on the basis of their best judgment without representing any particular point of view and in a manner that is free from conflict of interest. Pursuant to section 105 of Public Law 91-611, Board members, who are not full-time or permanent part-time Federal officers or employees, may be paid at rates not to exceed the daily equivalent of the rate for a GS-15, step 10, for each day of attendance at Board meetings, not to exceed 30 days per year, in addition to travel and other necessary expenses connected with their official duties on the Board, in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 5703(b), (d), and 5707. RGE members may be reimbursed for official Board-related travel and per diem. The DoD, as necessary and consistent with the Board's mission and DoD policies and procedures, may establish subcommittees, task forces, or working groups to support the Board, and all subcommittees must operate under the provisions of FACA and the Government in the Sunshine Act. Subcommittees will not work independently of the Board and must report all recommendations and advice solely to the Board for full deliberation and discussion. Subcommittees, task forces, or working groups have no authority to make decisions and recommendations, verbally or in writing, on behalf of the Board. No subcommittee or any of its members can update or report, verbally or in writing, directly to the DoD or any Federal officers or employees. The Board's DFO, pursuant to DoD policy, must be a full-time or permanent part-time DoD employee, and must be in attendance for the duration of each and every Board/subcommittee meeting. The public or interested organizations may submit written statements to the Board membership about the Board's mission and functions. Such statements may be submitted at any time or in response to the stated agenda of planned Board meetings. All written statements must be submitted to the Board's DFO who
Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.
Notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996.
Pamela Young, DSCA/SA&E-RAN, (703) 697-9107.
The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 16-78 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
Also included are the Mooring systems with powered tether with embedded fiber optics; Ground Control Systems (GCS); associated installation hardware; special tools and test equipment; Basic Issue Items (BII); program management support; verification testing; systems technical support; transportation; spare and repair parts; communications equipment;
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has requested a possible sale of ten (10) 74K Persistent Threat Detection System (PTDS) Aerostats; fourteen (14) Ground Moving Target Indicator (GMTI) Radars; twenty-six (26) MX-20 Electro-Optic Infrared (EO/IR) Cameras; and ten (10) Communications Intelligence (COMINT) Sensors. Also included are the Mooring systems with powered tether with embedded fiber optics; Ground Control Systems (GCS); associated installation hardware; special tools and test equipment; Basic Issue Items (BII); program management support; verification testing; systems technical support; transportation; spare and repair parts; communications equipment; operators and maintenance manuals; personnel training and training equipment; tool and test equipment; repair and return; publications and technical documentation; Quality Assurance Team (QAT); U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical and logistics support services; in-country Field Service Representatives (FSR); and other related elements of logistics and program support. Total estimated program cost is $525 million.
This proposed sale will enhance the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United State by helping to improve the security of an important ally which has been and continues to be a leading contributor of political stability and economic progress in the Middle East. This sale will increase the Royal Saudi Land Force's interoperability with U.S. forces and conveys U.S. commitment to Saudi Arabia's security and armed forces.
The proposed sale will improve Saudi Arabia's capability to meet current and future threats and provide greater security for its critical infrastructure. Saudi Arabia will have no difficulty absorbing these systems into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The prime contractor is unknown at this time. There are no known offset agreements in connect with this potential sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale will require the U.S. Government or contractor representative to travel to the Kingdom of Sadia Arabia for a period of six (6) years for de-processing/fielding, system checkout and new equipment training, as well as provide the support of in-country FSRs and operators.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. This sale will involve the release of sensitive technology to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The Persistent Threat Detection System (PTDS) is a tethered aerostat system capable of supporting a variety of surveillance payloads. The PTDS is a 74K tethered aerostat with a relocatable mooring system capable of supporting payloads up to 500 kg at altitudes of 1,500m, providing surveillance systems with line of site up to 140km. In addition to the aerostat, each system includes a mobile mooring system, ground control and maintenance shelters, electrical generators and power distribution panel, forklift and man lift, supply of helium and spare parts. The program will also include system training, maintenance and in-country support services. Each of the ten (10) aerostats will carry a payload consisting of one (1) radar system and two (2) Electro-Optical/Infrared (EO/IR) systems or one (1) radar system, one (1) EO/IR system and one (1) communications Intelligence (COMINT) system.
a. Radar System. The Telephonics APS-143G Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Radar is a multi-function radar capable of providing long-range detection of land based or maritime targets that are static or in motion. The system can operate in overland, maritime, and air-to-air modes. It displays Ground Moving Target Indicator (GMTI) tracks overlaid on a Doppler Beam Sharpened (DBS) image. The system can switch between vertically and horizontally-orientated antennas and incorporates an optional Identify Friend or Foe (IFF) capability. The hardware and software are UNCLASSIFIED.
b. Communications Intelligence (COMINT) System. The Raytheon Applied Signal Technology, Inc. Model 1240 Titan Reconfigurable Multichannel Receiver is a modular, scalable software-defined radio (SDR) designed for airborne COMINT missions. The system can search, intercept, collect, geo-locate, analyze, store, and distribute wireless signals. The hardware and software are UNCLASSIFIED.
c. Electro-Optical/Infrared (EO/IR) System. The L3 WESCAM MX-20 is suite of up to seven (7) long-range camera and imaging sensors mounted within a gimbaled pod. Sensors include either a thermal image or high definition infrared imager; a daylight continuous zoom color TV camera, either a daylight spotter color TV camera or lowlight spotter TV camera; a laser rangefinder; and a laser illuminator. The hardware and software are UNCLASSIFIED.
2. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures which might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
3. A determination has been made that the recipient country can provide the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
4. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Department of Defense (DoD).
Meeting notice.
The Department of Defense announces that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the DoD Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Care Board of Actuaries will take place. This meeting is open to the public.
Friday, July 28, 2017, from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
4800 Mark Center Drive, Conference Room 3, Level B1, Alexandria, VA 22350.
Mrs. Kathleen Ludwig at the Defense Human Resource Activity, DoD Office of the Actuary, 4800 Mark Center Drive, STE 05E22, Alexandria, VA 22350-7000. Phone: 571-372-1993. Email:
This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150.
Actuarial assumptions and methods needed for calculating items specified in agenda item 1.
Department of Defense (DoD).
Meeting notice.
The Department of Defense announces that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the DoD Board of Actuaries will take place. This meeting is open to the public.
Thursday, July 13, 2017, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. and Friday, July 14, 2017, from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
4800 Mark Center Drive, Conference Room 3, Level B1, Alexandria, VA 22350.
Mrs. Kathleen Ludwig at the Defense Human Resources Activity, DoD Office of the Actuary, 4800 Mark Center Drive, STE 05E22, Alexandria, VA 22350-7000. Phone: 571-372-1993. Email:
This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150.
Department of Defense.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting.
The Defense Science Board (DSB) will meet in closed session on Thursday, February 16, 2017, from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. in the Nunn-Lugar conference room 3E863 at the Pentagon, Washington, DC.
Thursday, February 16, 2017, from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
Nunn-Lugar conference room 3E863 at the Pentagon, Washington, DC.
Ms. Debra Rose, Executive Officer, Defense Science Board, 3140 Defense Pentagon, Room 3B888A, Washington, DC 20301-3140, via email at
Due to circumstances beyond the control of the Designated Federal Officer and the Department of Defense, the Defense Science Board was unable to provide public notification concerning it meeting of February 16, 2017, as required by 41 CFR 102-3.150(a). Accordingly, the Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150(b), waives the 15-calendar day notification requirement.
This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150.
The mission of the DSB is to provide independent advice and recommendations on matters relating to the DoD's scientific and technical enterprise. The objective of the meeting is to obtain, review, and evaluate classified information related to the DSB's mission. DSB membership will meet with DoD Leadership to discuss current and future national security challenges within the Department. This meeting will focus on the new administration's guidance and directives related to nuclear deterrence, countering anti-access systems with longer range and standoff capabilities, and survivable logistics. The DSB will host guest speakers from across the Department of Defense who will provide their perspective on the future of National Security under the new administration. The invited speakers are the Honorable Jim Mattis, Secretary of Defense; Honorable Robert Work, Deputy Secretary of Defense; General Paul Selva, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; LtGen J. Kevin McLaughlin, Deputy Commander, U.S. Cyber Command; and Vice Admiral James Syring, Director, Missile Defense Agency. Additionally, Mr. Michael Walker from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) will present an overview of the 2016 DARPA Cyber Grand Challenge competition.
In accordance with section 10(d) of the FACA and 41 CFR 102-3.155, the DoD has determined that the DSB meeting will be closed to the public. Specifically, the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics), in consultation with the DoD Office of General Counsel, has determined in writing that all sessions will be closed to the public because they will consider matters covered by 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1). The determination is based on the consideration that it is expected that discussions throughout will involve classified matters of national security concern. Such classified material is so intertwined with the unclassified information that it cannot reasonably be segregated into separate discussions without defeating the effectiveness and meaning of the overall meeting. To permit the meeting to be open to the public would preclude discussion of such matters and would greatly diminish the ultimate utility of the DSB's findings and recommendations to the Secretary of Defense and to the USD(AT&L).
In accordance with section 10(a)(3)of the FACA and 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140, interested persons may submit a written statement for consideration by the DSB at any time regarding its mission or in response to the stated agenda of a planned meeting. Individuals submitting a written statement must submit their statement to the DSB DFO provided in this notice at any point; however, if a written statement is not received at least 3 calendar days prior to the meeting, which is the subject of this notice, then it may not be provided to or considered by the DSB until the next meeting of the DSB. The DFO will review all submissions with the DSB Chair and ensure they are provided to members of the DSB before its final deliberations on February 16, 2017.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.
Notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996.
Pamela Young, DSCA/SA&E-RAN, (703) 697-9107.
The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 16-79 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
Components for Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS) (includes spares):
Twelve (12) Air Tractor AT-802L aircraft; two (2) Air Tractor AT-504 trainer aircraft; twelve (12) FMU-152 A (D-2/D-5)/B Fuzes (for Training/Inert); six (6) Mk-81 Trainer/Inert Bomb Bodies; six (6) Mk-82 Trainer/Inert Bomb Bodies; Seven hundred and fourteen (714) MK-66 MOD 4 2.75″ Rocket Motors; Seven hundred and fourteen (714) M152 HE Warheads (2.75″ Airborne Rocket); 505,000 rounds .50 cal ammunition; FN HMP400 LLC Herstal 50 cal guns; MX-15HDi electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR) full motion video cameras with laser designation; VHF/UHF radios; LAU-131 Launchers; AAR-47 Warning Systems; electro countermeasure display systems AN/ALE-47; HGU-55/P Helmet Mounted Cueing Systems; spare engines; initial spare parts; support equipment; studies; contract logistics support and technical services; publications; aircraft ferry and support; life support equipment; maintenance training; pilot training; follow-on training; alternate mission equipment; U.S. Government manpower services and travel; modifications and engineering change proposals; ground based training system; operational flight trainer and spares; and aircraft modification, integration, and support.
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Kenya has requested a possible sale of up to twelve (12) Air Tractor AT-802L and two (2) AT-504 trainer aircraft, weapons package, technical support and program management. The total estimated program cost is $418 million.
This proposed sale contributes to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by improving the security of a strong regional partner who is a regional security leader undertaking critical operations against al-Shabaab and troop contributor to the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM).
The proposed sale provides a needed capability in the ongoing efforts to counter al-Shabaab. The platform maximizes the Kenyan Defense Force's Close Air Support (CAS) ability because it is a short-field aircraft capable of using precision munitions and cost effective logistics and maintenance.
The proposed sale supplements Kenya's aging F-5 aircraft as it will be more fiscally efficient and able to be pre-positioned much closer to the conflict area than the F-5 fleet. The Kenyan Defense force is committed to modernizing its air fleet and is capable of absorbing these aircraft. The proposed sale of this equipment and support does not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The prime contractor will be L-3 Communications, Platform Integration Division, Waco, Texas. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale requires the assignment of at least five contractor representatives in Kenya.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. This sale involves the release of sensitive technology to Kenya. The AT-802L weapons system is classified up to Secret. The AT-802L aircraft uses the AT-802 airframe and features avionics and other technologically sensitive systems. The AT-802L contains an MX-15HDi electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR) full motion video (FMV) cameras with laser designation; internal and external self-protection equipment; a modified HGU-55/P helmet that incorporates a reticle-projected HeadsUp Display to cue weapons and aircraft sensors to ground targets; and software computer programs.
2. Sensitive and classified (up to SECRET) elements of the proposed AT-802L include the hardware, accessories, components, and associated software associated with the: MX-15HDi EO/IR FMV turret, Stores Management System (SMS), Missile Warning System (MWS), HGU-55/P Helmet Mounted Cueing System (HMCS), and air-to-ground weapons. Additional sensitive areas include operating manuals and maintenance technical orders containing performance information, operating and test procedures, and other information related to support operations and repair. The hardware, software, and data identified are classified to protect vulnerabilities, design and performance parameters, and other similar critical information.
3. The MX-15HDi is an EO/IR FMV camera that includes a laser designator which creates the ability to designate ground targets for use with laser guided weapons. The commercially developed system software and hardware are UNCLASSIFIED.
4. The SMS provides basic flight path guidance to release zone, mission recording and diagnostics, and continuous stores status and inventory management. It is an internally mounted suite. The commercially developed system software and hardware are UNCLASSIFIED.
5. The AN/AAR-47 is an electronic warfare system used to protect against IR guided missile threats, laser-guided/laser-aided threats, and unguided munitions. The system, hardware components and software are SECRET.
6. The AN/ALE-47 system uses information from missile warning sensors to determine the correct response to defeat IR and other guided missiles. The AN/ALE-47 is SECRET.
7. HMCS is a modified HGU-55/P helmet that incorporates a reticle-projected Heads-Up Display to assist with cueing weapons to ground targets. This system projects visual targeting information, enabling the pilot to monitor this information without interrupting his field of view through the cockpit canopy. This provides improvement for close combat targeting and engagement. Hardware is UNCLASSIFIED.
8. The following munitions are part of the AT-802L configuration:
a. The Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS) is a low cost semi- active laser guidance kit developed by BAE Systems which is added to current unguided 70 mm rocket motors and warheads similar to and including the HYDRA 70 rocket. It is a low collateral damage weapon that can effectively strike both soft and lightly armored targets. APKWS turns a standard unguided 2.75 inch (70 mm) rocket into a precision laser-guided rocket, classification up to SECRET.
b. The LAU-131 launcher is tube shaped, 59.8 inches in length, and 10.125 inches in diameter. It weighs 65 pounds and is capable of carrying seven rockets (2.75 in or 70mm). Hardware is UNCLASSIFIED. Technical data and documentation provided are UNCLASSIFIED.
c. GBU-12/58 Paveway II (PW-II): 500-lb (GBU-12) and 250-lb (GBU-58) are laser-guided ballistic bombs (LGBs) developed by Raytheon and Lockheed Martin. The 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) warhead and the semi-active guidance corrects for many of the normal errors inherent in any delivery system. Laser designation for the weapon can be provided by a variety of laser target markers or designators. The LGB consists of a computer control group (CCG) that is not warhead specific (MAU-169UB or MAU-209C/B) and a warhead specific Air Foil Group (AFG), that attach to the nose and tail of MK 81 and MK 82 or BLU-111 and BLU-110 General Purpose (GP) bomb bodies. The overall weapon is CONFIDENTIAL.
d. The FN HMP400 LCC is a self-contained airborne weapon system that includes a Herstal .50 cal M3P machine gun and 250-round ammunition box. This system is UNCLASSIFIED.
9. Kenya has expressed a willingness to protect United States classified military information equivalent to US Government standards. Kenya is firmly committed to its relationship with the United States and to its promise to protect classified information and prevent its transfer to a third party. This sale is needed in furtherance of USG foreign policy and national security interests by helping to improve the security of a vital partner in the AFRICOM AOR.
10. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware or software source code in this proposed sale, the information could be used to develop countermeasures which might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of systems with similar or advance capabilities. The benefits to be derived from this sale in the furtherance of the US foreign policy and national security objectives, as outlined in the Policy Justification, outweigh the potential damage that could result if the sensitive technology were revealed to unauthorized persons.
11. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to Kenya.
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) San Francisco District announces the availability of a Draft Detailed Project Report with Integrated Environmental Assessment (DPR/EA) and draft Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for review and comment for the proposed Pier 70 Central Basin Continuing Authorities Program (CAP) Section 107 Navigation Improvement Project in San Francisco, California. Pursuant to 33 CFR 230.11 (b) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers—Procedures for Implementing [the National Environmental Policy Act] NEPA, notice of the availability of this DPR/EA and draft FONSI for review and comment is being provided to agencies, organizations, and the interested public.
Comments on the Draft DPR/EA and draft FONSI may be submitted starting February 13, 2017 through 5:00 p.m. (PDT), February 28, 2017. If comments are provided by mail, they must be received at the address below no later than February 28, 2017.
The Draft DPR/EA can be viewed online starting February 13, 2017 at:
Comments may be submitted on the Draft DPR/EA using any of the following methods:
•
•
Comment letters should include the commenter's physical mailing address and the project title in the subject line.
Roxanne Grillo, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District, 1455 Market Street, San Francisco, CA 94103-1398. Telephone: (415) 503-6859. Email:
1.
The USACE proposes to dredge the Central Basin to an increased depth and place the dredged material at a permitted site. The purpose of the Proposed Action is to reduce the negative impacts of shoaling in the Central Basin to allow vessels to safely and efficiently access the Pier 70 Shipyard without the use of high tide. The Proposed Action is necessary to reduce transportation costs and user delays for use of the repair and service facilities at the Pier 70 Shipyard, increase access to the specialized repair and service facilities at the Pier 70 Shipyard, and improve safety and decrease risk to vessels and operators in approaching the Central Basin and Pier 70 Shipyard.
Pursuant to NEPA, USACE has prepared a Draft DPR/EA analyzing the potential environmental impacts of planning, designing, constructing, and maintaining a commercial navigation project at the Central Basin. The primary action areas for this analysis include the proposed Central Basin approach area dredge footprint, the dredged material placement site (the San Francisco Deep Ocean Disposal Site as well as the alternative placement sites evaluated), and waterways used for vessel transit between the dredge and placement sites. The Port of San Francisco is the Non-Federal Sponsor (NFS).
2.
The recommended plan (Proposed Action, Agency-Preferred Alternative) is the National Economic Development Plan (Alternative 6) to dredge the Central Basin to 32 feet MLLW plus two feet of overdepth and place all of the material at the San Francisco Deep Ocean Disposal Site. Approximately 237,700 cubic yards of material (including the two feet of overdepth) would be dredged.
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice of intent.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Sacramento District, as the lead Federal agency under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Centennial Reservoir Project (Proposed Action). On April 25, 2016, the Nevada Irrigation District (NID) (applicant) submitted a Department of the Army (DA) permit application under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, to discharge dredged and/or fill material into waters of the United States (WOUS) for the construction of a new 110,000 acre-foot water supply reservoir. The Proposed Action is located on the Bear River, downstream of Rollins Reservoir and upstream of Combie Reservoir, west of the Town of Colfax, Nevada and Placer Counties, California. NID's stated purpose for the Proposed Action is to provide drought and climate change-mitigation, meet projected future water supply needs, and improve water supply reliability for NID's customers.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments on or before April 10, 2017. Written comments can be submitted at any time prior to publication of the Draft EIS.
Submit comments by email at
Ms. Kara Hellige by telephone at 970-259-1604, or email at
Two public scoping meetings will be held to present an overview of the Proposed Action and the Draft EIS process, and to afford all interested parties with an opportunity to provide comments. The first meeting will be held on March 1, 2017, from 4:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. at the Holiday Inn Auburn Hotel, 120 Grass Valley Highway, Auburn, CA 95603. The second public scoping meeting will be held on March 2, 2017, from 4:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. at Gold Miners Inn/Holiday Inn Express & Suites, 121 Bank Street, Grass Valley, CA 95945. Project information will also be posted periodically on the internet at
The proposed Centennial Reservoir project involves the construction of a new 110,000 acre-foot reservoir on the Bear River between the existing Rollins and Combie Reservoirs. The Proposed Action would extend upriver from just above the existing Combie Reservoir for slightly over six miles to a point west of the Town of Colfax, approximately two miles downstream of the existing Rollins Dam. The Proposed Action would include construction of a new dam and associated facilities and infrastructure. The anticipated water depth at the dam would be approximately 255 feet and the height of the dam would be approximately 275 feet. NID anticipates that low impact public recreational opportunities (
The Draft EIS will include alternatives to the Proposed Action that will meet NEPA requirements for a reasonable range of alternatives, and will also meet the requirements of the CWA Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. A number of water supply operation alternatives, as well as alternative dam sites and types have been/are being considered. Additional alternatives include but may not be limited to: (1) Alternative storage sites within NID's service area (including expansion of existing storage reservoirs); and (2) water supply operations alternatives to improve the efficiency of existing water supply and conveyance infrastructure which may include but are not be limited to lining of existing water supply canals and rehabilitating aged infrastructure. The specific alternatives to be evaluated within the Draft EIS have not yet been developed, but will, at a minimum, include the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action Alternative.
