| Page Range | 14601-14810 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 82 FR 14809 - National Poison Prevention Week, 2017 | |
| 82 FR 14756 - Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
| 82 FR 14741 - Endangered Species; Wild Bird Conservation; Receipt of Applications for Permit | |
| 82 FR 14786 - Notice of Rail Energy Transportation Advisory Committee Meeting | |
| 82 FR 14715 - Pesticide Emergency Exemptions; Agency Decisions and State and Federal Agency Crisis Declarations | |
| 82 FR 14614 - Fatty Acids, Montan-Wax, Ethoxylated; Tolerance Exemption | |
| 82 FR 14631 - Aspergillus flavus AF36; Amendment to an Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance | |
| 82 FR 14723 - National and Governmental Advisory Committees | |
| 82 FR 14723 - Notification of a Public Teleconference of the Chartered Science Advisory Board (SAB) | |
| 82 FR 14718 - Product Cancellation Order for Certain Pesticide Registrations | |
| 82 FR 14787 - 2nd & Main, LLC-Acquisition and Operation Exemption-Norland North Chicago, LLC | |
| 82 FR 14704 - U.S. Strategic Command Strategic Advisory Group; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting | |
| 82 FR 14764 - DTE Electric Company; Fermi, Unit 2; Withdrawal | |
| 82 FR 14786 - 60-Day Notice of Intent To Seek Extension of Approval: Waybill Sample | |
| 82 FR 14774 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 14728 - Notice of Agreements Filed | |
| 82 FR 14717 - Product Cancellation Order for Certain Pesticide Registrations | |
| 82 FR 14713 - Board of Scientific Counselors Homeland Security Subcommittee; Notification of Public Teleconference and Public Comment | |
| 82 FR 14633 - Octadecanoic acid, 12-hydroxy-, homopolymer, ester with α, α',α” | |
| 82 FR 14623 - Cyantraniliprole; Pesticide Tolerances | |
| 82 FR 14724 - Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee; Request for Nominations to the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee | |
| 82 FR 14620 - Cloquintocet-mexyl; Pesticide Tolerances | |
| 82 FR 14636 - Polyglycerol Polyricinoleate; Tolerance Exemption | |
| 82 FR 14716 - Notification of Two Public Teleconferences of the Science Advisory Board Chemical Assessment Advisory Committee Augmented for the Review of EPA's Draft Hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX) Assessment | |
| 82 FR 14617 - Isoamyl Acetate; Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance | |
| 82 FR 14731 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations | |
| 82 FR 14709 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 82 FR 14673 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 14767 - New Postal Products | |
| 82 FR 14693 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 14759 - Uranerz Energy Corporation; Jane Dough Unit | |
| 82 FR 14760 - Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4 | |
| 82 FR 14700 - 36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification | |
| 82 FR 14726 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request (3064-0189) | |
| 82 FR 14764 - South Carolina Electric & Gas Company Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3; Fire Pump Head and Diesel Fuel Day Tank Changes | |
| 82 FR 14757 - Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3; South Carolina Electric & Gas Company Annex and Radwaste Building Changes | |
| 82 FR 14766 - Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.; Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4; Design Reliability Assurance Program (D-RAP) Changes | |
| 82 FR 14755 - Vogtle Electric Generating Station, Units 3 and 4; Southern Nuclear Operating Company; IDS Fuse Isolation Panel Additions | |
| 82 FR 14729 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
| 82 FR 14725 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority | |
| 82 FR 14742 - Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Caldwell Canyon Mine and Reclamation Plan, Caribou County, Idaho | |
| 82 FR 14693 - Fisheries of the South Atlantic; South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings | |
| 82 FR 14696 - Fisheries of the South Atlantic; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR); Assessment Webinars for Atlantic Blueline Tilefish; Public Meeting | |
| 82 FR 14639 - Medicare Program; Revisions to Payment Policies Under the Physician Fee Schedule and Other Revisions to Part B for CY 2017; Medicare Advantage Bid Pricing Data Release; Medicare Advantage and Part D Medical Loss Ratio Data Release; Medicare Advantage Provider Network Requirements; Expansion of Medicare Diabetes Prevention Program Model; Medicare Shared Savings Program Requirements; Corrections | |
| 82 FR 14711 - Brookfield White Pine Hydro LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests | |
| 82 FR 14710 - Notice of Commission Staff Attendance | |
| 82 FR 14710 - Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-521); Comment Request; Extension | |
| 82 FR 14707 - Venture Global Plaquemines LNG, LLC and Venture Global Gator Express, LLC; Notice of Application | |
| 82 FR 14708 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 82 FR 14712 - Town of Carbondale, Colorado; Notice of Preliminary Determination of a Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility and Soliciting Comments and Motions To Intervene | |
| 82 FR 14748 - Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public Interest | |
| 82 FR 14692 - Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review | |
| 82 FR 14691 - Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Reviews | |