The Corps' public involvement program includes several opportunities
The Corps will consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act for proposed impacts to listed species. The Corps will also consult with Native American tribes and with the State Historic Preservation Officer to comply with the National Historic Preservation Act for proposed impacts to properties listed or potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, as appropriate.
A 45-day public review period will be provided for interested parties, individuals, and agencies to review and comment on the draft EIS. All interested parties are encouraged to respond to this notice and provide a current address if they wish to be notified of the draft EIS circulation.
The Draft EIS is expected to be available for public review and comment by January 2018.
Department of the Navy, DOD.
Notice.
The Department of the Navy hereby gives notice of its intent to grant to Superior Armor Systems, Inc. a revocable, nonassignable, exclusive license to practice in all fields of use, the Government-owned invention described in U.S. Patent Application No. 12/312,150 A1: Body Armor of Ceramic Ball Embedded Polymer and any continuations, divisionals or re-issues thereof.
Anyone wishing to object to the grant of this license must file written objections along with supporting evidence, if any, not later than February 27, 2017.
Written objections are to be filed with the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren Division, Technical Partnering Office, Code 00T1, 17632 Dahlgren Road, Suite 201, Dahlgren, Virginia 22448-5154.
Lorraine Harting, Domestic Partnering Outreach Lead, Technical Partnering Office, 17632 Dahlgren Road, Suite 201, Dahlgren, Virginia 22448-5154. Due to U.S. Postal delays, please fax 540-653-6416, email:
35 U.S.C. 207, 37 CFR part 404.
Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
Upward Bound Math and Science Program.
Notice Inviting Applications for New Awards for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017.
In this notice we invite applications for UBMS grants only. The invitation to apply for UB grants has been announced and we will invite applications for Veterans UB grants in a forthcoming notice.
The UBMS Program supports projects designed to prepare high school students for postsecondary education programs that lead to careers in the fields of math and science.
UBMS grantees are required to provide the services listed in sections 402C(b) and (c) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA) (20 U.S.C. 1070a-13). Grantees may also provide the permissible services in section 402C(d) of the HEA. UBMS Program grantees must also provide the services listed in 34 CFR 645.14(a) and may provide the services listed in 34 CFR 645.14(b).
The Federal TRIO programs, including the UBMS Program, represent a national commitment to education for all students regardless of race, ethnic background, disability status, or economic circumstances. The Department has a strong interest in ensuring that groups traditionally underrepresented in postsecondary education, such as low-income students, first-generation college students, students with limited English proficiency, students with disabilities, homeless students, students who are in foster care or aging out of foster care, and other disconnected students, receive services provided by the UBMS Program.
The UBMS Program is a critical component of the Department's efforts to improve college readiness, access and completion for students who have been traditionally underrepresented in postsecondary education. To more strategically align UBMS grants with broader reform strategies intended to improve postsecondary access and completion, this notice includes a competitive preference priority that encourages applicants to propose activities that are supported by moderate evidence of effectiveness (as defined in this notice). The Department
Additionally, this notice includes an invitational priority encouraging applicants to focus on increasing opportunities for students to earn postsecondary credits while in high school. Some of these opportunities for postsecondary coursework may be available through dual enrollment programs. Dual enrollment programs allow high school students to enroll in credit-bearing college courses while enrolled in high school. In various forms and under different names, dual enrollment programs exist in all 50 States and the District of Columbia.
Recent research
This priority is:
Applications supported by evidence of effectiveness that meets the conditions set out in the definition of “moderate evidence of effectiveness” in 34 CFR 77.1(c).
This priority is:
The Secretary encourages applicants to propose projects designed to increase opportunities for participants to earn postsecondary credits in high school, such as through providing connections to dual enrollment programs.
(i) There is at least one study of the effectiveness of the process, product, strategy, or practice being proposed that meets the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) Evidence Standards without reservations, found a statistically significant favorable impact on a relevant outcome (with no statistically significant and overriding unfavorable impacts on that outcome for relevant populations in the study or in other studies of the intervention reviewed by and reported on by the WWC), and includes a sample that overlaps with the populations or settings proposed to receive the process, product, strategy, or practice.
(ii) There is at least one study of the effectiveness of the process, product, strategy, or practice being proposed that meets the WWC Evidence Standards with reservations, found a statistically significant favorable impact on a relevant outcome (with no statistically significant and overriding unfavorable impacts on that outcome for relevant populations in the study or in other studies of the intervention reviewed by and reported on by the WWC), includes a sample that overlaps with the populations or settings proposed to receive the process, product, strategy, or practice, and includes a large sample and a multisite sample.
Multiple studies can cumulatively meet the large and multisite sample requirements as long as each study meets the other requirements in this paragraph.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian tribes.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education only.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2018 from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.
• For an applicant that is not currently receiving a UBMS Program grant, the maximum award amount is $257,500, to serve a minimum of 60 participants.
• For an applicant that is currently receiving a UBMS Program grant, the maximum award amount is an amount equal to the applicant's base award amount for FY 2016.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
2.
3.
1.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (
2.
• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides. Page numbers and an identifier may be within the 1″ margin.
• Each page on which there is text or graphics will be counted as one full page.
• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including charts, tables, figures, and graphs. Titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions may be single spaced.
• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger, or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).
• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial. An application submitted in any other font (including Times Roman and Arial Narrow) will not be accepted.
The page limit does not apply to Part I, the Application for Federal Assistance Face Sheet (SF 424); Part II, the Budget Information Summary form (ED Form 524); Part III, the UBMS Program Profile form; Part III, the one-page Project Abstract form; and Part IV, the Assurances and Certifications. The page limit also does not apply to a table of contents, which you should include in the application narrative. If you include any attachments or appendices, these items will be counted as part of Part III, the application narrative, for purpose of the page-limit requirement. You must include your complete response to the selection criteria in Part III, the application narrative.
Any application addressing the competitive preference priority may include up to four additional pages for the priority. These additional pages must be used to discuss how the application meets the competitive preference priority. Any application addressing the invitational priority may include up to two additional pages for the priority. These additional pages must be used to discuss how the application meets the invitational priority. The additional pages allotted to address the competitive preference priority and the invitational priority cannot be used for or transferred to the application narrative or any other section of the application.
We will reject your application if—
• You do not apply these standards; or
• You exceed the page limit.
3.
Applications for grants under this program must be submitted electronically using the
We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.
Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the program contact person listed under
Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: May 22, 2017.
4.
5.
6.
a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);
b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the System for Award Management (SAM), the Government's primary registrant database;
c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and
d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.
You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet at the following Web site:
If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow two to five weeks for your TIN to become active.
The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the completeness and accuracy of the data you enter into the SAM database. Thus, if you think you might want to apply for Federal financial assistance under a program administered by the Department, please allow sufficient time to obtain and register your DUNS number and TIN. We strongly recommend that you register early.
Once your SAM registration is active, it may be 24 to 48 hours before you can access the information in, and submit an application through,
If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more business days.
Information about SAM is available at
In addition, if you are submitting your application via
7.
a.
Applications for grants under the UBMS Program, CFDA number 84.047M, must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide
We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement
You may access the electronic grant application for the UBMS Program at
Please note the following:
• When you enter the
• Applications received by
• The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through
• You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through
• You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.
• You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.
• You must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in a read-only, non-modifiable Portable Document Format (PDF). Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only, non-modifiable PDF (
• Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice.
• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from
Once your application is successfully validated by
These emails do not mean that your application is without any disqualifying errors. While your application may have been successfully validated by
• We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.
If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the
If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the program contact person listed under
The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the
• You do not have access to the Internet; or
• You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the
• No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevents you from using the Internet to submit your application.
If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.
Address and mail or fax your statement to: Gaby Watts, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5E119, Washington, DC 20202. Fax: (202) 260-7464.
Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.
b.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.047M), LBJ Basement Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202-4260.
You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.
If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark.
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.
We will not consider applications postmarked after the deadline date.
c.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application, by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.047M), 550 12th Street SW., Room 7039, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260.
The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.
If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—
(1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and
(2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this grant notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245-6288.
1.
2.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary also requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
For this competition, a panel of non-Federal reviewers will review each application in accordance with the selection criteria in 34 CFR 645.31 and the competitive preference priority. The individual scores of the reviewers will be added and the sum divided by the number of reviewers to determine the average peer reviewer score received in the review process. Additionally, in accordance with 34 CFR 645.32, the Secretary will award prior experience points to applicants that conducted a UBMS Program project during budget periods 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16, based on their documented experience. Prior experience points, if any, will be added to the application's average reader score to determine the total score for each application.
If there are insufficient funds for all applications with the same total scores, the Secretary will choose among the tied applications so as to serve geographic areas and eligible populations that have been underserved by the UBMS Program.
3.
4.
Please note that, if the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
(c) Under 34 CFR 75.250(b), the Secretary may provide a grantee with additional funding for data collection analysis and reporting. In this case the Secretary establishes a data collection period.
4.
(a) The percentage of UBMS students who took two years of mathematics beyond Algebra I by the 12th grade;
(b) The percentage of UBMS students who graduated from secondary school with a regular secondary school diploma;
(c) The percentage of UBMS students who enrolled in postsecondary education;
(d) The percentage of UBMS students who enrolled in a program of postsecondary education by the fall term following graduation from high school and who in the first year of postsecondary education placed into college-level math and English without need for remediation;
(e) The percentage of former UBMS students who enrolled in a program of
(f) The percentage of UBMS participants who enrolled in a program of postsecondary education and attained either an associate's degree within three years or a bachelor's degree within six years of enrollment;
(g) The percentage of UBMS students expected to graduate high school in the reporting year who complete a Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA); and
(h) The cost per successful participant.
Grant recipients must collect and report data on steps they have taken toward achieving these goals. Accordingly, we request that applicants include these performance measures in conceptualizing the design, implementation, and evaluation of their proposed projects.
5.
In making a continuation grant, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
Sharon Easterling, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5E235, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 453-7425 or by email:
If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that during the month of January 2017, the status of the above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators became effective by operation of the Commission's regulations. 18 CFR 366.7(a) (2017)
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Federal Maritime Commission.
February 15, 2017; 10:00 a.m.
800 N. Capitol Street NW., First Floor Hearing Room, Washington, DC.
The meeting will be held in Open Session and will be streamed live at
Rachel E. Dickon, Assistant Secretary, (202) 523 5725.
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 March 9, 2017.
1.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), as part of its continuing efforts to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, 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. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection project titled “Characterization of Exposure Potential during Activities Conducted on Synthetic Turf with Crumb Rubber Infill.” The purpose of the proposed study is to evaluate and characterize human exposure potential to constituents in crumb rubber infill.
Written comments must be received on or before April 11, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. ATSDR-2017-0002 by any of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
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 of the proposed 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. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
Characterization of Exposure Potential during Activities Conducted on Synthetic Turf with Crumb Rubber Infill—New—Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR).
Currently in the United States, there are more than 12,000 synthetic turf fields in use. While the Synthetic Turf Council has set guidelines for the content of crumb rubber used as infill in synthetic turf fields, manufacturing processes result in differences among types of crumb rubber. Additionally, the chemical composition may vary highly between different processes and source materials and may vary even within granules from the same origin.
In July, 2016, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) were granted an emergency Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) clearance for a research study titled “Collections Related to Synthetic Turf Fields with Crumb Rubber Infill” (OMB Control No. 0923-0054, expiration date 01/31/2017). The research goals for the three activities in the protocol are pilot-level investigations to evaluate and characterize: (1) The chemical composition and use of crumb rubber infill in synthetic turf using a convenience sample of nine tire recycling manufacturing plants and 40 facilities that use synthetic turf fields (Activity 1); (2) the human exposure potential to constituents in crumb rubber infill among a convenience sample of 60 field users (Activity 2); and (3) collection of biological specimens (blood and urine) from 45 participants from Activity 2 (Activity 3).
By December, 2016, ATSDR and USEPA completed Activity 1 which was aimed at characterizing the chemical composition and use of synthetic turf fields with tire crumb rubber infill. The agencies successfully consented and sampled 40 synthetic turf fields with crumb rubber infill across the United States. The activities are reported in the “Status Report on the Federal Research Action Plan on Recycled Tire Crumb Used on Playing Fields and Playgrounds.” The Status Report was released on December 30, 2016.
During Activity 1, ATSDR and USEPA obtained permission to return to participating fields to complete the human exposure characterization. Due to the limited time constraints and field activity schedules, ATSDR and USEPA chose to begin Activity 2 data collection and Activity 3 specimen collection in 2017.
The agencies are requesting a new information collection request (ICR) for a two-year OMB clearance to complete Activity 2 and Activity 3, now subtitled “Characterization of Exposure Potential during Activities Conducted on Synthetic Turf with Crumb Rubber Infill.” This will be the first assessment of activities conducted on synthetic turf for the purpose of characterizing potential exposure patterns. The study will include persons who use synthetic turf with crumb rubber infill (
Additionally, we will conduct an exposure characterization sub-study among a subset of the respondents. We will use a subset of the facilities sampled in the first study to conduct activities for the exposure characterization of facility users. The exposure characterization sub-study will include field environment sampling, personal air monitoring, dermal sampling, and urine and blood collection. Video data collection of facility user activities will be performed for a subset of respondents. It is likely that some of the collection items will not be analyzed in the current project time frame but will be archived for future analysis.
The research study will screen a total of 75 participants for eligibility. The sample size for the exposure characterization study is 60 respondents and 45 respondents for the exposure measurements sub-study. The total burden hours for the research study is 174 hours among all of the 75 respondents. There is no cost to the respondents other than their time in the study.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing efforts to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, 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. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection entitled “Grants for Injury Control Research Centers Annual Progress Report (APR).” CDC will collect information from grantees funded under Grants for Injury Control and Research Centers (ICRC) for the Annual Progress Report (APR). The APR is used to monitor the ICRCs' progress on set performance indicators, activities, and progress towards stated grant objectives.
Written comments must be received on or before April 11, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2017-0007 by any of the following methods:
•
•
All public comment should be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking portal (
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact the Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
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 of the proposed 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. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
Grants for Injury Control Research Centers Annual Progress Report (APR)—New—National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
OMB approval is requested for three years for this new information collection project. CDC will collect information from grantees funded under Grants for Injury Control and Research Centers (ICRC) for the Annual Progress Report (APR). The CDC and the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC) began funding the ICRCs throughout the United States in 1987 to study ways to prevent injuries and violence and to work with community partners to put research findings into action.
There are currently ten CDC-funded ICRCs, which are typically funded in five-year funding cycles. ICRCs endeavor to prevent injuries and violence while working to strengthen the injury and violence prevention infrastructure by catalyzing and integrating resources at the local, state and national levels. This collaborative approach is a vital component in the success of ICRCs's efforts to make an impact on population-level reduction in injury-related harm that is critical to HHS objectives.
Grantees will monitor and report progress on a set of performance indicators, their activities, and progress towards stated grant objectives. The reporting templates will capture this information through the use of performance indicators (indicators that signify progress towards a goal) and outcomes of project activities and tasks. In addition, each grantee will complete a personnel and publication data collection form. Information will be transmitted to CDC electronically and via hard copy by email and postal mail respectively.
Data collection will include 100% of population, no sampling. The data will be analyzed using descriptive and summary statistics, qualitative summary. The only cost to respondents will be time spent responding to the survey.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing efforts to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, 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. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection plan titled,
Written comments must be received on or before April 11, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2017-0008 by any of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact the Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
Survey of Engineered Nanomaterial Occupational Safety and Health Practices—New—National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
As mandated in the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (PL 91-596), the mission of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) is to conduct research and investigations on work-related disease and injury and to disseminate information for preventing identified workplace hazards (Sections 20 (a)(1) and (d), Attachment 1). This dual responsibility recognizes the need to translate research into workplace application if it is to impact worker safety and well-being.
Adhering to the mission, NIOSH seeks to collect new information through a project tilted “Survey of Engineered Nanomaterial Occupational Safety and Health Practices.” The goal of this project is to assess the relevance and impact of NIOSH's contribution to guidelines and risk mitigation practices for safe handling of engineered nanomaterials in the workplace. The intended use of this data is to inform NIOSH's research agenda to enhance its relevance and impact on worker safety and health in the context of engineered nanomaterials.
NIOSH will survey companies who manufacture, distribute, fabricate, formulate, use or provide services related to engineered nanomaterials. The analysis will describe the survey sample, response rates, and types of company by industry and size. Further analysis will focus on identifying the types of engineered nanomaterials being used in industry and the types of occupational safety and health practices being implemented. After analysis, NIOSH will use the information to develop a final report. This project will also help evaluate the influence of NIOSH products, services, and outputs on industry occupational safety and health practices.
Under this project, NIOSH will conduct the following activities and data collections:
(1) Company Pre-calls. Sampled companies will be contacted to identify the person who will complete the survey and to ascertain whether or not the company handles engineered nanomaterials.
(2) Survey. A web-based questionnaire, with a mail option, will be administered to companies. The purpose of the survey is to learn directly from companies about their use of NIOSH materials and their occupational safety and health practices concerning engineered nanomaterials.
A sample of 600 companies will be compiled from lists of industry associations, research reports, marketing databases, and web-based searches. Of the 600 selected companies we anticipate that 500 will complete the survey. The company pre-call is expected to require 5 minutes to complete. The survey is expected to require 20 minutes to complete; including the time it may take respondents to look-up and retrieve needed information. The estimated annualized burden hours for the respondents' time to participate in this information collection is 217 hours. There are no costs to the responders other than their time.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted 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 notice for the proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address any of the following: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to
National Youth Tobacco Survey (NYTS) 2017 Computer Based Pilot—New—National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Tobacco use is a major preventable cause of morbidity and mortality in the U.S.A limited number of health risk behaviors, including tobacco use, account for the overwhelming majority of immediate and long-term sources of morbidity and mortality. Because the majority of tobacco users begin using tobacco before the age of 18, there is a critical need for public health programs directed towards youth, and for information to support these programs.
In 1999, 2000, and 2002, the American Legacy Foundation funded surveys to assess tobacco use among adolescents. Building on these efforts, CDC conducted the National Youth Tobacco Survey (NYTS, OMB No. 0920-0621) in 2004, 2006, 2009, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016. At present, the NYTS is the most comprehensive source of nationally representative tobacco data among students in grades 9-12, moreover, the NYTS is the only national source of such data for students in grades 6-8. The NYTS has provided national estimates of tobacco use behaviors, information about exposure to pro- and anti-tobacco influences, information about racial and ethnic disparities in tobacco-related topics, and most recently, estimates of use of emerging products such as water pipes (hookahs) and electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes). Information collected through the NYTS is used by CDC, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and public health practitioners and researchers to identify and monitor trends over time, to inform the development of tobacco cessation programs for youth, and to evaluate the effectiveness of existing interventions and programs.
The NYTS is currently conducted by a paper and pencil (PAPI) method in a classroom setting, scheduled by each school. At this time, many schools have experience with electronic technologies that offer several potential advantages compared to PAPI survey administration. For example, electronic information collection methods support conditional `skip logic' routing and adaptive survey design, and may improve respondent satisfaction, data reliability, and data management. As a result, CDC plans to conduct a computer based pilot of the 2017 NTYS using hand-held computer tablets. The specific aims of the 2017 NYTS pilot are to (1) assess respondent burden; (2) determine the reliability and efficiencies of electronic mode data collection; (3) assess the reliability and validity of survey results obtained from electronic data; (4) assess the cost-effectiveness of electronic administration; (5) measure the length of time between data collection and dissemination of findings; and (6) assess student expectations about survey participation, given changes in classroom technology.
The computer-based pilot study is designed to complement the ongoing, paper-based NYTS. In 2017, the PAPI version of the NYTS will be administered as usual according to established methods (OMB No. 0920-16BDT, exp. 1/31/2018). Sampling, recruitment, and survey administration for both studies will be coordinated to prevent overlap, maximize participation, and maximize the comparison of results. The sampling vendor for the traditional NYTS will sample from the NYTS sampling frame, assigning a smaller population to participate in the pilot study. The sample for the pilot study will be approximately 25% of the size of the sample for the paper-based NYTS. The samples for each mode of the survey will be drawn at the same time to ensure that the same schools are not approached for the different versions. Additionally, the paper version of the survey will start collecting data prior to the pilot version beginning data collection to ensure schools in the same district do not face multiple collectors during the same time period.
The 2017 computer-based pilot of the NYTS will be conducted among a nation-wide sample of students attending public, private, and charter schools in grades 6-12. Participating students will complete the survey in person in a classroom setting using computer tablets provided by CDC's information collection contractor. The tablets will be distributed at the beginning of the class session and returned at the end of the class session. This is similar to administration of the PAPI NYTS, in which a paper questionnaire booklet is distributed to students at the beginning of a class session, completed, and returned at the end of the session.
The content of the 2017 pilot survey will mirror the paper-based survey. The questions, developed in cooperation with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), examine the following topics: Use of cigarettes, smokeless tobacco, cigars, pipes, bidis, snus, hookahs, electronic vapor products, and dissolvable tobacco products; knowledge and attitudes; media and advertising; access to tobacco products; secondhand smoke exposure; and cessation. In addition, specific questions will be included in the pilot survey to better understand respondents' feelings
Findings from the NYTS pilot will be used to assess the feasibility of conducting the computer-based NYTS compared to the paper-based survey. Results will also be used to help evaluate the impact of automated collection techniques and computer-based survey administration on response burden. After data collection, the computer-based data will be compared to the paper-based data to determine whether the computer-based and paper-based survey are equally effective, or if prevalence estimates of tobacco usage among youth will be significantly different depending on the mode of the survey data collection.
OMB approval will be requested for one year. There are no changes in the estimated burden per response for any type of respondent compared to the paper version. Participation is voluntary and there are no costs to respondents other than their time. The estimated annualized burden hours for this data collection are 3,689 hours.
Administration for Children and Families, HHS.
Notice.
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is extending the period to submit comments responsive to the Request for Information, published in the
The comment period for the Request for Information has been extended to May 9, 2017. To receive consideration comments must be received no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on that date.
Written comments may be submitted through any of the methods specified below. However, electronic submission is preferred. Please do not duplicate comments.
Camille Loya, Director Division of Policy, Administration for Native Americans,
HHS published a Request for Information (RFI) in the
HHS received feedback that the original comment period of 60 days was insufficient to provide for comprehensive and responsive input, particularly from AI/AN elected representatives and leadership. Therefore, HHS is extending the comment period for an additional 60 days to maximize the opportunity for all interested parties to collect relevant data and submit information and feedback in response to the RFI, including the nine specific topical areas for which input is sought.
Office of Head Start (OHS), Administration for Children and Families, HHS.
Notice of meetings.
Pursuant to the Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act of 2007, Public Law 110-134, notice is hereby given of two 1-day Tribal Consultation Sessions to be held between the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and Families, OHS leadership and the leadership of Tribal Governments operating Head Start (including Early Head Start) programs. The purpose of these Consultation Sessions is to discuss ways to better meet the needs of American Indian and Alaska Native children and their families, taking into consideration funding allocations, distribution formulas, and other issues affecting the delivery of Head Start services in their geographic locations [42 U.S.C. 9835, Section 640(l)(4)].
Angie Godfrey, Regional Program Manager, Region XI/AIAN, Office of Head Start, email
HHS announces OHS Tribal Consultations for leaders of Tribal Governments operating Head Start and Early Head Start programs. The agenda for the scheduled OHS Tribal Consultations in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and Spokane, Washington, will be organized around the statutory purposes of Head Start Tribal Consultations related to meeting the needs of American Indian and Alaska Native children and families, taking into consideration funding allocations, distribution formulas, and other issues affecting the delivery of Head Start services in their geographic locations. In addition, OHS will share actions taken and in progress to address the issues and concerns raised in the 2016 OHS Tribal Consultations.
The Consultation Sessions will be conducted with elected or appointed leaders of Tribal Governments and their designated representatives [42 U.S.C. 9835, Section 640(l)(4)(A)]. Designees must have a letter from the Tribal Government authorizing them to represent the tribe. Tribal Governments must submit the designee letter at least 3 days in advance of the Consultation Session to Angie Godfrey at
A detailed report of each Consultation Session will be prepared and made available within 45 days of the Consultation Sessions to all Tribal Governments receiving funds for Head Start and Early Head Start programs. Tribes wishing to submit written testimony for the report should send testimony to Angie Godfrey at
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of Adolescent Health, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services, announces plans to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Prior to submitting that ICR to OMB, OS seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate, below, or any other aspect of the ICR.
Comments on the ICR must be received on or before April 11, 2017.
Submit your comments to
Information Collection Clearance staff,
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the document identifier HHS-OS-0990-0452-60D for reference.
The findings from these analyses of program impacts will be of interest to the general public, to policymakers, and to schools and other organizations interested in supporting a comprehensive approach to teen pregnancy prevention.
OS specifically requests comments on (1) the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions, (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden, (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
Notice.
The Acting Secretary is issuing a Declaration pursuant to the Public Health Service Act to provide liability immunity protection for activities related to Zika Virus vaccines consistent with the terms of the Declaration.
The Declaration is effective as of August 1, 2016.
George Korch, Ph.D., Acting Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20201; Telephone: 202-205-2882.
The Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) to issue a Declaration to provide liability immunity to certain individuals and entities (Covered Persons) against any claim of loss caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the administration or use of medical countermeasures (Covered Countermeasures), except for claims that meet the PREP Act's definition of willful misconduct. The Secretary may, through publication in the
The PREP Act was enacted on December 30, 2005, as Public Law 109-148, Division C, Section 2. It amended the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, adding Section 319F-3, which addresses liability immunity, and Section 319F-4, which creates a compensation program. These sections are codified in the U.S. Code as 42 U.S.C. 247d-6d and 42 U.S.C. 247d-6e, respectively.
The Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Reauthorization Act (PAHPRA), Public Law 113-5, was enacted on March 13, 2013. Among other things, PAHPRA added sections 564A and 564B to the Federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic (FD&C) Act to provide new authorities for the emergency use of approved products in emergencies and products held for emergency use. PAHPRA accordingly amended the definitions of “Covered Countermeasures” and “qualified pandemic and epidemic products” in Section 319F-3 of the Public Health Service Act (PREP Act provisions), so that products made available under these new FD&C Act authorities could be covered under PREP Act Declarations. PAHPRA also extended the definition of qualified pandemic and epidemic products that may be covered under a PREP Act Declaration to include products or technologies intended to enhance the use or effect of a drug, biological product, or device used against the pandemic or epidemic or against adverse events from these products.
Zika virus is a mosquito-borne flavivirus that usually causes mild symptoms, but has been determined to cause microcephaly and other severe brain abnormalities in fetuses and infants born to women infected with Zika virus before birth. Zika virus has also been associated with other adverse pregnancy outcomes, including miscarriage, stillbirth, and congenital Zika syndrome, and with Guillain-Barre Syndrome. Beginning in 2015, Brazil has experienced the largest outbreak of disease caused by Zika infection since its discovery in Uganda in 1947. On February 1, 2016, the World Health Organization (WHO) determined that microcephaly cases and other neurologic disorders reported in Brazil constituted a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) in accordance with the International
Unless otherwise noted, all statutory citations below are to the U.S. Code.
Before issuing a Declaration under the PREP Act, the Secretary is required to determine that a disease or other health condition or threat to health constitutes a public health emergency or that there is a credible risk that the disease, condition, or threat may constitute such an emergency. This determination is separate and apart from a Declaration issued by the Secretary under Section 319 of the PHS Act that a disease or disorder presents a public health emergency or that a public health emergency, including significant outbreaks of infectious diseases or bioterrorist attacks, otherwise exists, or other Declarations or determinations made under other authorities of the Secretary. Accordingly, in Section I, the Acting Secretary determines that there is a credible risk that the spread of Zika virus and the resulting disease may constitute a public health emergency.
In deciding whether and under what circumstances to issue a Declaration with respect to a Covered Countermeasure, the Secretary must consider the desirability of encouraging the design, development, clinical testing or investigation, manufacture, labeling, distribution, formulation, packaging, marketing, promotion, sale, purchase, donation, dispensing, prescribing, administration, licensing, and use of the countermeasure. In Section II, the Acting Secretary states that he has considered these factors.
The Secretary must recommend the activities for which the PREP Act's liability immunity is in effect. These activities may include, under conditions as the Secretary may specify, the manufacture, testing, development, distribution, administration, or use of one or more Covered Countermeasures (Recommended Activities). In Section III, the Acting Secretary recommends activities for which the immunity is in effect.
The Secretary must also state that liability protections available under the PREP Act are in effect with respect to the Recommended Activities. These liability protections provide that, “[s]ubject to other provisions of [the PREP Act], a covered person shall be immune from suit and liability under federal and state law with respect to all claims for loss caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the administration to or use by an individual of a covered countermeasure if a Declaration has been issued with respect to such countermeasure.” In Section IV, the Acting Secretary states that liability protections are in effect with respect to the Recommended Activities.
The PREP Act's liability immunity applies to “Covered Persons” with respect to administration or use of a Covered Countermeasure. The term “Covered Persons” has a specific meaning and is defined in the PREP Act to include manufacturers, distributors, program planners, and qualified persons, and their officials, agents, and employees, and the United States. The PREP Act further defines the terms “manufacturer,” “distributor,” “program planner,” and “qualified person” as described below.
A manufacturer includes a contractor or subcontractor of a manufacturer; a supplier or licenser of any product, intellectual property, service, research tool or component or other article used in the design, development, clinical testing, investigation or manufacturing of a Covered Countermeasure; and any or all of the parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, successors, and assigns of a manufacturer.
A distributor means a person or entity engaged in the distribution of drugs, biologics, or devices, including but not limited to: Manufacturers; repackers; common carriers; contract carriers; air carriers; own-label distributors; private-label distributors; jobbers; brokers; warehouses and wholesale drug warehouses; independent wholesale drug traders; and retail pharmacies.
A program planner means a state or local government, including an Indian tribe; a person employed by the state or local government; or other person who supervises or administers a program with respect to the administration, dispensing, distribution, provision, or use of a Covered Countermeasure, including a person who establishes requirements, provides policy guidance, or supplies technical or scientific advice or assistance or provides a facility to administer or use a Covered Countermeasure in accordance with the Secretary's Declaration. Under this definition, a private sector employer or community group or other “person” can be a program planner when it carries out the described activities.
A qualified person means a licensed health professional or other individual authorized to prescribe, administer, or dispense Covered Countermeasures under the law of the state in which the Covered Countermeasure was prescribed, administered, or dispensed; or a person within a category of persons identified as qualified in the Secretary's Declaration. Under this definition, the Secretary can describe in the Declaration other qualified persons, such as volunteers, who are Covered Persons. Section V describes other qualified persons covered by this Declaration.
The PREP Act also defines the word “person” as used in the Act: A person includes an individual, partnership, corporation, association, entity, or public or private corporation, including a federal, state, or local government agency or department.
Section V describes Covered Persons under the Declaration, including Qualified Persons. We have revised the last category to remove the specific references to emergency use instructions and orders issued under Section 564A of the FD&C Act, to clarify that any activities in accordance with that section are covered.
As noted above, Section III describes the Secretary's Recommended Activities for which liability immunity is in effect. This section identifies the Covered
A qualified pandemic or epidemic product means a drug or device, as defined in the FD&C Act or a biological product, as defined in the PHS Act that is: (i) Manufactured, used, designed, developed, modified, licensed or procured to diagnose, mitigate, prevent, treat, or cure a pandemic or epidemic or limit the harm such a pandemic or epidemic might otherwise cause; (ii) manufactured, used, designed, developed, modified, licensed, or procured to diagnose, mitigate, prevent, treat, or cure a serious or life-threatening disease or condition caused by such a drug, biological product, or device; (iii) or a product or technology intended to enhance the use or effect of such a drug, biological product, or device.
A security countermeasure is a drug or device, as defined in the FD&C Act or a biological product, as defined in the PHS Act that: (i)(a) The Secretary determines to be a priority to diagnose, mitigate, prevent, or treat harm from any biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent identified as a material threat by the Secretary of Homeland Security, or (b) to diagnose, mitigate, prevent, or treat harm from a condition that may result in adverse health consequences or death and may be caused by administering a drug, biological product, or device against such an agent; and (ii) is determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services to be a necessary countermeasure to protect public health.
To be a Covered Countermeasure, qualified pandemic or epidemic products or security countermeasures also must be approved or cleared under the FD&C Act; licensed under the PHS Act; or authorized for emergency use under Sections 564, 564A, or 564B of the FD&C Act.
A qualified pandemic or epidemic product also may be a Covered Countermeasure when it is subject to an exemption (that is, it is permitted to be used under an Investigational Drug Application or an Investigational Device Exemption) under the FD&C Act and is the object of research for possible use for diagnosis, mitigation, prevention, treatment, or cure, or to limit harm of a pandemic or epidemic or serious or life-threatening condition caused by such a drug or device. A security countermeasure also may be a Covered Countermeasure if it may reasonably be determined to qualify for approval or licensing within 10 years after the Department's determination that procurement of the countermeasure is appropriate.
Section VI lists the Zika Virus Vaccines that are Covered Countermeasures.
Section VI also refers to the statutory definitions of Covered Countermeasures to make clear that these statutory definitions limit the scope of Covered Countermeasures. Specifically, the Declaration notes that Covered Countermeasures must be “qualified pandemic or epidemic products,” or “security countermeasures,” or drugs, biological products, or devices authorized for investigational or emergency use, as those terms are defined in the PREP Act, the FD&C Act, and the Public Health Service Act.
The Secretary may specify that liability immunity is in effect only to Covered Countermeasures obtained through a particular means of distribution. The Declaration states that liability immunity is afforded to Covered Persons for Recommended Activities related to: (a) Present or future federal contracts, cooperative agreements, grants, other transactions, interagency agreements, or memoranda of understanding or other federal agreements; or (b) Activities authorized in accordance with the public health and medical response of the Authority Having Jurisdiction to prescribe, administer, deliver, distribute, or dispense the Covered Countermeasures following a Declaration of an emergency.
Section VII defines the terms “Authority Having Jurisdiction” and “Declaration of an emergency.” We have specified in the definition that Authorities having jurisdiction include federal, state, local, and tribal authorities and institutions or organizations acting on behalf of those governmental entities.
For governmental program planners only, liability immunity is afforded only to the extent they obtain Covered Countermeasures through voluntary means, such as (1) donation; (2) commercial sale; (3) deployment of Covered Countermeasures from federal stockpiles; or (4) deployment of donated, purchased, or otherwise voluntarily obtained Covered Countermeasures from state, local, or private stockpiles. This last limitation on distribution is intended to deter program planners that are government entities from seizing privately held stockpiles of Covered Countermeasures. It does not apply to any other Covered Persons, including other program planners who are not government entities.
The Secretary must identify, for each Covered Countermeasure, the categories of diseases, health conditions, or threats to health for which the Secretary recommends the administration or use of the countermeasure. In Section VIII, the Acting Secretary states that the disease threat for which he recommends administration or use of the Covered Countermeasures is Zika virus.
The PREP Act does not explicitly define the term “administration” but does assign the Secretary the responsibility to provide relevant conditions in the Declaration. In Section IX, the Acting Secretary defines “Administration of a Covered Countermeasure:”
Administration of a Covered Countermeasure means physical provision of the countermeasures to recipients, or activities and decisions directly relating to public and private delivery, distribution, and dispensing of the countermeasures to recipients; management and operation of countermeasure programs; or management and operation of locations for purpose of distributing and dispensing countermeasures.
The definition of “administration” extends only to physical provision of a countermeasure to a recipient, such as vaccination or handing drugs to patients, and to activities related to management and operation of programs and locations for providing countermeasures to recipients, such as decisions and actions involving security and queuing, but only insofar as those activities directly relate to the countermeasure activities. Claims for which Covered Persons are provided immunity under the Act are losses caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the administration to or use by an individual of a Covered Countermeasure consistent with the terms of a Declaration issued under the Act. Under the definition, these liability claims are precluded if they allege an injury caused by physical provision of a countermeasure to a recipient, or if the claims are directly due to conditions of
Thus, it is the Acting Secretary's interpretation that, when a Declaration is in effect, the Act precludes, for example, liability claims alleging negligence by a manufacturer in creating a vaccine, or negligence by a health care provider in prescribing the wrong dose, absent willful misconduct. Likewise, the Act precludes a liability claim relating to the management and operation of a countermeasure distribution program or site, such as a slip-and-fall injury or vehicle collision by a recipient receiving a countermeasure at a retail store serving as an administration or dispensing location that alleges, for example, lax security or chaotic crowd control. However, a liability claim alleging an injury occurring at the site that was not directly related to the countermeasure activities is not covered, such as a slip and fall with no direct connection to the countermeasure's administration or use. In each case, whether immunity is applicable will depend on the particular facts and circumstances.
The Secretary must identify, for each Covered Countermeasure specified in a Declaration, the population or populations of individuals for which liability immunity is in effect with respect to administration or use of the countermeasure. This section explains which individuals should use the countermeasure or to whom the countermeasure should be administered—in short, those who should be vaccinated or take a drug or other countermeasure. Section X provides that the population includes “any individual who uses or who is administered a Covered Countermeasure in accordance with the Declaration.”
In addition, the PREP Act specifies that liability immunity is afforded: (1) To manufacturers and distributors without regard to whether the countermeasure is used by or administered to this population; and (2) to program planners and qualified persons when the countermeasure is either used by or administered to this population or the program planner or qualified person reasonably could have believed the recipient was in this population. Section X includes these statutory conditions in the Declaration for clarity.
The Secretary must identify, for each Covered Countermeasure specified in the Declaration, the geographic area or areas for which liability immunity is in effect with respect to administration or use of the countermeasure, including, as appropriate, whether the Declaration applies only to individuals physically present in the area or, in addition, applies to individuals who have a described connection to the area. Section XI provides that liability immunity is afforded for the administration or use of a Covered Countermeasure without geographic limitation. This could include claims related to administration or use in countries outside the U.S. It is possible that claims may arise in regard to administration or use of the Covered Countermeasures outside the U.S. that may be resolved under U.S. law.
In addition, the PREP Act specifies that liability immunity is afforded: (1) To manufacturers and distributors without regard to whether the countermeasure is used by or administered to individuals in the geographic areas; and (2) to program planners and qualified persons when the countermeasure is either used or administered in the geographic areas or the program planner or qualified person reasonably could have believed the countermeasure was used or administered in the areas. Section XI includes these statutory conditions in the Declaration for clarity.
The Secretary must identify, for each Covered Countermeasure, the period or periods during which liability immunity is in effect, designated by dates, milestones, or other description of events, including factors specified in the PREP Act. Section XII extends the effective time period for different means of distribution of Covered Countermeasures for 24 months.
The Secretary must specify a date after the ending date of the effective period of the Declaration that is reasonable for manufacturers to arrange for disposition of the Covered Countermeasure, including return of the product to the manufacturer, and for other Covered Persons to take appropriate actions to limit administration or use of the Covered Countermeasure. In addition, the PREP Act specifies that for Covered Countermeasures that are subject to a Declaration at the time they are obtained for the Strategic National Stockpile (SNS) under 42 U.S.C. 247d-6b(a), the effective period of the Declaration extends through the time the countermeasure is used or administered pursuant to a distribution or release from the stockpile. Liability immunity under the provisions of the PREP Act and the conditions of the Declaration continues during these additional time periods. Thus, liability immunity is afforded during the “Effective Time Period,” described under XII of the Declaration, plus the “Additional Time Period” described under Section XIII of the Declaration.
Section XIII provides for 12 months as the additional time period of coverage after expiration of the Declaration. Section XIII also explains the extended coverage that applies to any products obtained for the Strategic National Stockpile during the effective period of the Declaration.
Section 319F-4 of the PREP Act authorizes the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP) to provide benefits to eligible individuals who sustain a serious physical injury or die as a direct result of the administration or use of a Covered Countermeasure. Compensation under the CICP for an injury directly caused by a Covered Countermeasure is based on the requirements set forth in this Declaration, the administrative rules for the Program, and the statute. To show direct causation between a Covered Countermeasure and a serious physical injury, the statute requires “compelling, reliable, valid, medical and scientific evidence.” The administrative rules for the Program further explain the necessary requirements for eligibility under the CICP. Please note that, by statute, requirements for compensation under the CICP may not align with the requirements for liability immunity provided under the PREP Act. Section XIV, “Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program” explains the types of injury and standard of evidence needed to be considered for compensation under the CICP.
Further, the administrative rules for the CICP specify if countermeasures are administered or used outside the United States, only otherwise eligible individuals at American embassies, military installations abroad (such as military bases, ships, and camps) or at North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) installations (subject to the NATO Status of Forces Agreement) where American servicemen and servicewomen are stationed may be considered for CICP benefits. Other individuals outside the United States may not be eligible for CICP benefits.
The Secretary may amend any portion of this Declaration through publication in the
Declaration for Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act Coverage for Zika Virus Vaccines.
I have determined that there is a credible risk that the spread of Zika virus and the resulting disease or conditions may in the future constitute a public health emergency.
I have considered the desirability of encouraging the design, development, clinical testing, or investigation, manufacture, labeling, distribution, formulation, packaging, marketing, promotion, sale, purchase, donation, dispensing, prescribing, administration, licensing, and use of the Covered Countermeasures.
I recommend, under the conditions stated in this Declaration, the manufacture, testing, development, distribution, administration, and use of the Covered Countermeasures.
Liability immunity as prescribed in the PREP Act and conditions stated in this Declaration is in effect for the Recommended Activities described in Section III.
Covered Persons who are afforded liability immunity under this Declaration are “manufacturers,” “distributors,” “program planners,” “qualified persons,” and their officials, agents, and employees, as those terms are defined in the PREP Act, and the United States.