| 82 FR 14806 - Genomic Medicine Program Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 14714 - Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Consumer Products (Renewal) | |
| 82 FR 14795 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel CLOSE E NUFF; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 82 FR 14797 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel FAST MOVING DIME; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 82 FR 14795 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel LAU LEA; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 82 FR 14798 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel LEI ALOHA; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 82 FR 14796 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel SLO GIN; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 82 FR 14797 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel TO LIFE; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 82 FR 14796 - Agency Requests for Renewal of a Previously Approved Information Collection(s): Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement (VISA) | |
| 82 FR 14639 - Connect America Fund | |
| 82 FR 14674 - Information Collection; Interagency Generic Clearance for Federal Land Management Agencies Collaborative Visitor Feedback Surveys on Recreation and Transportation Related Programs and Systems | |
| 82 FR 14791 - Commercial Driver's License Standards: Application for Exemption Renewal; Daimler Trucks North America (Daimler) | |
| 82 FR 14785 - Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Abstract Expressionism Behind the Iron Curtain” Exhibition | |
| 82 FR 14690 - National Advisory Committee on Racial, Ethnic and Other Populations | |
| 82 FR 14607 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Shark River, Avon, NJ | |
| 82 FR 14737 - Notice of Issuance of Final Determination Concerning a Gearmotor | |
| 82 FR 14702 - 36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification | |
| 82 FR 14745 - Notice of Intent To Initiate Public Scoping and Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the San Juan Mine Deep Lease Extension Mining Plan Modification | |
| 82 FR 14799 - Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology (OST-R); Request for Clearance for an Information Collection: Annual Tank Car Survey | |
| 82 FR 14800 - Agency Information Collection: Activity Under OMB Review; Report of Traffic and Capacity Statistics-The T-100 System | |
| 82 FR 14735 - Meeting of the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 14695 - U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS®) Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 14751 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Coal Mine Operator Response to Schedule for Submission of Additional Evidence and Operator Response to Notice of Claim | |
| 82 FR 14750 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Unemployment Insurance Benefits Operations Self-Assessment Report of Responses | |
| 82 FR 14752 - Proposed Extension of Information Collection; Escape and Evacuation Plans | |
| 82 FR 14794 - Limitation on Claims Against Proposed Public Transportation Projects | |
| 82 FR 14641 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Snapper-Grouper Resources of the South Atlantic; Commercial Trip Limit Reduction | |
| 82 FR 14753 - Notice of Solicitation of Proposals for Calendar Year 2018 Basic Field Grant Awards | |
| 82 FR 14789 - Hours of Service of Drivers: Application for Exemption; Truck Renting and Leasing Association, Inc. (TRALA) | |
| 82 FR 14792 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Revision of an Approved Information Collection: Request for Revocation of Authority Granted | |
| 82 FR 14690 - North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Article 1904 Binational Panel Reviews: Notice of Completion of Panel Review | |
| 82 FR 14793 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension of a Currently-Approved Information Collection: Accident Recordkeeping Requirements | |
| 82 FR 14734 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Public Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 14699 - Board of Visitors of the U.S. Air Force Academy; Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 14733 - Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Assessment and Public Meeting | |
| 82 FR 14732 - World Trade Center Health Program; Request for Nominations of Scientific Peer Reviewers of Proposed Additions to the List of WTC-Related Health Conditions | |
| 82 FR 14750 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection; The National Instant Criminal Background Check System Section (NICS) Checks by Criminal Justice Agencies | |
| 82 FR 14679 - Opportunity for Designation in the Plainview, Texas, Area; Request for Comments on the Official Agency Servicing This Area | |
| 82 FR 14678 - Opportunity for Designation in the Bloomington, Illinois, Area; Request for Comments on the Official Agency Servicing This Area | |
| 82 FR 14676 - Opportunity for Designation in the Grand Forks, North Dakota, Area; Request for Comments on the Official Agency Servicing This Area | |
| 82 FR 14677 - Opportunity for Designation in the Sioux City, Iowa, Area; Request for Comments on the Official Agency Servicing This Area | |
| 82 FR 14676 - Opportunity for Designation in the Owensboro, Kentucky, Area; Request for Comments on the Official Agency Servicing This Area | |
| 82 FR 14786 - SJI Board of Directors Meeting, Notice | |
| 82 FR 14754 - Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Advisory Committee; Meeting | |