In addition, I have determined that the following additional persons are qualified persons: (a) Any person authorized in accordance with the public health and medical emergency response of the Authority Having Jurisdiction, as described in Section VII below, to prescribe, administer, deliver, distribute or dispense the Covered Countermeasures, and their officials, agents, employees, contractors and volunteers, following a Declaration of an emergency; (b) any person authorized to prescribe, administer, or dispense the Covered Countermeasures or who is otherwise authorized to perform an activity under an Emergency Use Authorization in accordance with Section 564 of the FD&C Act; (c) any person authorized to prescribe, administer, or dispense Covered Countermeasures in accordance with Section 564A of the FD&C Act.
Covered Countermeasures are the following Zika Virus vaccines, all components and constituent materials of these vaccines, and all devices and their constituent components used in the administration of these vaccines:
(1) Whole-particle inactivated virus vaccines
(2) Live-attenuated vaccines
(3) mRNA vaccines
(4) DNA vaccines
(5) Subunit vaccines
(6) Peptide vaccines
(7) Virus like particles vaccines
(8) Nanoparticle vaccines.
Covered Countermeasures must be “qualified pandemic or epidemic products,” or “security countermeasures,” or drugs, biological products, or devices authorized for investigational or emergency use, as those terms are defined in the PREP Act, the FD&C Act, and the Public Health Service Act.
I have determined that liability immunity is afforded to Covered Persons only for Recommended Activities involving Covered Countermeasures that are related to:
(a) Present or future federal contracts, cooperative agreements, grants, other transactions, interagency agreements, memoranda of understanding, or other federal agreements; or,
(b) Activities authorized in accordance with the public health and medical response of the Authority Having Jurisdiction to prescribe, administer, deliver, distribute or dispense the Covered Countermeasures following a Declaration of an emergency.
i. The Authority Having Jurisdiction means the public agency or its delegate that has legal responsibility and authority for responding to an incident, based on political or geographical (
ii. A Declaration of Emergency means any Declaration by any authorized local, regional, state, or federal official of an emergency specific to events that indicate an immediate need to administer and use the Covered Countermeasures, with the exception of a federal Declaration in support of an Emergency Use Authorization under Section 564 of the FD&C Act unless such Declaration specifies otherwise;
I have also determined that for governmental program planners only, liability immunity is afforded only to the extent such program planners obtain Covered Countermeasures through voluntary means, such as (1) donation; (2) commercial sale; (3) deployment of Covered Countermeasures from federal stockpiles; or (4) deployment of donated, purchased, or otherwise voluntarily obtained Covered Countermeasures from state, local, or private stockpiles.
The category of disease, health condition, or threat for which I recommend the administration or use of the Covered Countermeasures is Zika Virus.
Administration of the Covered Countermeasure means physical provision of the countermeasures to recipients, or activities and decisions directly relating to public and private delivery, distribution and dispensing of the countermeasures to recipients, management and operation of countermeasure programs, or management and operation of locations for purpose of distributing and dispensing countermeasures.
The populations of individuals include any individual who uses or is administered the Covered Countermeasures in accordance with this Declaration.
Liability immunity is afforded to manufacturers and distributors without
Liability immunity is afforded for the administration or use of a Covered Countermeasure without geographic limitation.
Liability immunity is afforded to manufacturers and distributors without regard to whether the countermeasure is used by or administered in any designated geographic area; liability immunity is afforded to program planners and qualified persons when the countermeasure is used by or administered in any designated geographic area, or the program planner or qualified person reasonably could have believed the recipient was in that geographic area.
Liability immunity for Covered Countermeasures through means of distribution, as identified in Section VII(a) of this Declaration, other than in accordance with the public health and medical response of the Authority Having Jurisdiction and extends for 24 months from the effective date of this Declaration.
Liability immunity for Covered Countermeasures administered and used in accordance with the public health and medical response of the Authority Having Jurisdiction begins with a Declaration and lasts through (1) the final day the emergency Declaration is in effect, or (2) 24 months from the effective date of this Declaration, whichever occurs first.
I have determined that an additional 12 months of liability protection is reasonable to allow for the manufacturer(s) to arrange for disposition of the Covered Countermeasure, including return of the Covered Countermeasures to the manufacturer, and for Covered Persons to take such other actions as are appropriate to limit the administration or use of the Covered Countermeasures.
Covered Countermeasures obtained for the Strategic Nations Stockpile (SNS) during the effective period of this Declaration are covered through the date of administration or use pursuant to a distribution or release from the SNS.
The PREP Act authorizes the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP) to provide benefits to certain individuals or estates of individuals who sustain a covered serious physical injury as the direct result of the administration or use of the Covered Countermeasures, and benefits to certain survivors of individuals who die as a direct result of the administration or use of the Covered Countermeasures. The causal connection between the countermeasure and the serious physical injury must be supported by compelling, reliable, valid, medical and scientific evidence in order for the individual to be considered for compensation. The CICP is administered by the Health Resources and Services Administration, within the Department of Health and Human Services. Information about the CICP is available at the toll-free number 1-855-266-2427 or
Amendments to this Declaration will be published in the
42 U.S.C. 247d-6d.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), 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
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) notifies federal agencies of the laboratories and Instrumented Initial Testing Facilities (IITF) currently certified to meet the standards of the Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs (Mandatory Guidelines).
A notice listing all currently HHS-certified laboratories and IITFs is published in the
If any laboratory or IITF has withdrawn from the HHS National Laboratory Certification Program (NLCP) during the past month, it will be listed at the end and will be omitted from the monthly listing thereafter.
This notice is also available on the Internet at
Giselle Hersh, Division of Workplace Programs, SAMHSA/CSAP, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 16N03A, Rockville, Maryland 20857; 240-276-2600 (voice).
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) notifies federal agencies of the laboratories and Instrumented Initial Testing Facilities (IITF) currently certified to meet the standards of the Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs (Mandatory Guidelines). The Mandatory Guidelines were first published in the
The Mandatory Guidelines were initially developed in accordance with Executive Order 12564 and section 503 of Public Law 100-71. The “Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs,” as amended in the revisions listed above, requires strict standards that laboratories and IITFs must meet in order to conduct drug and specimen validity tests on urine specimens for federal agencies.
To become certified, an applicant laboratory or IITF must undergo three rounds of performance testing plus an on-site inspection. To maintain that certification, a laboratory or IITF must participate in a quarterly performance testing program plus undergo periodic, on-site inspections.
Laboratories and IITFs in the applicant stage of certification are not to be considered as meeting the minimum requirements described in the HHS Mandatory Guidelines. A HHS-certified laboratory or IITF must have its letter of certification from HHS/SAMHSA (formerly: HHS/NIDA), which attests that it has met minimum standards.
In accordance with the Mandatory Guidelines dated November 25, 2008 (73 FR 71858), the following HHS-
* The Standards Council of Canada (SCC) voted to end its Laboratory Accreditation Program for Substance Abuse (LAPSA) effective May 12, 1998. Laboratories certified through that program were accredited to conduct forensic urine drug testing as required by U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations. As of that date, the certification of those accredited Canadian laboratories will continue under DOT authority. The responsibility for conducting quarterly performance testing plus periodic on-site inspections of those LAPSA-accredited laboratories was transferred to the U.S. HHS, with the HHS' NLCP contractor continuing to have an active role in the performance testing and laboratory inspection processes. Other Canadian laboratories wishing to be considered for the NLCP may apply directly to the NLCP contractor just as U.S. laboratories do.
Upon finding a Canadian laboratory to be qualified, HHS will recommend that DOT certify the laboratory (
The following laboratory has voluntarily withdrawn from the National Laboratory Certification Program, as of January 6, 2017:
Coast Guard, DHS.
Thirty-day notice requesting comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the
Comments must reach the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before March 13, 2017.
You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG-2016-0281] to the Coast Guard using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
(1)
(2)
(3)
A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the Internet at
Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of Information Management, telephone 202-475-3532, or fax 202-372-8405, for questions on these documents.
This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing the Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection.
The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. These comments will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICR referred to in this Notice.
We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number of this request, [USCG-2016-0281], and must be received by March 13, 2017.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at
This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (81 FR 28091, May 9, 2016) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited no comments. Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collection.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Request for applications; extension of application.
The Coast Guard extends the deadline for accepting applications for membership on the National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee. The Committee advises the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security on matters and actions concerning activities directly involved with or in support of the exploration of offshore mineral and energy resources insofar as they relate to matters within Coast Guard jurisdiction. Applicants selected for service on the National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee via this solicitation will not begin their respective terms until January 31, 2018.
Completed applications should reach the Coast Guard on or before April 11, 2017.
Applicants should send a cover letter expressing interest in an appointment to the National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee that also identifies under which membership category the applicant is applying, along with a resume detailing the applicant's experience via one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Mr. Patrick Clark, Alternate Designated Federal Officer of the National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee, Commandant, (CG-OES-2)/NOSAC U.S. Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., STOP 7509, Washington, DC 20593-7509; email
On November 4, 2106, the Coast Guard published a request in the
The National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee is a federal advisory committee established in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Title 5 U.S.C. Appendix) to advise the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security on matters and actions concerning activities directly involved with or in support of the exploration of offshore mineral and energy resources insofar as they relate to matters within Coast Guard jurisdiction.
The Committee normally meets twice a year: once in April in New Orleans, Louisiana, and then in November in Houston, Texas. Each National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee member serves a term of office up to three (3) years. Members may serve a maximum of two (2) consecutive terms. All members serve at their own expense and receive no salary or reimbursement of travel expenses, or other compensation from the Federal Government.
We will consider applications for the 5 positions listed below that will be vacant on January 31, 2018:
(a) One member representing companies, organizations, enterprises or similar entities engaged in offshore drilling;
(b) One member representing companies, organizations, enterprises or similar entities engaged in the production of petroleum;
(c) One member representing companies, organizations, enterprises or similar entities engaged in the construction of offshore facilities;
(d) One member representing companies, organizations, enterprises or similar entities engaged in the support, by offshore supply vessel or other vessels, of offshore operations; and,
(e) One member representing employees of companies, organizations, enterprises or similar entities engaged in offshore operations, who should have recent practical experience on vessels or units involved in the offshore industry.
To be eligible, applicants for positions (a-e) should be employed by companies, organizations, enterprises or similar entities associated with the exploration for, and the recovery of oil, gas and other mineral resources on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf; and have expertise, knowledge and experience regarding the technology, equipment and techniques that are used or are being developed for use in the exploration for, and the recovery of, offshore mineral resources.
The Department of Homeland Security does not discriminate in selection of Committee members on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, political affiliation, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, disabilities and genetic information, age membership in an employee organization, or any other non-merit factor. The Department of Homeland Security strives to achieve a widely diverse candidate pool for all of its recruitment actions.
If you are interested in applying to become a member of the Committee, send your cover letter and resume to Mr. Patrick Clark, Alternate Designated Federal Officer of the National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee, via one of the transmittal methods in the
Coast Guard, DHS.
Sixty-day notice requesting comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0102, National Response Resource Inventory, without change. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Before submitting this ICR to OIRA, the Coast Guard is inviting comments as described below.
Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before April 11, 2017.
You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG-2016-1093] to the Coast Guard using the Federal eRulemaking
A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the Internet at
Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of Information Management, telephone 202-475-3532, or fax 202-372-8405, for questions on these documents.
This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing the Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection.
The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. In response to your comments, we may revise this ICR or decide not to seek an extension of approval for the Collection. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.
We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2016-1093], and must be received by April 11, 2017.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Committee Management; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting.
The Commercial Customs Operations Advisory Committee (COAC) will meet in Washington, DC. The meeting will be open to the public.
The Commercial Customs Operations Advisory Committee (COAC) will meet on Wednesday, March 1, 2017, from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. EST. Please note that the meeting may close early if the committee has completed its business.
Please feel free to share this information with other interested members of your organization or association.
Members of the public who are pre-registered and later need to cancel, please do so in advance of the meeting by accessing one (1) of the following links:
The meeting will be held at the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Training and Development,
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact Ms. Wanda Tate, Office of Trade Relations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection at (202) 344-1661 as soon as possible.
To facilitate public participation, we are inviting public comment on the issues the committee will consider prior to the formulation of recommendations as listed in the “Agenda” section below.
Comments must be submitted in writing no later than February 22, 2017, and must be identified by Docket No. USCBP-2017-0001, and may be submitted by
•
•
•
•
There will be multiple public comment periods held during the meeting on March 1, 2017. Speakers are requested to limit their comments to two (2) minutes or less to facilitate greater participation. Contact the individual listed below to register as a speaker. Please note that the public comment period for speakers may end before the time indicated on the schedule that is posted on the CBP Web page,
Ms. Wanda Tate, Office of Trade Relations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Room 3.5A, Washington, DC 20229; telephone (202) 344-1661; facsimile (202) 325-4290.
Notice of this meeting is given under the
The COAC will hear from the following subcommittees on the topics listed below and then will review, deliberate, provide observations, and formulate recommendations on how to proceed:
1. The Trade Modernization Subcommittee will discuss the progress of the International Engagement and Trade Facilitation Working Group which is identifying examples of best practices in the U.S. and abroad that facilitate trade. The subcommittee will also discuss the progress of the Revenue Modernization Working Group which is generating advice pertaining to the strategic modernization of Customs and Border Protection's revenue collections process and systems. Additionally, the subcommittee will discuss the progress of the Rulings and Decisions Working Group which has been identifying process improvements in the receipt and issuance of Customs and Border Protection Headquarters' rulings and decisions. Finally, the subcommittee will discuss the progress of the newly formed E-Commerce Working Group.
2. The One U.S. Government Subcommittee (1USG) will discuss the progress of the Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) Working Group. The subcommittee will also discuss the progress and completion of the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE), core functions, and the Single Window Effort.
3. The Exports Subcommittee will discuss the final work of the Truck Manifest Sub-Working Group, which has been comparing the proposed truck manifest data elements with the Canadian elements. The Post Departure Filing Group will discuss its progress in finalizing the details of its Table Top Exercise.
4. The Trade Enforcement and Revenue Collection (TERC) Subcommittee will discuss the progress made on prior TERC recommendations and updates from the Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duty (AD/CVD), Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), and Forced Labor Working Groups.
5. The Global Supply Chain Subcommittee will present their involvement in the review of a draft supply chain security C-TPAT best practice framework, on-going input received regarding the C-TPAT minimum security criteria and the progress of the Pipeline Working Group.
6. The Trusted Trader Subcommittee will continue their discussion on their vision for an enhanced Trusted Trader concept that includes engagement with CBP to include relevant partner government agencies with a potential for international interoperability.
Meeting materials will be available by February 27, 2017, at:
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the State of Georgia (FEMA-4297-DR), dated January 26, 2017, and related determinations.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that the incident type for this declared disaster is now severe storms, tornadoes, straight-line winds, and flooding.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Mississippi (FEMA-4295-DR), dated January 25, 2017, and related determinations.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Mississippi is hereby amended to include the Public Assistance program for following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of January 25, 2017.
Forrest, Lamar, and Perry Counties for Public Assistance.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Georgia (FEMA-4297-DR), dated January 26, 2017, and related determinations.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Georgia is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of January 26, 2017.
Thomas and Worth Counties for Individual Assistance.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice.
This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for use to assist the homeless.
Juanita Perry, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 7266, Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 402-3970; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708-2565 (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), call the toll-free Title V information line at 800-927-7588 or send an email to
In accordance with 24 CFR part 581 and section 501 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11411), as amended, HUD is publishing this Notice to identify Federal buildings and other real property that HUD reviewed and/or published in 2016 that were determined suitable for use to assist the homeless. The properties were reviewed using information provided to HUD by Federal landholding agencies regarding unutilized and underutilized buildings and real property controlled by such agencies or by GSA regarding its inventory of excess or surplus Federal property.
In accordance with 24 CFR part 581.3(b) landholding agencies were required to notify HUD by December 31, 2016, the current availability status and classification of each property controlled by the Agencies that were published by HUD as suitable and available which remain available for application for use by the homeless.
Pursuant to 24 CFR part 581.8(d) and (e) HUD is required to publish a list of those properties reported by the Agencies and a list of suitable and
Where property is described as for “off-site use only” recipients of the property will be required to relocate the building to their own site at their own expense. Homeless assistance providers interested in any such property should send a written expression of interest to HHS, addressed to Theresa Ritta, Division of Property Management, Program Support Center, HHS, Room 5B-17, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857; (301) 443-2265. (This is not a toll-free number.) HHS will mail to the interested provider an application packet, which will include instructions for completing the application. In order to maximize the opportunity to utilize a suitable property, providers should submit their written expressions of interest as soon as possible. For complete details concerning the processing of applications, the reader is encouraged to refer to the interim rule governing this program, 24 CFR part 581.
For more information regarding particular properties identified in this Notice (
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined that there is a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the above-captioned investigation. The Commission has determined to modify the ALJ's initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 42) in part and to issue a general exclusion order (“GEO”), a limited exclusion order (“LEO”); and cease and desist orders (“CDOs”). The investigation is terminated.
Michael Liberman, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3115. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at
The Commission instituted this investigation under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (“section 337”), on June 25, 2015, based on a complaint filed by Pacific Bioscience Laboratories, Inc. of Redmond, Washington (“Complainant,” or “PBL”). 80 FR 36576-77 (Jun. 25, 2015). The amended complaint, as supplemented, alleges a violation of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain electric skin care devices, brushes and chargers therefor, and kits containing the same by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,320,691 (“the '691 patent”) and 7,386,906 (“the '906 patent”), and U.S. Design Patent No. D523,809 (“the D'809 patent”). The complaint further alleges violations of section 337 by reason of trade dress infringement, the threat or effect of which is to destroy or substantially injure an industry in the United States.
During the course of the investigation, eight of the respondents were terminated by consent order: Nutra-Luxe M.D., LLC of Fort Myers, Florida (Order No. 10) (consent order issued Jan. 5, 2016); SkincarebyAlana of Dana Point, California (Order No. 11) (consent order issued Oct. 6, 2015); Unicos USA, Inc. of LaHabra, California (Order No. 15) (consent order issued Oct. 20, 2015); H2PRO Beautylife, Inc. of Placentia, California (Order No. 19) (consent order issued Oct. 22, 2015); Jewlzie of New York, New York (Order No. 20) (consent order issued Oct. 22, 2015); Home Skinovations Inc. of Richmond Hill, Ontario, Canada, and Home Skinovations Ltd. of Yokneam, Israel (Order No. 30) (consent order issued Dec. 23, 2015); and Accord Media, LLC of New York, New York (Order No. 31) (consent order issued Dec. 23, 2015). Respondent RN Ventures Ltd. of London, United Kingdom, was terminated based on a settlement agreement (Order No. 36) (
The remaining ten respondents were found in default: Coreana Cosmetics Co., Ltd. of Chungcheongnam-do, Republic of Korea; Flageoli Classic Limited of Las Vegas, Nevada (“Flageoli”); Serious Skin Care, Inc. of Carson City, Nevada (“Serious Skin Care”); Shanghai Anzikang Electric Co., Ltd. of Shanghai, China (“Anzikang”); and Wenzhou Ai Er Electrical Technology Co., Ltd. of ZheJiang, China (Order No. 13) (
On February 18, 2016, complainant PBL filed a motion for summary determination of violation of Section 337 by the Defaulting Respondents. The Commission investigative attorney (“IA”) filed a response in support of the motion. No other responses were filed.
On April 11, 2016, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 42) granting complainant's motion for summary determination of violation and making recommendations regarding remedy and
On May 26, 2016, the Commission determined to review the ID in part, and issued a “Notice Of A Commission Determination To Review In Part An Initial Determination Granting Complainant's Motion For Summary Determination Of Violation Of Section 337; Request For Written Submissions On Remedy, The Public Interest, And Bonding” (“the Commission Notice”), in which the Commission specified the issues under review.
The Commission requested written submissions on remedy, public interest, and bonding.
Having examined the record in this investigation, the Commission has determined as follows:
(I) With respect to the ID's findings on the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement as to the patent-based allegations:
(A) To vacate the subsection labeled “Significant Investment.” on pages 21-22 of the ID.
(B) To take no position on, and therefore vacate, the ID's analysis and findings pertaining to the ID's determination that the “non-manufacturing expenditures would need to be backed out of the calculation of qualifying investments under subsections (A) as well as (B).” ID/RD at 25.
(C) To affirm the ID's finding that PBL satisfied the economic prong requirement under subsections 337(a)(3)(A) and (B).
(D) To take no position on, and therefore vacate, the ID's analysis and findings regarding whether PBL satisfied the economic prong requirement under subsection (C) of section 337(a)(3).
(II) With respect to all of the ID's findings pertaining to the alleged violation of PBL's asserted trade dress, the Commission takes no position.
(III) The Commission has corrected two typographical errors by substituting “Mot. Ex. 35 (Fabien Decl.) ¶¶ 31, 35” for “
Having reviewed the submissions on remedy, the public interest and bonding filed in response to the Commission's Notice, and the evidentiary record, the Commission has determined that the appropriate form of relief in this investigation is: (a) A GEO prohibiting the unlicensed importation of certain electric skin care devices, brushes or chargers therefor, or kits containing same that infringe one or more of claims 1, 4-6, 16, 22, 31, 33, 39-41, 42, 44-46, 49 of the '691 patent and claims 1-2, 4-5, and 7-15 of the '906 patent; (b) an LEO prohibiting the unlicensed entry of (i) infringing electric skin care devices, brushes or chargers therefor, or kits containing same that are covered by the claim of the D'809 patent and that are manufactured abroad by or on behalf of, or imported by or on behalf of respondents Beauty Tech; Flageoli; Our Family Jewels; Serious Skin Care; and Anzikang, and (ii) electric skin care devices, brushes or chargers therefor, or kits containing same that are covered by one or more of the Clarisonic Device Trade Dress or Clarisonic Charging Station Trade Dress and that are manufactured abroad by or on behalf of, or imported by or on behalf of respondents Our Family Jewels or Anzikang; and (c) cease and desist orders directed against each domestic and foreign Defaulting Respondent.
Chairman Schmidtlein and Commissioner Kieff each write separately to explain their views as to the basis for issuing the cease and desist orders.
The Commission has further determined that the public interest factors enumerated in subsections (d)(l), (f)(1), and (g)(1) (19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(l), (f)(1), (g)(1)) do not preclude issuance of the above-referenced remedial orders. Additionally, the Commission has determined that a bond in the amount of one hundred (100) percent of the entered value is required to permit temporary importation of the articles in question during the period of Presidential review (19 U.S.C. 1337(j)). The investigation is terminated.
The Commission's orders, opinion, and the record upon which it based its determination were delivered to the President and to the United States Trade Representative on the day of their issuance. The Commission has also notified the Secretary of the Treasury of the orders.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
February 15, 2017 at 10:00 a.m.
Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.
Open to the public.
In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Institution of investigation and scheduling of public hearing.
Following receipt of a request from the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) dated January 13, 2017 under section 332(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1332(g)), the U.S. International Trade Commission has instituted investigation no. 332-561,
All Commission offices, including the Commission's hearing rooms, are located in the United States International Trade Commission Building, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC. All written submissions should be addressed to the Secretary, United States International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
Project Leader David Coffin (202-205-2232 or
• Describe the broad landscape and recent developments of important business-to-business (B2B) digital technologies used primarily by firms (such as cloud-based data processing, storage, software applications, as well as communications services and digital services related to manufacturing and the Internet of Things);
• Provide an overview of developments in the provision of business-to-consumer (B2C) digital products and services used primarily by consumers and individuals;
• Provide information on the market for digital products and services, both in the United States and in key foreign markets, such as the European Union, China, Russia, Brazil, India, and Indonesia, for the purpose of assessing U.S. firms' global competitiveness;
• Provide up-to-date information on the rate of adoption of digital technologies, domestically and abroad, and document the importance of data-flows (domestic and cross-border) to a wide range of sectors across the economy; and
• Describe regulatory and policy measures currently in force in important markets abroad that may significantly impede digital trade. Such measures affecting digital trade might include: FDI and other market access restrictions; cross-border data flow limitations (data localization requirements, Internet blocking, censorship, cultural regulations of digital content, and data privacy protections); cybersecurity regulations and limitations on the choice of encryption technologies; ISP regulations, including limitations on ISPs intended to protect IPR; and rules determining liability for third-party content.
The Commission expects to transmit the first report to the USTR by August, 29, 2017.
The Commission will institute a second investigation at a later date for the purpose of preparing the second report. As requested by the USTR, the second report will build on the first report to:
• Provide qualitative, and to the extent possible, quantitative analysis of measures in key foreign markets (as identified in the first report) that affect the ability of U.S. firms to develop and/or supply B2B digital products and services abroad; and
• Assess, using case studies or other qualitative and quantitative methods, the impact of these measures on the competitiveness of U.S. firms engaged in the sale of digital products and services, as well as on international trade and investment flows associated with digital products and services related to significant B2B technologies.
The Commission will deliver to the USTR its report on the second investigation by October 28, 2018. More information regarding the second report will be made available when the second investigation is instituted.
The Commission will institute a third investigation at a later date for the purpose of preparing the third report. As requested by the USTR, the third report will build on the first and second reports to:
• Provide qualitative, and to the extent possible, quantitative analysis of measures in key foreign markets (as identified in the first report) that affect the ability of U.S. firms to develop and/or supply B2C digital products and services abroad; and
• Assess, using case studies or other qualitative and quantitative methods, the impact of these measures on the competitiveness of U.S. firms engaged in the sale of digital products and services, as well as on international trade and investment flows associated with digital products and services related to significant B2C technologies.
The Commission will deliver to the USTR its report on the third investigation by March 29, 2019.
In its request letter, the USTR stated that his office intends to make the Commission's first report available to the public in its entirety, and asked that the Commission not include any CBI or national security classified information in the report that it delivers to the USTR. All information, including CBI, submitted in this investigation may be disclosed to and used: (i) By the Commission, its employees and Offices, and contract personnel (a) for developing or maintaining the records of this or a related proceeding, or (b) in internal investigations, audits, reviews, and evaluations relating to the programs, personnel, and operations of the Commission including under 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. government employees and contract personnel for cybersecurity purposes. The Commission will not otherwise disclose any CBI in a manner that would reveal the operations of the firm supplying the information.
By order of the Commission.
On June 30, 2016, the Assistant Administrator, Division of Diversion Control, issued an Order to Show Cause to John P. Moore, III, M.D. (Respondent), of Centerville, Ohio. The Show Cause Order proposed the revocation of Respondent's DEA Certificate of Registration No. FM1335353. GX 2, at 1.
With respect to the Agency's jurisdiction, the Show Cause Order alleged that Respondent is the holder of Certificate of Registration No. FM1335353, which “is valid for Drug Schedules II-V,” at the address of 950 E. Alex Bell Road, Centerville, Ohio.
The Show Cause Order further alleged three separate grounds for the proposed action. First, it alleged that on April 5, 2016, Respondent pled guilty in the Ohio courts to four state felony counts of knowingly selling or offering to sell zolpidem and diazepam (both schedule IV controlled substances) and Suboxone (buprenorphine and naloxone, a schedule III controlled substance), as well as a further felony count of knowingly permitting real estate or other premises to be used for drug trafficking.
Second, the Show Cause Order alleged that on May 11, 2016, Respondent's Ohio medical license was suspended and that he is currently without authority to dispense controlled substances in the State in which he is registered with the Agency. GX 2, at 2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 802(21), 824(a)(3)). And third, the Show Cause Order alleged that Respondent has also been “convicted of felony Medicaid fraud,” thus rendering him subject to mandatory exclusion from participation in federal health care programs under 42 U.S.C. 1320a-7(a) and subjecting his registration to revocation for this reason as well. GX 2, at 2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(5)).
The Show Cause Order also notified Respondent of his right to request a hearing on the allegations of the Order or to submit a written statement of position while waiving his right to a hearing, the procedure for electing either option (including the time period for filing), and the consequence of failing to elect either option as well as the failure to do so in compliance with the Agency's regulations.
On or about June 30, 2016, the Government sent the Show Cause Order by certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed to Respondent at his residence in the Correctional Reception Center in Orient, Ohio. GX 5, Appendix A, at 1, 3-4. As evidenced by the signed return receipt card, on July 6, 2016, the Government accomplished service.
On August 11, 2016, Respondent filed a request for a hearing with the Office of Administrative Law Judges and the matter was assigned to Chief Administrative Law Judge John J. Mulrooney, II (hereinafter, CALJ). GXs 3, 4. In his hearing request, Respondent's counsel acknowledged that his request was out of time. GX 3, at 3. Respondent, however, invoked 21 CFR 1316.47(b), which provides that “[t]he Administrative Law Judge, upon request and showing of good cause, may grant a reasonable extension of the time allowed for a response to an Order to Show Cause.”
Upon receipt of Respondent's hearing request, the CALJ issued an order, directing,
Therein, the Government represented that the Show Cause Order had been served on Respondent by both certified mail which was received on July 6, 2016, as well as hand delivery by prison personnel on July 7, 2016.
Upon receipt of the Government's motion, the CALJ provided Respondent with an opportunity to respond to the Government's motion and Respondent filed a response. GXs 7, 8. Therein, Respondent explained that “[b]ecause of [his] preoccupation with defending the [State Board's] allegations, he did not notify his counsel of the [DEA] matter until [t]he morning of August 8, 2016,” on which date his “counsel immediately filed a request for [h]earing.” GX 8, at 1. After noting the Government's concession that the untimely filing of the request had not caused it prejudice, Respondent “denie[d]” that he sought the extension to obtain “a tactical advantage” and stated that he “is willing and able to defend his interests in this matter without a final determination by the Ohio Medical Board.”
Upon review, the CALJ granted the Government's motion to terminate the proceeding. GX 9, at 5. The CALJ noted that the language of 21 CFR 1316.47(b) “is arguably supportive of an interpretation limiting the authority to extend the time to file a hearing request only during the time when the [Administrative Law] Judge has potential jurisdiction over the case,
The CALJ then found that while Respondent initially argued that he “did not have timely access to his mail while incarcerated,” once the Government refuted this argument (by showing that he had been released from custody on July 27, 2016), he then changed his position and maintained that his “pre-occupation” with the Ohio Board's hearing had led him to miss the filing deadline.
Thereafter, the Government submitted a Request for Final Agency Action and an evidentiary record to my Office. As an initial matter, I agree with the CALJ that Respondent has failed to demonstrate “good cause” to excuse the untimely filing of his hearing request.
While DEA has interpreted the “good cause” standard for assessing the timeliness of hearing requests as encompassing cases of excusable neglect, mistake or inadvertence,
Accordingly, I conclude that Respondent has failed to established “good cause” to excuse his untimely filing and has therefore waived his right to a hearing.
Respondent is the holder of DEA Certificate of Registration No. FM1335353, as well DATA-Waiver identification number XM1335353. GX 1. Pursuant to his registration, Respondent is authorized to dispense controlled substances in schedules II through V as a practitioner and pursuant to his DATA-Waiver identification number, he is authorized to dispense or prescribe schedule III-V narcotic controlled substances which “have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration . . . specifically for use in maintenance or detoxification treatment” for up to 100 patients.” 21 CFR 1301.28(a) & (b)(iii);
On April 5, 2016, the Prosecuting Attorney for Greene County, Ohio issued an Information which charged Respondent with multiple felony controlled substance offenses under Ohio law; the Information also charged Respondent with Medicaid Fraud. GX 11, at 2-4 (citing Ohio Rev. Code § 2913.40(B) and (E);
The same day, Respondent appeared in court and pled guilty to each of these offenses.
Moreover, on May 11, 2016, the State Medical Board of Ohio issued Respondent a Notice of Immediate Suspension and Opportunity for Hearing, pursuant to which his license to practice medicine and surgery in the State was suspended. GX 6, Attachment 1, at 1. The Board's Order was based on Respondent's guilty pleas to the four felony counts of Trafficking in Drugs (Ohio Rev. Code § 2925.03) and the felony count of Permitting Drug Abuse (Ohio Rev. Code § 2925.13). According to the Medical Board's Web site of which I take official notice,
In addition, the record includes a July 29, 2016 letter from the Office of Inspector General, Department of Health and Human Services, to Respondent; the letter notified Respondent that he was “being excluded from participation in any capacity in the Medicare, Medicaid, and
Under Section 304(a) of the Controlled Substances Act, “[a] registration pursuant to section 823 of [the Act] to . . . dispense a controlled substance . . . may be suspended or revoked by the Attorney General upon a finding that the registrant—
(2) has been convicted of a felony under this subchapter . . . or any other law of the United States, or of any State, relating to any substance defined in this subchapter as a controlled substance . . . ;
(3) has had his State license or registration suspended, revoked, or denied by competent State authority and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the . . . dispensing of controlled substances . . . ;
(5) has been excluded . . . from participation in a program pursuant to section 1320a-7(a) of Title 42.
21 U.S.C. 824(a).
The Government has “the burden of proving that the requirements for such revocation or suspension pursuant to section 304(a) . . . (21 U.S.C. 824(a) . . .) are satisfied. 21 CFR 1301.44(e). Thus, even where a registrant waives his right to a hearing, the Government is required to produce substantial evidence to support the proposed action. In this matter, having considered the evidence submitted by the Government, I conclude that there are three separate and independent grounds to revoke Respondent's registration.
First, as found above, on May 26, 2016, the Common Pleas Court of Greene County, Ohio entered a judgment convicting Respondent of four counts of trafficking in drugs (suboxone, zolpidem, and diazepam) under Ohio law, as well as a single count of knowingly permitting real estate he owned or controlled to be used for drug trafficking.
Second, the evidence shows that based on his guilty pleas in the criminal case, on May 11, 2016, the Ohio Board immediately suspended Respondent's license to practice medicine and surgery in the State, and that on October 20, 2016, the Board revoked his license. By virtue of the Board's actions, Respondent lacks authority to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the State of Ohio, the State in which he is registered with DEA, and thus, he is no longer a practitioner within the meaning of the Act.
As the Agency has long held, “[s]tate authorization to dispense or otherwise handle controlled substances is a prerequisite to the issuance and maintenance of a Federal controlled substances registration.”
Finally, the evidence shows that Respondent has now been excluded “from participation in any Federal health care program” based on his state conviction for Medicaid fraud, as well as his felony convictions relating to the distribution of controlled substances.
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a), as well as 28 CFR 0.100(b), I order that DEA Certificate of Registration FM1335353 issued to John P. Moore, III, M.D., be, and it hereby is, revoked. I further order that DATA-Waiver identification number XM1335353 issued to John P. Moore, II, M.D., be, and it hereby is, revoked. This Order is effective immediately.
Bureau of Justice Statistics, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs,
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until April 11, 2017.
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 E. Ann Carson, Statistician, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 810 Seventh Street NW., Washington, DC 20531 (email:
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.
(a) As of December 31, the number of male and female inmates within their custody and under their jurisdiction with maximum sentences of more than one year, one year or less; and unsentenced inmates;
(b) The number of inmates housed in privately operated facilities, county or other local authority correctional facilities, or in other state or Federal facilities on December 31;
(c) Prison admission information in the calendar year for the following categories: New court commitments, parole violators, other conditional release violators returned, transfers from other jurisdictions, AWOLs and escapees returned, and returns from appeal and bond;
(d) Prison release information in the calendar year for the following categories: Expirations of sentence, commutations, other conditional releases, probations, supervised mandatory releases, paroles, other conditional releases, deaths by cause, AWOLs, escapes, transfers to other jurisdictions, and releases to appeal or bond;
(e) Number of inmates under jurisdiction on December 31 by race and Hispanic origin;
(f) Number of inmates under jurisdiction classified as non-citizens and/or under 18 years of age;
(g) Testing of incoming inmates for HIV; and HIV infection and AIDS cases on December 31; and
(h) The aggregated rated, operational, and/or design capacities, by sex, of the state/BOP's correctional facilities at year-end.
For the NPS-1B(T) form, five central reporters from the U.S. Territories and Commonwealths of Guam, Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa will be asked to provide information for the following categories for the calendar year just ended, and, if available, for the previous calendar year:
(a) As of December 31, the number of male and female inmates within their custody and under their jurisdiction with maximum sentences of more than one year, one year or less; and unsentenced inmates; and an assessment of the completeness of these counts (complete, partial, or estimated)
(b) The number of inmates under jurisdiction on December 31 but in the custody of facilities operated by other jurisdictions' authorities solely to reduce prison overcrowding;
(c) Number of inmates under jurisdiction on December 31 by race and Hispanic origin;
(d) The aggregated rated, operational, and/or design capacities, by sex, of the territory's/Commonwealth's correctional facilities at year-end.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics uses this information in published reports and for the U.S. Congress, Executive Office of the President, practitioners, researchers, students, the media, and others interested in criminal justice statistics.
5.
6.
On February 3, 2017, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed consent decree with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, in the lawsuit entitled
The United States and the State of Indiana filed this lawsuit against the Sanitary District of Hammond (“Defendant”) under the Clean Water Act. The complaint seeks injunctive relief and civil penalties for violations of Defendant's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit and for failing to completely and timely respond to an information request issued to the Defendant by the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
The consent decree requires the Defendant to perform injunctive relief, including developing and implementing a long term control plan to reduce or eliminate discharges of untreated sewage through permitted combined sewer overflow outfalls located in Defendant's wastewater conveyance and treatment system. The Defendant will pay civil penalties of $225,000 to the United States and $22,500 to the State, and will perform a State-only Supplemental Environmental Project. The Defendant will pay stipulated penalties of $313,500 to the United States to resolve the Defendant's alleged violations of a separate consent decree that the parties entered into in 1999. The Defendant will also install and operate a disinfection system on its existing combined sewer overflow storage basin.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the consent decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site:
For a paper copy of the entire Consent Decree with appendices (160 pages at 25 cents per page reproduction cost), please enclose a check or money order for $40.00 made payable to the United States Treasury. For a paper copy without the appendices and signature pages, the cost is $15.75.
Pursuant to the authority contained in Section 512 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1142, the 185th open meeting of the Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans (also known as the ERISA Advisory Council) will be held on March 22, 2017.
The meeting will take place in Room S-2508, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210 from 9:00 a.m. to noon and from 1:30 p.m. to approximately 3:30 p.m. in C-5320, Room 6, at the same address. The purpose of the open meeting is to welcome the new members, introduce the Council Chair and Vice Chair, and set the topics to be addressed by the Council in 2017.
Organizations or members of the public wishing to submit a written statement may do so by submitting 30 copies on or before March 15, 2017 to Larry Good, Executive Secretary, ERISA Advisory Council, U.S. Department of Labor, Suite N-5623, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210. Statements also may be submitted as email attachments in text or pdf format transmitted to
Individuals or representatives of organizations wishing to address the Advisory Council should forward their requests to the Executive Secretary or telephone (202) 693-8668. Oral presentations will be limited to ten minutes, time permitting, but an extended statement may be submitted for the record. Individuals with disabilities who need special accommodations, or others who need special accommodations, should contact the Executive Secretary by March 15.
Petitions have been filed with the Secretary of Labor under Section 221(a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (“the Act”) and are identified in the Appendix to this notice. Upon receipt of these petitions, the Director of the Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, has instituted investigations pursuant to Section 221(a) of the Act.
The purpose of each of the investigations is to determine whether the workers are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Title II, Chapter 2, of the Act. The investigations will further relate, as appropriate, to the determination of the date on which total or partial separations began or threatened to begin and the subdivision of the firm involved.
The petitioners or any other persons showing a substantial interest in the subject matter of the investigations may request a public hearing, provided such request is filed in writing with the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, no later than February 21, 2017.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments regarding the subject matter of the investigations to the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than February 21, 2017.
The petitions filed in this case are available for inspection at the Office of the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2273) the Department of Labor herein presents summaries of determinations regarding eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance for workers by (TA-W) number issued during the period of January 2, 2017 through January 13, 2017.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for workers of a primary firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(a) of the Act must be met.
I. Under Section 222(a)(2)(A), the following must be satisfied:
(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2) the sales or production, or both, of such firm have decreased absolutely; and
(3) One of the following must be satisfied:
(A) Imports of articles or services like or directly competitive with articles
(B) imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles into which one or more component parts produced by such firm are directly incorporated, have increased;
(C) imports of articles directly incorporating one or more component parts produced outside the United States that are like or directly competitive with imports of articles incorporating one or more component parts produced by such firm have increased;
(D) imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced directly using services supplied by such firm, have increased; and
(4) the increase in imports contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation and to the decline in the sales or production of such firm; or
II. Section 222(a)(2)(B) all of the following must be satisfied:
(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2) One of the following must be satisfied:
(A) There has been a shift by the workers' firm to a foreign country in the production of articles or supply of services like or directly competitive with those produced/supplied by the workers' firm;
(B) there has been an acquisition from a foreign country by the workers' firm of articles/services that are like or directly competitive with those produced/supplied by the workers' firm; and
(3) the shift/acquisition contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for adversely affected secondary workers of a firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(b) of the Act must be met.
(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2) the workers' firm is a Supplier or Downstream Producer to a firm that employed a group of workers who received a certification of eligibility under Section 222(a) of the Act, and such supply or production is related to the article or service that was the basis for such certification; and
(3) either—
(A) the workers' firm is a supplier and the component parts it supplied to the firm described in paragraph (2) accounted for at least 20 percent of the production or sales of the workers' firm; or
(B) a loss of business by the workers' firm with the firm described in paragraph (2) contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for adversely affected workers in firms identified by the International Trade Commission and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(e) of the Act must be met.