| 82 FR 14726 - Notice to All Interested Parties of Intent To Terminate the Receivership of 10464, Citizens First National Bank, Princeton, Illinois | |
| 82 FR 14726 - Notice to All Interested Parties of Intent To Terminate the Receivership of 10332, Evergreen State Bank, Stoughton, Wisconsin | |
| 82 FR 14778 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Listing and Trading of Shares of the Direxion Daily Crude Oil Bull 3x Shares and Direxion Daily Crude Oil Bear 3x Shares Under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.200 | |
| 82 FR 14768 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Complex Orders | |
| 82 FR 14779 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Change Modifying the NYSE Amex Options Fee Schedule | |
| 82 FR 14781 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Describe the Illiquid Charge That May Be Imposed on Members | |
| 82 FR 14775 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the NYSE Arca Equities Schedule of Fees and Charges for Exchange Services | |
| 82 FR 14779 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Investors Exchange LLC; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule Change To Amend IEX Rule 16.135 To Adopt Generic Listing Standards for Managed Fund Shares | |
| 82 FR 14787 - Cavallo Bus Lines, LLC-Acquisition of Control of Assets-White Knight Limousine, Inc. | |
| 82 FR 14734 - Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research Small Business and Industry Assistance Regulatory Education for Industry Generic Drugs Forum; Public Conference | |
| 82 FR 14694 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement; Scoping Process; Notification of Scoping Meetings; Request for Comments | |
| 82 FR 14680 - Inviting Applications for Rural Cooperative Development Grants | |
| 82 FR 14802 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request on disclosure of Returns and Return Information by Other Agencies | |
| 82 FR 14804 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Rev. Proc. 2008-27 | |
| 82 FR 14802 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Disabled Access Credit | |
| 82 FR 14803 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Revenue Procedure 2010-52 | |
| 82 FR 14803 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation Project | |
| 82 FR 14805 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Revenue Procedure 2004-29 | |
| 82 FR 14804 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation Project | |
| 82 FR 14768 - Product Change-Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, & First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service Agreement | |
| 82 FR 14730 - Meeting of the National Advisory Council for Healthcare Research and Quality | |
| 82 FR 14736 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 82 FR 14737 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 82 FR 14736 - National Cancer Institute; Amended Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 14736 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 82 FR 14768 - Product Change-First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service Agreement | |
| 82 FR 14768 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement | |
| 82 FR 14740 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; State Administrative Plan for the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program | |
| 82 FR 14747 - Global Digital Trade I: Market Opportunities and Key Foreign Trade Restrictions; Notice of Correction Concerning Institution of Investigation and Scheduling of Hearing | |
| 82 FR 14698 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Native American Tribal Insignia Database | |
| 82 FR 14696 - Trademark and Trial Appeal Board (TTAB) Actions | |
| 82 FR 14705 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Protection and Advocacy of Individual Rights (PAIR) | |
| 82 FR 14706 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Annual Client Assistance Program (CAP) Report | |
| 82 FR 14705 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Measures and Methods for the National Reporting System for Adult Education | |
| 82 FR 14729 - Submission for OMB Review; Contract Financing | |
| 82 FR 14728 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
| 82 FR 14729 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Savings and Loan Holding Companies | |
| 82 FR 14689 - Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Wyoming Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 14754 - Notice of Intent To Seek Approval To Renew an Information Collection | |
| 82 FR 14688 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Virginia Advisory Committee To Discuss Potential Projects of Study | |
| 82 FR 14689 - Notice of Public Meeting of the District of Columbia Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 14608 - Limited Federal Implementation Plan; Prevention of Significant Deterioration Requirements for Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5 | |
| 82 FR 14805 - Notification of Rescheduled Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee March 21, 2017, Public Meeting | |
| 82 FR 14748 - Certain Graphics Systems, Components Thereof, and Consumer Products Containing the Same; Institution of Investigation | |
| 82 FR 14647 - Tobacco Product Standard for N-Nitrosonornicotine Level in Finished Smokeless Tobacco Products; Extension of Comment Period | |
| 82 FR 14648 - Air Plan Approval; Washington: General Regulations for Air Pollution Sources, Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council | |
| 82 FR 14654 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Oregon: Permitting and General Rule Revisions | |