(1) The workers' firm is publicly identified by name by the International Trade Commission as a member of a domestic industry in an investigation resulting in—
(A) an affirmative determination of serious injury or threat thereof under section 202(b)(1);
(B) an affirmative determination of market disruption or threat thereof under section 421(b)(1); or
(C) an affirmative final determination of material injury or threat thereof under section 705(b)(1)(A) or 735(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b)(1)(A) and 1673d(b)(1)(A));
(2) the petition is filed during the 1-year period beginning on the date on which—
(A) a summary of the report submitted to the President by the International Trade Commission under section 202(f)(1) with respect to the affirmative determination described in paragraph (1)(A) is published in the
(B) notice of an affirmative determination described in subparagraph (1) is published in the
(3) the workers have become totally or partially separated from the workers' firm within—
(A) the 1-year period described in paragraph (2); or
(B) not withstanding section 223(b)(1), the 1-year period preceding the 1-year period described in paragraph (2).
The following certifications have been issued. The date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(A) (increased imports) of the Trade Act have been met.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(B) (shift in production or services) of the Trade Act have been met.
In the following cases, the investigation revealed that the eligibility criteria for worker adjustment assistance have not been met for the reasons specified.
The investigation revealed that the criterion under paragraph (a)(1), or (b)(1) (employment decline or threat of separation) of section 222 has not been met.
The investigation revealed that the criteria under paragraphs (a)(2)(A) (increased imports) and (a)(2)(B) (shift in production or services to a foreign country) of section 222 have not been met.
After notice of the petitions was published in the
The following determinations terminating investigations were issued because the petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn.
I hereby certify that the aforementioned determinations were issued during the period of
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Slope and Shaft Sinking Plans,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before March 13, 2017.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the
Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-MSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Slope and Shaft Sinking Plans information collection requirements contained in regulations 30 CFR 77.1900 that requires an underground coal mine operator to submit for approval a plan that will provide for the safety of workers in each slope or shaft that is commenced or extended from the surface to the underground coal mine. Each plan includes the name and location of the mine; name and address of the mine operator; a description of the construction work, methods to be used in construction of the slope or shaft, and whether all or part of the work will be performed by a contractor; the elevation, depth, and dimensions of the slope or shaft; the location and elevation of the coalbed; the general characteristics of the strata through which the slope or shaft will be developed; the type of equipment which the operator proposes to use; the system of ventilation to be used; and safeguards for the prevention of caving during excavation. Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 sections 101(a) and 103(h) authorize this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on March 31, 2017. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption 1985-68 to Permit Employee Benefit Plans to Invest in Customer Notes of Employers,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before March 13, 2017.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the
Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-EBSA, Office of Management and Budget,
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR seeks to maintain PRA authority for information collection activities related to Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption (PTE) 1985-68, which permits an employee benefit plan to invest in an employer's customer notes under circumstances the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and Internal Revenue Code of 1986 would otherwise prohibit. More specifically, this PTE describes the conditions under which a plan may acquire customer notes accepted by an employer of employees covered by the plan in the ordinary course of the employer's business activity and, thus, be exempt from the prohibited transaction restrictions; provided, the exemption conditions are met. The PTE covers sales as well as contributions of customer notes by an employer to its plan. The customer notes must have been accepted by the employer in its primary business activity as the seller of tangible personal property that is being financed by the notes, so that the exemption does not apply to notes of an employer's affiliate. The PTE requires a plan to maintain all necessary records pertaining to the affected transactions for a period of six years and to make those records available to certain designed persons upon request. ERISA section 408(a) authorizes this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on February 28, 2017. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) sponsored information collection request (ICR) revision titled, “National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for use in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before March 13, 2017.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the
Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-BLS, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or sending an email to
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR seeks approval under the PRA for revisions to the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 (NLSY97) information collection. The NLSY97 includes respondents who were born from 1980 through 1984 and lived in the United States when the survey began in 1997. The primary objective of the survey is to study the transition from full-time schooling to the establishment of careers and families. The longitudinal focus of the survey requires information to be collected about the same individuals over many years in order to trace their education, training, work experience, fertility, income, and program participation. Research based on the NLSY97 contributes to the formation of national policy in the areas of education, training, employment programs, and school-to-work transitions. This information collection has been classified as a revision, because the NLSY97 will transition from interviews being conducted primarily in-person to being conducted primarily by telephone. The move to predominantly telephone interviewing results in slightly longer timings, because the interviewer will administer components that were previously self-administered by respondents. The change in the data collection mode has also resulted in edits to the questionnaire in order to adapt the Round 18 instrument for predominantly telephone administration. The BLS Authorizing Statue authorizes this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Loans to Plan Participants and Beneficiaries Who Are Parties In Interest With Respect to The Plan Regulation,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before March 13, 2017.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the
Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-EBSA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Loans to Plan Participants and Beneficiaries Who Are Parties In Interest With Respect to The Plan Regulation information collection. More specifically, the ICR is for the information collections contained in the regulation related to plan participants and beneficiaries who are parties in interest with respect to the plan, 29 CFR 2550.408b-1. The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) prohibits a plan fiduciary from causing the plan to engage in a transaction, if the fiduciary knows or should know the transaction constitutes a direct or indirect loan or extension of credit between the plan and a party in interest. ERISA section 408(b)(1) exempts from this prohibition a loan from a plan to a party in interest who is also a plan participant or beneficiary, provided satisfaction of certain requirements. DOL regulations implementing the statutory provision provide additional guidance. Specifically, regulations 29 CFR 2550.408b-1(d) prescribes eight specific provisions that must be included in the plan documents, including: (1) An explicit authorization for the plan fiduciary responsible for investing plan assets to establish such a loan program, (2) the identity of the person or position authorized to administer the program, (3) a procedure for applying for loans, (4) the basis on which loans will be approved or denied, (5) limitations, if any, on the types and amounts of loans offered, (6) the procedure for determining a reasonable interest rate, (7) types of collateral that may secure a participant loan, and (8) the events constituting default and the steps that will be taken to preserve plan assets in the event of such default. ERISA section 408(a) authorizes this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on February 28, 2017. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Notice.
The Department of Labor, 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 can be properly assessed. Currently, the Office of Workers' Compensation (OWCP) is soliciting comments concerning the proposed collection: Certification of Funeral Expenses (LS-265). A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the address section of this Notice.
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addresses section below on or before April 11, 2017.
Ms. Yoon Ferguson, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave. NW., Room S-3201, Washington, DC 20210, telephone/fax (202) 354-9647, Email
I.
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; and
* minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
III.
Comments submitted in response to this notice 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.
Notice.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act 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 can be properly assessed. Currently, the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs is soliciting comments concerning its proposal to extend OMB approval of the information collection for the following medical reports: Roentgenographic Interpretation (CM-933), Roentgenographic Quality Rereading (CM-933b), Medical History and Examination for Coal Mine Workers' Pneumoconiosis (CM-988), Report of Arterial Blood Gas Study (CM-1159) and Report of Ventilatory Study (CM-2907). A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the addresses section of this Notice.
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addresses section below on or before April 11, 2017.
Ms. Yoon Ferguson, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave. NW., Room S-3201, Washington, DC 20210, telephone/fax (202) 354-9647. Email
I.
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; and
* minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
III.
Comments submitted in response to this notice 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.
Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, Labor.
Notice.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act 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 can be properly assessed. Currently, the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs is soliciting comments concerning the proposed collection: Comparability of Current Work to Coal Mine Employment (CM-913). A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the addresses section of this Notice.
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addresses section below on or before April 11, 2017.
Ms. Yoon Ferguson, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave. NW., Room S-3201, Washington, DC 20210, telephone/fax (202) 354-9647, Email
* Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
* evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
* enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and
* minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments submitted in response to this notice 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.
National Science Foundation.
Notice of permit modification issued under the Antarctic Conservation of 1978, Public Law 95-541.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. This is the required notice.
Nature McGinn, ACA Permit Officer, Office of Polar Programs, Rm. 755, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. Or by email:
On January 6, 2017, the National Science Foundation published a notice in the
National Science Foundation.
Submission for OMB review; comment request.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) has submitted the following information collection requirement to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. This is the second notice for public comment; the first was published in the
Suzanne H. Plimpton at (703) 292-7556 or send email to
NSF may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The I/UCRC program seeks to achieve this by:
1. Contributing to the nation's research enterprise by developing long-term partnerships among industry, academe, and government;
2. Leveraging NSF funds with industry to support graduate students performing industrially relevant research;
3. Expanding the innovation capacity of our nation's competitive workforce through partnerships between industries and universities; and
4. Encouraging the nation's research enterprise to remain competitive through active engagement with academic and industrial leaders throughout the world.
The centers are catalyzed by a small investment from NSF and they are primarily supported by other private and public sector center members, with NSF taking a supporting role in the development and evolution of the I/UCRC. The I/UCRC program initially offers five-year (Phase I) continuing awards. This five-year period of support allows for the development of a strong partnership between the academic researchers and their industrial and government members. After five years, centers that continue to meet the I/UCRC program requirements may request support for a second five-year (Phase II) period. These awards allow centers to continue to grow and diversify their non-NSF memberships during their Phase II period. After ten years, a Phase III award provides a third five-year award for centers that demonstrate their viability, sustainability, and which have had a significant impact on industry research as measured through annual reports, site visits, and adherence to I/UCRC requirements. Centers are expected to be fully supported by industry, other Federal agencies, and state and local government partners after fifteen-years as an I/UCRC.
Centers will be required to provide data to NSF and its authorized representatives (contractors or grantees). These data will be used for NSF internal reports, historical data, and for securing future funding for continued I/UCRC program maintenance and growth. Updates to the IUCRC database of performance indicators will be required annually. Centers will be responsible for submitting the following information after the award expires for their fiscal year of activity. The indicators are both quantitative and descriptive.
I/UCRCs will also include evaluation conducted by independent evaluators who cannot be from the department(s) with the institution(s) receiving funding for the I/UCRC award. The center evaluator will be responsible for:
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:
To join via Browser:
To join via phone:
(1) Dial: +1.408.740.7256; +1.888.240.2560; or +1.408.317.9253 (see all numbers—
(2) Enter Conference ID: 996692403.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Biweekly notice; correction.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is correcting a notice that was published in the
The correction is effective February 10, 2017.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0256 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:
•
•
•
Perry Buckberg, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1383, email:
In the FR on December 20, 2016 (81 FR 92863), FR Doc. 2016-256, on page 92877, in the top of the first column, under “Florida Power & Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389, St. Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucie County, Florida,” after “Date of amendment request,” the date “April 31, 2016” is corrected to read “April 29, 2016.” In the middle of the same column, under “Amendment Nos.,” “236 and 186” are changed to “237 and 187.”
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
U.S. 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 request (ICR), We Need Information about Your Missing Payment, RI 38-31.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until March 13, 2017. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.1.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to 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 by email to
A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting 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 by email 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. The information collection was previously published in the
OPM Form RI 38-31 is sent in response to a notification by an individual of the loss or non-receipt of a payment from the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund. Minor textual changes were made to request the information needed to enable OPM to trace and/or reissue payment. Missing payments may also be reported to OPM by a telephone call. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. 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 OPM, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of OPM'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,
U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
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 February 3, 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 February 3, 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 February 3, 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 February 3, 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 February 3, 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
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 February 3, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
On January 12, 2017, Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC (“MIAX”), MIAX PEARL, LLC (“MIAX PEARL”), and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) (collectively, the “Parties”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”) an amended plan for the allocation of regulatory responsibilities, dated January 11, 2017 (“Amended 17d-2 Plan” or the “Amended Plan”). The Amended Plan was published for comment on January 19, 2017.
Section 19(g)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Section 17(d)(1) of the Act
To implement Section 17(d)(1), the Commission adopted two rules: Rule 17d-1 and Rule 17d-2 under the Act.
To address regulatory duplication in these and other areas, the Commission adopted Rule 17d-2 under the Act.
On November 19, 2014, the Commission declared effective the Plan entered into between FINRA and MIAX for allocating regulatory responsibility pursuant to Rule 17d-2.
The Commission finds that the proposed Amended Plan is consistent with the factors set forth in Section 17(d) of the Act
The Commission notes that, under the Amended Plan, MIAX, MIAX PEARL, and FINRA have allocated regulatory responsibility for those MIAX and MIAX PEARL rules, set forth in the Certification, that are substantially similar to the applicable FINRA rules in that examination for compliance with such provisions and rules would not require FINRA to develop one or more new examination standards, modules, procedures, or criteria in order to analyze the application of the rule, or a Common Member's activity, conduct, or output in relation to such rule. In addition, under the Amended Plan, FINRA would assume regulatory responsibility for certain provisions of the federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder that are set forth in the Certification. The Common Rules covered by the Amended Plan are specifically listed in the Certification, as may be amended by the Parties from time to time.
According to the Amended Plan, MIAX and MIAX PEARL will review the Certification, at least annually, or more frequently if required by changes in either the rules of MIAX, MIAX PEARL, or FINRA, and, if necessary, submit to FINRA an updated list of Common Rules to add MIAX and MIAX PEARL rules not included on the then-current list of Common Rules that are substantially similar to FINRA rules; delete MIAX and MIAX PEARL rules included in the then-current list of Common Rules that are no longer substantially similar to FINRA rules; and confirm that the remaining rules on the list of Common Rules continue to be MIAX and MIAX PEARL rules that are substantially similar to FINRA rules.
The Commission is hereby declaring effective an Amended Plan that, among other things, allocates regulatory responsibility to FINRA for the oversight and enforcement of all MIAX and MIAX PEARL rules that are substantially similar to the rules of FINRA for Common Members of MIAX and FINRA, and MIAX PEARL and FINRA. Therefore, modifications to the Certification need not be filed with the Commission as an amendment to the Amended Plan, provided that the Parties are only adding to, deleting from, or confirming changes to MIAX or MIAX PEARL rules in the Certification in conformance with the definition of Common Rules provided in the Amended Plan. However, should the Parties decide to add a MIAX or MIAX PEARL rule to the Certification that is not substantially similar to a FINRA rule; delete a MIAX or MIAX PEARL rule from the Certification that is substantially similar to a FINRA rule; or leave on the Certification a MIAX or MIAX PEARL rule that is no longer substantially similar to a FINRA rule, then such a change would constitute an amendment to the Amended Plan, which must be filed with the Commission pursuant to Rule 17d-2 under the Act.
This Order gives effect to the Amended Plan filed with the Commission in File No. 4-678. The Parties shall notify all members affected by the Amended Plan of their rights and obligations under the Amended Plan.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6)(v) to add the EURO STOXX 50 Volatility (VSTOXX®) Futures (“VSTOXX Futures”) to the definition of Futures Reference Asset. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6) provides for Exchange listing and trading, including listing pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e) under the Act,
The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6)(v) in order to add VSTOXX Futures to the definition of Futures Reference Asset, which would allow the Exchange to list Futures-Linked Securities linked to VSTOXX Futures through generic listing standards pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e) under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6).
NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6)(B)(V) (“Futures-Linked Securities Listing Standards”) requires that a Futures-Linked Security meet one of the following standards: (1) That the Futures Reference Asset to which the security is linked shall have been reviewed and approved for the trading of Futures-Linked Securities or options or other derivatives by the Commission under Section 19(b)(2) of the Act and rules thereunder and the conditions set forth in the Commission's approval order, including with respect to comprehensive surveillance sharing agreements (“CSSAs”), continue to be satisfied; or (2) the pricing information for components of a Futures Reference Asset must be derived from a market which is a member or affiliate of a member of the Intermarket Surveillance Group (“ISG”) or a market with which the Exchange has a CSSA.
Further, any Futures-Linked Securities linked to VSTOXX Futures would also be required to meet both the initial and continued listing standards in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6)(B)(V) or be subject to delisting or removal proceedings, which include: (i) That the value of the Futures Reference Asset be calculated and widely disseminated by one or more major market data vendors on at least a 15-second basis during the Exchange's Core Trading Session (normally, 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Eastern Time); (ii) for Futures-Linked Securities that are periodically redeemable, the indicative value of the subject Futures-Linked Securities must be calculated and widely disseminated by the Exchange or one or more major market data vendors on at least a 15-second basis during the Exchange's Core Trading Session; (iii) the aggregate market value or the principal amount of the Futures-Linked Securities must be at least $400,000; (iv) the value of the Futures Reference Asset is no longer calculated or available and a new Futures Reference Asset is substituted, unless the new Futures Reference Asset meets the requirements of Rule 5.2(j)(6); or (v) if such other event occurs or condition exists which in the opinion of the Exchange makes further dealings on the Exchange inadvisable. Any Futures-Linked Securities linked to VSTOXX Futures would also be required to meet the listing standards applicable to all Index-Linked Securities under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6)(A). Finally, all Index-Linked Securities listed pursuant to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6) are included within the definition of “security” or “securities” as such terms are used in the Exchange rules and, as such, are subject to Exchange rules and procedures that currently govern the trading of securities on the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that the proposed standards would continue to ensure transparency surrounding the listing process for Index-Linked Securities. The Exchange also believes that the existing standards for listing and trading Futures-Linked Securities are reasonably designed to promote a fair and orderly market for such
The Exchange believes that its surveillance procedures are adequate to continue to properly monitor the trading of Futures-Linked Securities linked to VSTOXX Futures in all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules. The issuer of a series of Index-Linked Securities is and will continue to be required to comply with Rule 10A-3 under the Act
Additional information regarding the VSTOXX and VSTOXX Futures can be found on the STOXX Limited (“STOXX”) Web site and the Eurex Web site, respectively.
STOXX will compute the Index on a real-time basis throughout each trading day, from 8:50 a.m. until 5:30 CET (3:50 a.m. until 12:30 p.m. Eastern Time. VSTOXX levels will be calculated by STOXX and disseminated by major market data vendors on a real-time basis throughout each trading day.
The Exchange believes that the proposed amendment to add VSTOXX Futures as an underlying Futures Reference Asset will provide investors with the ability to better diversify and hedge their portfolios using an exchange listed security without having to trade directly in the underlying futures contracts, and will facilitate the listing and trading of additional Futures-Linked Securities that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The proposed amendment to add VSTOXX Futures as an underlying Futures Reference Asset will provide investors with the ability to better diversify and hedge their portfolios using an exchange-listed security without having to trade directly in the underlying futures contracts, and will facilitate the listing and trading of additional Futures-Linked Securities that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace. As noted above, the Exchange has in place surveillance procedures relating to trading in Futures-Linked Securities and may obtain information regarding both the Futures-Linked Securities and VSTOXX Futures via ISG from other exchanges that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has entered into a CSSA. In addition, as noted above, investors will have ready access to information on an intraday basis regarding: (i) The value of the Futures Reference Asset, which will be calculated and widely disseminated by one or more major market data vendors on at least a 15-second basis during the Exchange's Core Trading Session; (ii) for Futures-Linked Securities that are periodically redeemable, the indicative value of the securities, which must be calculated and widely disseminated by the Exchange or one or more major market data vendors on at least a 15-second basis during the Exchange's Core Trading Session; and (iii) information regarding market price and trading of Futures-Linked Securities, which will be available on brokers' computer screens and other electronic services, and quotation and last sale information for the securities, which will be available on the facilities of the Consolidated Tape Association. Further, any Futures-Linked Securities linked to VSTOXX Futures would be required to meet both the initial and continued listing standards under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6)(B)(V) or be subject to delisting or removal proceedings, which include: (i) That the value of the Futures Reference Asset be calculated and widely disseminated by one or more major market data vendors on at least a 15-second basis during the Exchange's Core Trading Session; (ii) for Futures-Linked Securities that are periodically redeemable, the indicative value of the securities must be calculated and widely disseminated by the Exchange or one or more major market data vendors on at least a 15-second basis during the Exchange's Core Trading Session; (iii) the aggregate market value or the principal amount of the Futures-Linked Securities must be at least $400,000; (iv) the value of the Futures Reference Asset is no longer calculated or available and a new Futures Reference Asset is substituted, unless the new Futures Reference Asset meets the requirements of Rule 5.2(j)(6); or (v) if such other event occurs or condition exists which in the opinion of the Exchange makes further dealings on the Exchange inadvisable. Any Futures-Linked Securities linked to VSTOXX Futures would also be required to meet the listing standards applicable to all Index-Linked Securities in Rule 5.2(j)(6). All Index-Linked Securities listed pursuant to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6) are included within the definition of “security” or “securities” as such terms are used in the Exchange rules and, as such, are subject to Exchange rules and procedures that
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange asserts that waiving the operative delay would be consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because the Commission has already approved a substantially identical proposed rule change submitted by another national securities exchange. In addition, the Exchange asserts that a waiver would accommodate listing and trading, including trading pursuant to unlisted trading privileges, of an issue of Future-Linked Securities based on VSTOXX Futures without additional delay, and would thereby promote intermarket competition in listing and trading such securities, to the benefit of the investing public.
The Commission believes that waiving the operative delay with respect to the proposed rule change is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because the proposal does not raise any regulatory issues that were not already addressed by the Commission when approving a substantially identical proposal by another national securities exchange.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of this proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend the rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend certain rules related to Flexible Exchange (“FLEX”) Options. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The purpose of this filing is to amend certain rules related to FLEX Options, as described below.
FLEX Options are customized equity or index contracts that allow investors to tailor contract terms for exchange-listed equity and index options.
The Exchange proposes to modify its rules to enable market participants to trade FLEX options contracts in ByRDs.