| 82 FR 14670 - Air Plan Approval; Georgia; Atlanta; Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard | |
| 82 FR 14611 - Air Plan Approval; Georgia; Atlanta; Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard | |
| 82 FR 14671 - Notice of Intention To Reconsider the Final Determination of the Mid-Term Evaluation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Model Year 2022-2025 Light Duty Vehicles | |
| 82 FR 14642 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 14646 - Airworthiness Directives; CFE Company Turbofan Engines | |
| 82 FR 14601 - Airworthiness Directives; BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 14602 - Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Services B.V. Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 14606 - Certifications and Exemptions Under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 | |
| 82 FR 14604 - Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections III: Extension of Compliance Date for Provision Concerning Baggage Handling Statistics Report |
Forest Service
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
Census Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Patent and Trademark Office
Air Force Department
Navy Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Office of Government Information Services
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Maritime Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Transportation Statistics Bureau
Internal Revenue Service
United States Mint
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; correction.
The FAA is correcting an airworthiness directive (AD) that published in the
This correction is effective March 22, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of February 7, 2017 (82 FR 7, January 3, 2017).
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1175; fax 425-227-1149.
Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2016-25-25, Amendment 39-18751 (82 FR 7, January 3, 2017) (“AD 2016-25-25”), currently requires repetitive detailed inspections for cracks, corrosion, and other defects of the rear face of the wing rear spar, and repair if necessary, for all BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model 4101 airplanes.
As published, the Product Identification line of the regulatory text contains an error. The Product Identification line incorrectly identifies Bombardier as the product manufacturer, but should have identified BAE Systems (Operations) Limited. All other references to the product manufacturer appear correctly as BAE Systems (Operations) Limited throughout the preamble and regulatory text of AD 2016-25-25.
No other part of the preamble or regulatory information has been changed; therefore, only the changed portion of the final rule is being published in the
The effective date of this AD remains February 7, 2017.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective February 7, 2017.
This AD replaces AD 2012-11-15, Amendment 39-17079 (77 FR 36127, June 18, 2012) (“AD 2012-11-15”).
This AD applies to BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model 4101 airplanes, certificated in any category, all models and all serial numbers.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.
This AD was prompted by new reports of cracking found in the wing rear spar and technical analysis results, which confirmed that the crack initiation and propagation are due to fatigue, with no indication of any other crack initiation mechanism (
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 30 days after February 7, 2017 (the effective date of this AD), or within 1,600 flight cycles since the most recent detailed inspection was done as specified in BAE Systems Alert Service Bulletin J41-A57-029, whichever occurs later: Do a detailed inspection for cracks, corrosion, and other defects (defects include scratches, dents, holes, damage to fastener holes, or damage to surface protection and finish) of the rear face of the wing rear spars, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of BAE Systems Alert Service Bulletin J41-A57-029, Revision 3, dated April 8, 2014. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,600 flight cycles.
(1) If any cracking, corrosion, or other defect is found within the criteria defined in Chapter 57, Wings, of the Jetstream Series 4100 Structural Repair Manual (SRM), Volume 1, Publication Ref. No. (Transmittal No.) SA 4-4100/SRM/400, Revision 32, dated October 15, 2014 (“Chapter 57 of the SRM”): Before further flight, repair the affected area, in accordance with the repair instructions of Chapter 57 of the SRM.
(2) If any cracking, corrosion, or other defect is found exceeding the criteria defined in Chapter 57 of the SRM: Before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or BAE Systems (Operations) Limited's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).
Accomplishment of a repair, as required by paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD, does not constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD, unless the approved repair required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD states otherwise (
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
Information may be emailed to:
(2)
Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0100, dated June 3, 2015, for related information. This MCAI may 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 this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) BAE Systems Alert Service Bulletin J41-A57-029, Revision 3, dated April 8, 2014.