The Exchange proposes to permit parties to FLEX Index Options on
As proposed in new paragraph (e)(5) of Rule 5.32 and new paragraph (b)(20) of Rule 5.30, FLEX Index Options on Broad-Based Index Options with Asian style settlement would be cash-settled call
If, in the above example, the strike price for the Asian FLEX call option was 2060, that contract would have expired out-of-the-money. This is because the exercise settlement value for this 2060 call option is equal to 2050.98 (when rounded). Since the strike price of 2060 is more than the 2050.98 exercise settlement value, this option would not be exercised and would expire worthless.
As proposed in new paragraph (e)(6) of Rule 5.32 and new paragraph (b)(21) of Rule 5.30, FLEX Index Options on Broad-Based Index Options with Cliquet style settlement would be cash-settled call
The parties to a Cliquet option would designate a set of monthly observation dates for each contract and an expiration date for each contract. The monthly observation date would be the date each month on which the price of the underlying broad-based index would be observed for the purpose of calculating the exercise settlement value for Cliquet FLEX Options. Each Cliquet FLEX Option would have 12 consecutive monthly observation dates (which includes an observation on the expiration date) and each observation would be based on the closing price of the underlying broad-based index. The specific monthly observation dates would be determined by working backwards from the farthest out observation date prior to the expiration date. When the scheduled observation date for a Cliquet option occurs on a holiday or a weekend, the observation would occur on the immediately preceding business day. The parties may not designate a subsequent business day convention for Cliquet options.
The parties to a Cliquet option would designate a capped monthly return (percent change in the closing values of the underlying broad-based index from one month to the next month) for the contract, which would be the maximum monthly return that would be included in the calculation of the exercise settlement value for the contract. On each monthly observation date, the Exchange would determine the actual monthly return (the percent change of the underlying broad-based index) using the closing value of the broad-based index on the current monthly observation date and the closing value of the broad-based index on the previous monthly observation date. The Exchange would then compare the actual monthly return to the capped monthly return. The value to be included as the monthly return for a Cliquet option would be the lesser of the actual monthly return or the capped monthly return.
For example, if the actual monthly return of the underlying broad-based index was 1.75% and the designated capped monthly return for a Cliquet option was 2%, the 1.75% value would be included (and not the 2%) as the value for the observation date to determine the exercise settlement value. Using this same example, if the actual monthly return of the underlying broad-based index was 3.30%, the 2% value would be included (and not the 3.30%) as the value of the observation date to determine the exercise settlement value. This latter example illustrates that Cliquet options have a capped upside. Cliquet options do not, however, have a capped downside for the monthly return that would be included in determining the exercise settlement value. Drawing on this same example, if the actual monthly return of the underlying broad-based index was −4.07%, the −4.07% value would be included as the value for the observation date to determine the exercise settlement value. There would be, however, be a global floor for Cliquet
Unlike other options, Cliquet options would not have a traditional exercise (strike) price. Rather, the exercise (strike) price field for a Cliquet option would represent the designated capped monthly return for the contract and would be expressed in dollars and cents. For example, a capped monthly return of 2.25% would be represented by the dollar amount of $2.25. The “strike” price for a Cliquet option may only be expressed in a dollar and cents amount and the “strike” price for a Cliquet option may only span a range between $0.05 and $25.95. In addition, the “strike” price for a Cliquet option may only be designated in $0.05 increments,
The first “monthly” return for a Cliquet option would be based on the initial reference value, which would be the closing value of the underlying broad-based index on the date a new Cliquet option is listed. The time period measured for the first “monthly” return would be between the initial listing date and the first monthly observation date. For example, if a Cliquet option was opened on January 1 and the parties designated the 31st of each month as the monthly observation date, the measurement period for the first monthly return would span the time period from January 1 to January 31. The time period measured for the second monthly return, and all subsequent monthly returns, would run from the 31st of one month to the 31st of the next month (or the last Exchange business day of each month depending on the actual number of calendar days in each month covered by the contract).
Cliquet options would have European-style exercise and may not be exercised prior to the expiration date. The exercise settlement value for Cliquet options would be equal to the initial reference price of the underlying broad-based index multiplied by the sum of the monthly returns (with the cap applied) on the 12 consecutive monthly observation dates, which include the expiration date of the option, provided that the sum is greater than 0. If the sum of the monthly returns (with the applied cap) is 0 or a less, the option would expire worthless.
An example of a Cliquet option follows. On January 21, 2015, an investor hedging the value of the S&P 500 Index over a year purchases a Cliquet FLEX call option expiring on January 22, 2016 with a capped monthly return of 2% and a contract multiplier of $100. The initial reference price of the S&P 500 Index (closing value) on January 21, 2015 is 2000. The option has monthly observation dates occurring on the 23rd of each month.
The exercise settlement amount for this January 22, 2016 Cliquet option, with a capped monthly 2% return (“strike price”) and a contract multiplier of $100 would be equal to $8,360. This value would be calculated by summing the monthly capped returns (equal to 4.08%) and multiplying that amount by the initial reference price (equal to 2000), which equals 81.60. The “strike price” (2%) amount would then be added to that amount (81.60) to arrive at an exercise settlement value of 83.60. Because the “strike price” field for a Cliquet option would be the manner in which the designated capped monthly return would be identified for the contract and because the designated monthly return for the contract would have been already substantively applied to determine the exercise settlement value, the “strike price” of 2.0 would be subtracted from the exercise settlement value before the contract multiplier ($100) would be applied [(83.60—2) * 100]. Accordingly, resulting payout for this contract would be $8,160.
If the sum of the monthly capped returns had been negative, this option would have expired worthless.
Regarding the proposed settlement styles, the Exchange would use the same surveillance procedures currently utilized for the Exchange's other FLEX Options, including FLEX Index Options.
The Exchange also proposes to modify how exercise prices and premiums for FLEX Options may be expressed, which would reflect recent changes in the marketplace. The Exchange notes that when it adopted rules for FLEX Options,
(i) A dollar amount; (ii) a method for fixing such a number at the time a FLEX Request for Quote or FLEX Order is traded; or (iii) a percentage of the price of the underlying security at the time of the trade or as of the close of trading on the Exchange on the trade date.
The Exchange notes that this change would align with the Exchange's treatment of FLEX Index Options as well as the rules of other exchanges.
Exercise prices may be rounded to the nearest minimum tick or other decimal increment determined by the Exchange on a class-by-class basis that may not be smaller than $0.01. Premiums will be rounded to the nearest minimum tick. For exercise prices and premiums stated using a percentage-based methodology, such values may be stated in a percentage increment determined by the Exchange on a class-by-class basis that may not be smaller than 0.01% and will be rounded as provided above.
The Exchange notes that this proposed change is consistent with the rules of another options exchange.
The Exchange is also proposing the following modifications to streamline and update FLEX Options Rules:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Second, the Exchange proposes to modify Rule 5.32(b)(7) to make clear that the minimum size of one contract for FLEX Options applies to both transactions (per current rule text) “and quotations” (per proposed rule text). This proposed change corresponds to the Commission's approval, in 2014, of the Exchange's proposal to adopt on a permanent basis its pilot program regarding minimum value sizes for opening transactions in new series of FLEX Options and FLEX Quotes.
The Exchange is proposing to modify Rule 5.32(f)(3) to address exercise settlement of FLEX Options that are FLEX ByRDs, as the current rule only addresses exercise settlement by physical delivery.
Finally, the Exchange also proposes to modify Commentary .01 to Rule 5.32, to provide that FLEX Options may be permitted in puts and calls that do not have identical terms, including, as proposed, “the same settlement style.” Commentary .01 to Rule 5.32 is designed to prevent the trading of a FLEX Option that has the exact same terms (underlying security, exercise style, expiration date, exercise price and, as proposed, settlement style) as a Standard or (non-FLEX) Option. In other words, as long as just one term of the FLEX Option is different from an existing “regular” or “non-FLEX” option it may be traded as a FLEX Option.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange believes that the proposal to add FLEX ByRDs would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market as FLEX ByRDs would enable market participants to negotiate terms that differ from standardized ByRDs, which would, in turn provide greater opportunities for investors to manage risk through the use of FLEX Options to the benefit of investors and the public interest. The Exchange notes that ByRDs are subject to heightened initial and continued listing standards and the settlement price based on an all-day VWAP, which should address any potential manipulation concerns.
The Exchange further believes that establishing position limits for FLEX ByRDs to be the same as Non-FLEX ByRDs position limits, which are currently 25,000 contracts on the same side of the market,
The Exchange believes that the proposal to permit additional settlement types—Asian and Cliquet—would remove impediments to and perfect the
The Exchange believes the proposed changes to FLEX Exercise Prices and Premiums would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market as this change would provide greater flexibility in terms of describing an option contract tailored to the needs of the investor. In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposal to specify how exercise prices and premium for FLEX Index Options and FLEX Equity Options will be rounded and how they will be stated using a percentage-based methodology should provide greater clarity and allow market participants to specify contracts that meet their particular needs. In addition, the proposed changes would promote internal consistency in our own rules (including by removing a reference to fraction pricing to be consistent with the shift to decimal pricing found elsewhere in Exchange rules) and would align our rules with that of another options exchange and therefore raise no novel issues for the Commission.
Regarding the proposed settlement styles, the Exchange would use the same surveillance procedures currently utilized for the Exchange's other FLEX Options, including FLEX Index Options. The Exchange further represents that these surveillance procedures shall be adequate to monitor trading in options on these option products. For surveillance purposes, the Exchange would have complete access to information regarding trading activity in the pertinent underlying securities.
The Exchange believes the proposal to provide that FLEX Officials, and not FLEX Market Makers, would be responsible for assuring that a Request for Quotes is submitted properly as a FLEX Option and for displaying the terms and specifications of the Request for Quotes would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market as the regulatory oversight of FLEX transactions by a properly qualified FLEX Official could help to ensure that FLEX transactions comply with the FLEX rules.
Finally, the remaining proposed changes to FLEX Options would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market as the changes correct inaccuracies in rule text and update the rules to better reflect the Exchange's current practices with respect to FLEX Options, which have evolved over time. In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes to refer to FLEX Requests for Quotes and FLEX Quotes as being disseminated and remove the concept of a post specific to the trading of FLEX options will align the rules with current trading practices on the Exchange's floor. The Exchange believes the proposed changes would provide transparency and internal consistency within Exchange rules and operate to protect investors and the investing public by making the Exchange rules easier to navigate and comprehend.
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 proposal is designed to increase competition for order flow on the Exchange in a manner that is beneficial to investors because it is designed to provide investors seeking to effect FLEX Option orders with the opportunity for different methods of settling option contracts at expiration. The proposed changes are also designed to update Exchange rules regarding FLEX Options, including by removing obsolete references, which should likewise improve the competitiveness of the Exchange by making it a more attractive venue for trading.
The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues who offer similar functionality. The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change promotes competition because it would enable the Exchange to provide market participants with FLEX Options transaction possibilities that are similar to that of other options exchanges. The Exchange believes the proposed rules encourage competition amongst market participants to provide tailored FLEX Options contracts.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing,
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies will hold a public meeting on Wednesday, February 15, in Multi-Purpose Room LL-006 at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC.
The meeting will begin at 9:30 a.m. (ET) and will be open to the public. Seating will be on a first-come, first-served basis. Doors will open at 9:00 a.m. Visitors will be subject to security checks. The meeting will be webcast on the Commission's Web site at
On January 30, 2017, the Commission published notice of the Committee meeting (Release No. 33-10292), indicating that the meeting is open to the public and inviting the public to submit written comments to the Committee. This Sunshine Act notice is being issued because a majority of the Commission may attend the meeting.
The agenda for the meeting includes matters relating to rules and regulations affecting small and emerging companies under the federal securities laws.
For further information, please contact Brent J. Fields from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
Department of State.
Notice; solicitation of comments.
The U.S. Department of State (Department) announces availability for the public review and comment of the
The Department invites U.S. agencies, organizations, tribal governments, and members of the public to submit comments to assist the Department in identifying environmental and other relevant issues, any measures that might be adopted to reduce the proposed Project's environmental impacts, and other information relevant to the Draft SEIS. The 45-day public comment period begins with the publication of this Notice on February 10, 2017 and ends on March 27, 2017. Comments submitted electronically through
All comments received during the public comment period may be made public, no matter how initially submitted. Comments are not private and will not be edited to remove identifying or contact information. The Department cautions commenters against including any information that they would not want publicly disclosed. The Department further requests that any party soliciting or aggregating comments from other persons direct those persons not to include any identifying or contact information, or information they would not want publicly disclosed, in their comments.
The Department will hold a public meeting on Tuesday March 7, 2017 at the Sanford Center, 1111 Event Center Drive NE., Bemidji, Minnesota from 4:30 to 7:30 p.m.
Parties may submit comments at
Project details on the Enbridge application for a new Presidential Permit for Line 67 (including the amendment thereto), as well as the Draft SEIS and information on the Presidential Permit process, are available on the following Web site:
Please refer to this Web site or contact Ms. Mary D. Hassell at the address listed in the
The Department evaluates Presidential Permits under Executive Order (E.O.) 13337 and 11423, as amended. E.O. 13337 delegates to the Secretary of State the President's authority to receive applications for permits for the construction, operation or maintenance of facilities for the exportation and importation of petroleum, petroleum products, coal or other fuels (except natural gas) at the borders of the United States, and to issue or deny such Presidential Permits upon a national interest determination. To make this determination, the Department considers many factors, including but not limited to foreign policy; energy security; environmental, cultural and economic impacts; and compliance with applicable law and policy.
On March 15, 2013, the Department issued a
Copies of the Draft SEIS have been distributed to state and governmental agencies, tribal governments, and other interested parties. Printed copies of the document may be obtained by visiting the libraries listed below or by contacting Mary Hassell at the above address. The Draft SEIS is available on the project Web site at
Department of State.
Notice.
TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (“TransCanada”) applied on May 4, 2012 to the U.S. Department of State (“Department”) for a Presidential Permit that would authorize the construction, connection, operation, and maintenance of pipeline facilities on the U.S./Canadian border in Phillips County, Montana for the importation of crude oil. The border facilities would be part of a proposed 875-mile pipeline and related facilities (the Keystone XL project) that is designed to transport up to 830,000 barrels per day of crude oil from Alberta, Canada and the Bakken shale formation in North Dakota and Montana. The pipeline would cross the U.S. border near Morgan, Montana and continue through Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska, where it would connect to existing pipeline facilities near Steele City, Nebraska for onward delivery to Cushing, Oklahoma and the U.S. Gulf Coast Region.
On November 6, 2015, the Department announced the Secretary of State's determination under Executive Order 13337 that issuing a Presidential Permit to TransCanada for the proposed Keystone XL pipeline's border facilities would not serve the national interest, and denied the Permit application. On January 24, 2017, President Donald J. Trump issued a Presidential Memorandum (the “Presidential Memorandum”) on the Construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline which,
The Department has received a re-submitted application from TransCanada and will conduct a review of the application in accordance with the Presidential Memorandum and any other applicable requirements.
On February 5, 2014, the Department invited members of the public to comment on any factor they deem relevant to the national interest determination that will be made for the Keystone XL project application (79 FR 6984) and it is not inviting further public comment at this time.
Background information related to the application, including a copy of TransCanada's re-submitted application may be found at
Director, Energy Resources Bureau, Energy Governance and Access, Policy Analysis and Public Diplomacy (ENR/EGA/PAPD), United States Department
Section 1. Policy. In accordance with Executive Order 11423 of August 16, 1968, as amended, and Executive Order 13337 of April 30, 2004, the Secretary of State has delegated authority to receive applications for Presidential permits for the construction, connection, operation, or maintenance, at the borders of the United States, of facilities for the exportation or importation of petroleum, petroleum products, coal, or other fuels to or from a foreign country, and to issue or deny such Presidential permits. As set forth in those Executive Orders, the Secretary of State should issue a Presidential permit for any cross-border pipeline project that “would serve the national interest.”
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby direct as follows:
Sec. 2. Invitation to Submit an Application. I hereby invite TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (TransCanada), to promptly re-submit its application to the Department of State for a Presidential permit for the construction and operation of the Keystone XL Pipeline, a major pipeline for the importation of petroleum from Canada to the United States.
Sec. 3. Directives. (a) Department of State. The Secretary of State shall, if the application referred to in section 2 is submitted, receive the application and take all actions necessary and appropriate to facilitate its expeditious review. With respect to that review, I hereby direct as follows:
(i) The Secretary of State shall reach a final permitting determination, including a final decision as to any conditions on issuance of the permit that are necessary or appropriate to serve the national interest, within 60 days of TransCanada's submission of the permit application.
(ii) To the maximum extent permitted by law, the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement issued by the Department of State in January 2014 regarding the Keystone XL Pipeline (Final Supplemental EIS) and the environmental analysis, consultation, and review described in that document (including appendices) shall be considered by the Secretary of State to satisfy the following with respect to the Keystone XL Pipeline as described in TransCanada's permit application to the Department of State of May 4, 2012:
(A) all applicable requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321
(B) any other provision of law that requires executive department consultation or review (including the consultation or review required under section 7(a) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. 1536(a)).
(iii) To the maximum extent permitted by law, any Federal permit or authorization issued before the date of this memorandum for the Keystone XL Pipeline shall remain in effect until the completion of the project.
(iv) The agency notification and fifteen-day delay requirements of sections 1(g), 1(h), and 1(i) of Executive Order 13337 are hereby waived on the basis that, under the circumstances, observance of these requirements would be unnecessary, unwarranted, and a waste of resources.
(b) Department of the Army. The Secretary of the Army shall, if the application referred to in section 2 is submitted and a Presidential permit issued, instruct the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, including the Commanding General and Chief of Engineers, to take all actions necessary and appropriate to review and approve as warranted, in an expedited manner, requests for authorization to utilize Nationwide Permit 12 under section 404(e) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1344(e), with respect to crossings of the “waters of the United States” by the Keystone XL Pipeline, to the maximum extent permitted by law.
(c) Department of the Interior. The Secretary of the Interior, as well as the Directors of the Bureau of Land Management and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, shall, if the application referred to in section 2 is submitted and a Presidential permit issued, take all steps necessary and appropriate to review and approve as warranted, in an expedited manner, requests for approvals related to the Keystone XL Pipeline, to the maximum extent permitted by law, including: (i) requests for grants of right-of-way and temporary use permits from the Bureau of Land Management; (ii) requests under the United States Fish and Wildlife Service's regulations implementing the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 16 U.S.C. 703
(d) Publication. The Secretary of State shall promptly provide a copy of this memorandum to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the President pro tempore of the Senate, the Majority Leader of the Senate, and the Governors of each State located along the Keystone XL Pipeline route as described in TransCanada's application of May 4, 2012. The Secretary of State is authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the
(e) Private Property. Nothing in this memorandum alters any Federal, State, or local process or condition in effect on the date of this memorandum that is necessary to secure access from an owner of private property to construct the pipeline and cross-border facilities described herein. Land or an interest in land for the pipeline and cross-border facilities described herein may only be acquired consistently with the Constitution and applicable State laws.
Sec. 4. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this memorandum shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of limitation on claims for judicial review of actions by FHWA and other Federal agencies.
This notice announces actions taken by FHWA and other Federal agencies related to the Central 70 project in Denver and Aurora, Colorado, that are final within the meaning of 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1).
By this notice, FHWA is advising the public of final agency actions subject to the statute of limitations in 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1). A claim seeking judicial review of the Federal agency actions on the highway project will be barred unless the claim is filed on or before July 10, 2017. If the Federal law that authorizes judicial review of a claim provides a time period of less than 150 days for filing such claim, then that shorter time period still applies.
Chris Horn, Senior Area Engineer, Federal Highway Administration Colorado Division, 12300 W. Dakota Avenue, Lakewood, CO 80228, 720-963-3017,
Notice is hereby given that FHWA and other agencies have taken final agency action within in the meaning of 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1) by approving the Central 70 highway project in the State of Colorado in the Record of Decision issued January 19, 2017. Project Overview: I-70 between I-25 and Chambers Road is one of Colorado's economic backbones. The corridor is home to 1,200 businesses, connecting the region to Denver International Airport and carrying upwards of 200,000 vehicles per day. The purpose of the project is to implement a transportation solution that improves safety, access, and mobility and addresses congestion on I-70 in the project area. The Central 70 project proposes to reconstruct and improve a 10-mile stretch of I-70, which will include adding one new express lane in each direction, removing the interstate from an aging viaduct and placing it below grade, and constructing a four-acre cover over a portion of the lowered section. The actions by the Federal agencies on the project, and the laws under which such actions were taken, are described in the I-70 East from I-25 to Tower Road Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Section 4(f) Evaluation signed on December 18, 2015, in the Central 70 Record of Decision (ROD) signed January 19, 2017, and in other key project documents. The FEIS, ROD, and other key documents for the project are available by contacting FHWA or the Colorado Department of Transportation at the addresses provided above. The EIS and ROD documents can be viewed and downloaded from the project Web sites at
This notice applies to all Federal agency decisions, actions, approvals, licenses, and permits on the project as of the issuance date of this notice, including but not limited to those arising under the following laws:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1).
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, that a meeting of the Geriatrics and Gerontology Advisory Committee will be held on April 4-5, 2017, in Room 630 on the 4th and in Room 530 on the 5th at the Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC. On April 4th, the session will begin at 8:30 a.m. and end at 5 p.m. On April 5th, the session will begin at 8 a.m. and end at 12 noon. This meeting is open to the public.
The purpose of the Committee is to provide advice to the Secretary of VA and the Under Secretary for Health on all matters pertaining to geriatrics and gerontology. The Committee assesses the capability of VA health care facilities and programs to meet the medical, psychological, and social needs of older Veterans and evaluates VA programs designated as Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Centers.
The meeting will feature presentations and discussions on VA's geriatrics and extended care programs, aging research activities, updates on VA's employee staff working in the area of geriatrics (to include training, recruitment and retention approaches), Veterans Health Administration (VHA) strategic planning activities in geriatrics and extended care, recent VHA efforts regarding dementia and program advances in palliative care, and performance and oversight of VA Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Centers.
No time will be allocated at this meeting for receiving oral presentations from the public. Interested parties should provide written comments for review by the Committee to Mrs. Alejandra Paulovich, Program Analyst, Geriatrics and Extended Care Services (10P4G), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, or via email at
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2 that the VA National Academic Affiliations Council will meet via conference call on March 2, 2017, from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. EST. The meeting is open to the public.
The purpose of the Council is to advise the Secretary on matters affecting partnerships between VA and its academic affiliates.
On March 2, 2017, the Council will explore the implementation and funding status of the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014's Graduate Medical Education expansion plan; examine the breadth and scope of VA's partnerships with historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs) and Hispanic serving institutions (HSIs); and discuss planning efforts for VA's Congressionally-directed symposium on HBCU engagement that is tentatively scheduled for June 2017. The Council will receive public comments from 2:45 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. EST.
Interested persons may attend and/or present oral statements to the Council. The dial in number to attend the conference call is: 1-800-767-1750. At the prompt, enter access code 45206 then press #. Individuals seeking to present oral statements are invited to submit a 1-2 page summary of their comments at the time of the meeting for inclusion in the official meeting record. Oral presentations will be limited to five minutes or less, depending on the number of participants. Interested parties may also provide written comments for review by the Council prior to the meeting or at any time, by email to
Departmental Offices, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, and Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Final rule.
The Department of the Treasury (“Department” or “Treasury”) publishes this final rule to adjust its civil monetary penalties (“CMPs”) for inflation as mandated by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (collectively referred to herein as “the Act”). This rule adjusts CMPs within the jurisdiction of certain components of the Department to the maximum amount required by the Act.
Effective February 10, 2017.
For information regarding the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program's CMPs, contact Richard Ifft, Senior Insurance Regulatory Policy Analyst, Federal Insurance Office, Room 1410 MT, Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20220, at (202) 622-2922 (not a toll-free number), Kevin Meehan, Senior Insurance Regulatory Policy Analyst, Federal Insurance Office, at (202) 622-7009 (not a toll-free number), or Lindsey Baldwin, Senior Policy Analyst, Federal Insurance Office, at (202) 622-3220 (not a toll free number). Persons who have difficulty hearing or speaking may access these numbers via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.
For information regarding Financial Crimes Enforcement Network's CMPs, contact the FinCEN Resource Center at (800) 767-2825 or email
For information regarding the Office of Foreign Assets Control's CMPs, contact the Assistant Director for Enforcement, tel.: 202-622-2430; Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480, Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202-622-4855, Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202-622-2490; or the Department of the Treasury's Office of the Chief Counsel (Foreign Assets Control), Office of the General Counsel, tel.: 202-622-2410.
In order to improve the effectiveness of CMPs and to maintain their deterrent effect, the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. 2461 note (“the Inflation Adjustment Act”), as amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (Pub. L. 114-74) (“the 2015 Act”), requires Federal agencies to adjust each CMP provided by law within the jurisdiction of the agency. The 2015 Act requires agencies to adjust the level of CMPs with an initial “catch-up” adjustment through an interim final rulemaking and to make subsequent annual adjustments for inflation, notwithstanding 5 U.S.C. 553. The Department's initial catch-up adjustment interim final rules were published on June 30, 2016 (FinCEN) (81 FR 42503), July 1, 2016 (OFAC) (81 FR 43070), and December 7, 2016 (Departmental Offices) (81 FR 88600). The 2015 Act provides that any increase in a CMP shall apply to CMPs that are assessed after the date the increase takes effect, regardless of whether the underlying violation predated such increase.
The method of calculating CMP adjustments applied in this final rule is required by the 2015 Act. Under the 2015 Act and the Office of Management and Budget guidance required by the 2015 Act, annual inflation adjustments subsequent to the initial catch-up adjustment are to be based on the percent change between the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (“CPI-U”) for the October preceding the date of the adjustment and the prior year's October CPI-U. As set forth in Office of Management and Budget Memorandum M-17-11, the adjustment multiplier for 2017 is 1.01636. In order to complete the 2017 annual adjustment, each CMP (as revised by the catch-up adjustment) is multiplied by the 2017 adjustment multiplier. Under the 2015 Act, any increase in CMP must be rounded to the nearest multiple of $1.
The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (Section 701(b)) requires agencies, effective 2017, to make annual adjustments for inflation to CMPs notwithstanding 5 U.S.C. 553. Additionally, the methodology used, effective 2017, for adjusting CMPs for inflation is provided by statute, with no discretion provided to agencies regarding the substance of the adjustments for inflation to CMPs. The Department is charged only with performing ministerial computations to determine the dollar amount of adjustments for inflation to CMPs. Accordingly, prior public notice and an opportunity for public comment are not required for this rule.
Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined in section 3.f of Executive Order 12866.
The provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, do not apply to this rule because there are no new or revised recordkeeping or reporting requirements.
Insurance, Terrorism.
Administrative practice and procedure, Banks, Banking, Blocking of assets, Exports, Foreign trade, Licensing, Penalties, Sanctions.
Authority delegations (Government agencies), Banks and banking, Currency, Investigations, Law enforcement, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 50, chapter V, and part
5 U.S.C. 301; 31 U.S.C. 321; Title I, Pub. L. 107-297, 116 Stat. 2322, as amended by Pub. L. 109-144, 119 Stat. 2660, Pub. L. 110-160, 121 Stat. 1839 and Pub. L. 114-1, 129 Stat. 3 (15 U.S.C. 6701 note); Pub. L. 114-74, 129 Stat. 601, Title VII (28 U.S.C. 2461 note).
(a)
8 U.S.C. 1189; 18 U.S.C. 2332d, 2339B; 19 U.S.C. 3901-3913; 21 U.S.C. 1901-1908; 22 U.S.C. 287c; 22 U.S.C. 2370(a), 6009, 6032, 7205; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note; 31 U.S.C. 321(b); 50 U.S.C. 1701-1706; 50 U.S.C. App. 1-44.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
As of January 15, 2017, TWEA provides for a maximum civil penalty not to exceed $85,236.
(3) The Secretary of the Treasury may impose a civil penalty of not more than $85,236 per violation on any person who violates any license, order, or regulation issued under TWEA.
The current civil penalty cap may be adjusted for inflation pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-410, as amended, 28 U.S.C. 2461 note).
B. * * *
2. * * *
a. * * *
i. In a non-egregious case, if the apparent violation is disclosed through a voluntary self-disclosure by the Subject Person, the base amount of the proposed civil penalty in the Pre-Penalty Notice shall be one-half of the transaction value, capped at a maximum base amount of $144,619 per violation, except where the statutory maximum penalty applicable to the apparent violation is less than $289,238, in which case the base amount of the proposed civil penalty in the Pre-Penalty Notice shall be capped at one-half the statutory maximum penalty applicable to the apparent violation.
ii. In a non-egregious case, if the apparent violation comes to OFAC's attention by means other than a voluntary self-disclosure, the base amount of the proposed civil penalty in the Pre-Penalty Notice shall be the “applicable schedule amount,” as defined above. For apparent violations where the statutory maximum penalty applicable to the apparent violation is $289,238 or greater, the maximum base amount shall be capped at $289,238. For apparent violations where the statutory maximum penalty applicable to the apparent violation is less than $289,238, the maximum base amount shall be capped at the statutory maximum penalty amount applicable to the apparent violation.
As of January 15, 2017, the applicable statutory maximum civil penalty per violation for each statute enforced by OFAC is as follows: International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)—greater of $289,238 or twice the amount of the underlying transaction; Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA)—$85,236; Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act (FNKDA)—$1,437,153; Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA)—greater of $76,351 or twice the amount of which a financial institution was required to retain possession or control; and Clean Diamond Trade Act (CDTA)—$13,066. The civil penalty amounts authorized under these statutes are subject to adjustment pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-410, as amended, 28 U.S.C. 2461 note).
The following matrix represents the base amount of the proposed civil penalty for each category of violation:
3 U.S.C. 301; 18 U.S.C. 2332d; 31 U.S.C. 321(b); 50 U.S.C. 1601-1651, 1701-1706; Pub. L. 101-410, 104 Stat. 890 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note); Pub. L. 110-96, 121 Stat. 1011; E.O. 12170, 44 FR 65729, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 457; E.O. 12205, 45 FR 24099, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 248; E.O. 12211, 45 FR 26685, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 253; E.O. 12276, 46 FR 7913, 3 CFR, 1981 Comp., p. 104; E.O. 12279, 46 FR 7919, 3 CFR, 1981 Comp., p. 109; E.O. 12280, 46 FR 7921, 3 CFR, 1981 Comp., p. 110; E.O. 12281, 46 FR 7923, 3 CFR, 1981 Comp., p. 112; E.O. 12282, 46 FR 7925, 3 CFR, 1981 Comp., p. 113; E.O. 12283, 46 FR 7927, 3 CFR, 1981 Comp., p. 114; and E.O. 12294, 46 FR 14111, 3 CFR, 1981 Comp., p. 139.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
As of January 15, 2017, the applicable maximum civil penalty per violation of the Act is the greater of $289,238 or an amount that is twice the amount of the transaction that is the basis of the violation with respect to which the penalty is imposed.
3 U.S.C. 301; 31 U.S.C. 321(b); 50 U.S.C. 1601-1651, 1701-1706; Pub. L. 101-410, 104 Stat. 890 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note); Pub. L. 110-96, 121 Stat. 1011; E.O. 12978, 60 FR 54579, 3 CFR, 1995 Comp., p. 415; E.O. 13286, 68 FR 10619, 3 CFR, 2003 Comp., p. 166.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
3 U.S.C. 301; 18 U.S.C. 2339B, 2332d; 31 U.S.C. 321(b); 50 U.S.C. 1601-1651, 1701-1706; Pub. L. 101-410, 104 Stat. 890 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note); 22 U.S.C. 7201-7211; Pub. L. 109-344, 120 Stat. 1869; Pub. L. 110-96, 121 Stat. 1011 (50 U.S.C. 1705 note); E.O. 13067, 62 FR 59989, 3 CFR, 1997 Comp., p. 230; E.O. 13412, 71 FR 61369, 3 CFR, 2006 Comp., p. 244.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
3 U.S.C. 301; 22 U.S.C. 2751-2799aa-2; 31 U.S.C. 321(b); 50 U.S.C. 1601-1651, 1701-1706; Pub. L. 101-410, 104 Stat. 890 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note); Pub. L. 110-96, 121 Stat. 1011; E.O. 12938, 59 FR 59099, 3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 950; E.O. 13094, 63 FR 40803, 3 CFR, 1998 Comp., p. 200.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
3 U.S.C. 301; 31 U.S.C. 321(b); 50 U.S.C. 1601-1651, 1701-1706; Pub. L. 101-410, 104 Stat. 890 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note); Pub. L. 110-96, 121 Stat. 1011 (50 U.S.C. 1705 note); E.O. 13288, 68 FR 11457, 3 CFR, 2003 Comp., p. 186; E.O. 13391, 70 FR 71201, 3 CFR, 2005 Comp., p. 206; E.O. 13469, 73 FR 43841, 3 CFR, 2008 Comp., p. 1025.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
3 U.S.C. 301; 31 U.S.C. 321(b); 18 U.S.C. 2332d; 22 U.S.C. 287c; 50 U.S.C. 1601-1651, 1701-1706; Pub. L. 101-410, 104 Stat. 890 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note); Pub. L. 110-96, 121 Stat. 1011 (50 U.S.C. 1701 note); E.O. 13338, 69 FR 26751, 3 CFR, 2004 Comp., p. 168; E.O. 13399, 71 FR 25059, 3 CFR, 2006 Comp., p. 218; E.O. 13460, 73 FR 8991, 3 CFR 2008 Comp., p. 181; E.O. 13572, 76 FR 24787, 3 CFR 2011 Comp., p. 236; E.O. 13573, 76 FR 29143, 3 CFR 2011 Comp., p. 241; E.O. 13582, 76 FR 52209, 3 CFR 2011 Comp., p. 264; E.O. 13606, 77 FR 24571, 3 CFR 2012 Comp., p. 243.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
3 U.S.C. 301; 31 U.S.C. 321(b); 50 U.S.C. 1601-1651, 1701-1706; 22 U.S.C. 287c; Pub. L. 101-410, 104 Stat. 890 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note); Pub. L. 110-96, 121 Stat. 1011 (50 U.S.C. 1705 note); E.O. 13396, 71 FR 7389, 3 CFR, 2006 Comp., p. 209.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
3 U.S.C. 301; 31 U.S.C. 321(b); 50 U.S.C. 1601-1651, 1701-1706; Public Law 101-410, 104 Stat. 890 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note); Public Law 110-96, 121 Stat. 1011; E.O. 12938, 59 FR 59099, 3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 950; E.O. 13094, 63 FR 40803, 3 CFR, 1998 Comp., p. 200; E.O. 13382, 70 FR 38567, 3 CFR, 2005 Comp., p. 170.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
3 U.S.C. 301; 31 U.S.C. 321(b); 50 U.S.C. 1601-1651, 1701-1706; 22 U.S.C. 287c; Pub. L. 101-410, 104 Stat. 890 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note); Pub. L. 110-96, 121 Stat. 1011 (50 U.S.C. 1705 note); E.O. 13067, 62 FR 59989, 3 CFR, 1997 Comp., p. 230; E.O. 13400, 71 FR 25483, 3 CFR, 2006 Comp., p. 220.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
3 U.S.C. 301; 31 U.S.C. 321(b); 50 U.S.C. 1601-1651, 1701-1706; 22 U.S.C. 287c; Pub. L. 101-410, 104 Stat. 890 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note); Pub. L. 110-96, 121 Stat. 1011 (50 U.S.C. 1705 note); E.O. 13413, 71 FR 64105, 3 CFR, 2006 Comp., p. 247.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
3 U.S.C. 301; 31 U.S.C. 321(b); 50 U.S.C. 1601-1651, 1701-1706; Pub. L. 101-410, 104 Stat. 890 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note); Pub. L. 110-96, 121 Stat. 1011 (50 U.S.C. 1705 note); E.O. 13405, 71 FR 35485; 3 CFR, 2007 Comp., p. 231.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
3 U.S.C. 301; 31 U.S.C. 321(b); 50 U.S.C. 1601-1651, 1701-1706; Pub. L. 101-410, 104 Stat. 890 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note); Pub. L. 110-96, 121 Stat. 1011 (50 U.S.C. 1705 note); E.O. 13441, 72 FR 43499, 3 CFR, 2008 Comp., p. 232.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
3 U.S.C. 301; 18 U.S.C. 2339B, 2332d; 22 U.S.C. 2349aa-9; 22 U.S.C. 7201-7211; 31 U.S.C. 321(b); 50 U.S.C. 1601-1651, 1701-1706; Pub. L. 101-410, 104 Stat. 890 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note); Pub. L. 110-96, 121 Stat. 1011 (50 U.S.C. 1705 note); Pub. L. 111-195, 124 Stat. 1312 (22 U.S.C. 8501-8551); Pub. L. 112-81, 125 Stat. 1298 (22 U.S.C. 8513a); Pub. L. 112-158, 126 Stat. 1214 (22 U.S.C. 8701-8795); E.O. 12613, 52 FR 41940, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 256; E.O. 12957, 60 FR 14615, 3 CFR, 1995 Comp., p. 332; E.O. 12959, 60 FR 24757, 3 CFR, 1995 Comp., p. 356; E.O. 13059, 62 FR 44531, 3 CFR, 1997 Comp., p. 217; E.O. 13599, 77 FR 6659, 3 CFR, 2012 Comp., p. 215; E.O. 13628, 77 FR 62139, 3 CFR, 2012 Comp., p. 314.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
3 U.S.C. 301; 31 U.S.C. 321(b); 50 U.S.C. 1601-1651, 1701-1706; Pub. L. 101-410, 104 Stat. 890 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note); Pub. L. 110-96, 121 Stat. 1011 (50 U.S.C. 1705 note); Pub. L. 111-195, 124 Stat. 1312 (22 U.S.C. 8501-8551); Pub. L. 112-81, 125 Stat. 1298 (22 U.S.C. 8513a); Pub. L. 112-158, 126 Stat. 1214 (22 U.S.C. 8701-8795); E.O. 12957, 60 FR 14615, 3 CFR, 1995 Comp., p. 332; E.O. 13553, 75 FR 60567, 3 CFR, 2010 Comp., p. 253; E.O. 13599, 77 FR 6659, February 8, 2012; E.O. 13622, 77 FR 45897, August 2, 2012; E.O. 13628, 77 FR 62139, October 12, 2012.
(a) * * *
3 U.S.C. 301; 31 U.S.C. 321(b); 50 U.S.C. 1601-1651, 1701-1706; Pub. L. 101-410, 104 Stat. 890 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note); Pub. L. 110-96, 121 Stat. 1011 (50 U.S.C. 1705 note); Pub. L. 114-102.
(a) * * *
3 U.S.C. 301; 22 U.S.C. 287c; 31 U.S.C. 321(b); 50 U.S.C. 1601-1651, 1701-1706; Pub. L. 110-96, 121 Stat. 1011; E.O. 13303, 68 FR 31931, 3 CFR, 2003 Comp., p. 227; E.O. 13315, 68 FR 52315, 3 CFR, 2003 Comp., p. 252; E.O. 13350, 69 FR 46055, 3 CFR, 2004 Comp., p. 196; E.O. 13364, 69 FR 70177, 3 CFR, 2004 Comp., p. 236; E.O. 13438, 72 FR 39719, 3 CFR, 2007 Comp., p. 224.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
3 U.S.C. 301; 31 U.S.C. 321(b); 50 U.S.C. 1601-1651, 1701-1706; Pub. L. 101-410, 104 Stat. 890 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note); Pub. L. 110-96, 121 Stat. 1011 (50 U.S.C. 1705 note); E.O. 13219, 66 FR 34777, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 778; E.O. 13304, 68 FR 32315, 3 CFR, 2004 Comp. p. 229.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
3 U.S.C. 301; 31 U.S.C. 321(b); Pub. L. 108-19, 117 Stat. 631 (19 U.S.C. 3901-3913); E.O. 13312, 68 FR 45151 3 CFR, 2003 Comp., p. 246.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
3 U.S.C. 301; 22 U.S.C. 287c; 31 U.S.C. 321(b); 50 U.S.C. 1601-1651, 1701-1706; Pub. L. 101-410, 104 Stat. 890 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note); Pub. L. 110-96, 121 Stat. 1011; E.O. 13224, 66 FR 49079, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 786; E.O. 13268, 67 FR 44751, 3 CFR, 2002 Comp., p. 240; E.O. 13284, 68 FR 4075, 3 CFR, 2003 Comp., p. 161; E.O. 13372, 70 FR 8499, 3 CFR, 2006 Comp., p. 159.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
3 U.S.C. 301; 31 U.S.C. 321(b); 50 U.S.C. 1601-1651, 1701-1706; Pub. L. 101-410, 104 Stat. 890 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note); Pub. L. 110-96, 121 Stat. 1011; E.O. 12947, 60 FR 5079, 3 CFR, 1995 Comp., p. 319; E.O. 13099, 63 FR 45167, 3 CFR, 1998 Comp., p. 208; E.O. 13372, 70 FR 8499, 3 CFR, 2006 Comp., p. 159.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
31 U.S.C. 321(b); Pub. L. 101-410, 104 Stat. 890 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note); Pub. L. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, 1248-53 (8 U.S.C. 1189, 18 U.S.C. 2339B).
(b) * * *
3 U.S.C. 301; 21 U.S.C. 1901-1908; 31 U.S.C. 321(b); Pub. L. 101-410, 104 Stat. 890 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note).
(a) * * *
(3) * * *
12 U.S.C. 1829b and 1951-1959; 31 U.S.C. 5311-5314 and 5316-5332; title III, sec. 314, Pub. L. 107-56, 115 Stat. 307; sec. 701. Pub. L. 114-74, 129 Stat. 599.
(b) * * *
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 |