(ii) Chapter 57, Wings, of the BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Jetstream Series 4100 Structural Repair Manual, Volume 1, Publication Ref. No. (Transmittal No.) SA 4-4100/SRM/400, Revision 32, dated October 15, 2014.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact BAE Systems (Operations) Limited, Customer Information Department, Prestwick International Airport, Ayrshire, KA9 2RW, Scotland, United Kingdom; telephone +44 1292 675207; fax +44 1292 675704; 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), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 0100 airplanes equipped with Rolls-Royce TAY 650-15 engines. This AD was prompted by reports of uncontained engine fan blade failures in Rolls-Royce TAY 650-15 engines. This AD requires installation of a caution placard in the flight compartment. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective April 26, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of April 26, 2017.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 1357, 2130 EL Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; telephone: +31 (0)88-6280-350; fax: +31 (0)88-6280-111; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; fax 425-227-1149.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 0100 airplanes equipped with Rolls-Royce TAY 650-15 engines. The NPRM published in the
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive Airworthiness Directive 2013-0141, dated July 12, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 0100 airplanes equipped with Rolls-Royce TAY 650-15 engines. The MCAI states:
In the past, two F28 [Mark] 0100 aeroplanes with TAY [650-15] engines were involved in incidents as a result of uncontained engine fan blade failures. The fan blade failures occurred due to cracking of the fan blades, which was initiated under conditions of fan blade flutter. This fan blade flutter can occur during stabilized reverse thrust operation within a specific N1 RPM-range [revolutions per minute], known as Keep Out Zone (KOZ), which has been identified to be between 57% and 75% N1 RPM.
To address this potential unsafe condition [which can result in damage to the airplane and possible injury to personnel], [Civil Aviation Authority—The Netherlands] CAA-NL issued [Dutch] AD (BLA) nr. 2002-119 for the aeroplane, while Luftfahrt-Bundesamt (LBA) Germany issued [German] AD (LTA) 2002-090 (later revised) for the Rolls-Royce Tay [650-15] engines. More recently, LBA [German] AD 2002-090R1 was superseded by EASA AD 2013-0070.
During stabilized forward thrust operation of an engine with the aeroplane stationary on the ground (
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires the installation of a caution placard in the flight compartment, between the Standby Engine Indicator (SEI) and the Multi-Functional Display Unit (MFDU).
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We reviewed Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-11-027, dated April 18, 2013. This service information describes procedures for the installation of a caution placard. 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 4 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
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 April 26, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 0100 airplanes, certificated in any category, all serial numbers if equipped with Rolls-Royce TAY 650-15 engines.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 11, Placards and Markings.
This AD was prompted by reports of uncontained engine fan blade failures in Rolls-Royce TAY 650-15 engines. We are issuing this AD to prevent certain engine thrust settings during ground operation, which can cause the fan blades to flutter and fail, resulting in damage to the airplane and possible injury to personnel.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, install a caution placard in the flight compartment, between the standby engine indicator (SEI) and the multi-functional display unit (MFDU), in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-11-027, dated April 18, 2013.
Additional information can be found in Fokker All Operators Message AOF100.177 #05, dated April 18, 2013.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2013-0141, dated July 12, 2013, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; fax 425-227-1149.
(3) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (j)(3) and (j)(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) Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-11-027, dated April 18, 2013.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 1357, 2130 EL Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; telephone: +31 (0)88-6280-350; fax: +31 (0)88-6280-111; 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:
Office of the Secretary (OST), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
The Department of Transportation is amending its regulations by extending the compliance date from January 1, 2018, to January 1, 2019, for the provision concerning reporting of baggage handling statistics in the Department's final rule on enhancing airline passenger protections. This extension is necessary to ensure consistency with the change of compliance date for the Department's final rule on reporting of data for mishandled baggage and wheelchairs.
This final rule is effective March 22, 2017.
Blane A. Workie, Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC, 20590, 202-366-9342, 202-366-7152 (fax),
On November 3, 2016, the Department of Transportation published a final rule in the
On March 2, 2017, the Department issued a rule extending the compliance date of its final rule on reporting of data for mishandled baggage and wheelchairs in aircraft cargo compartments to January 1, 2019. That final rule addressed the methodology for collection of mishandled baggage information and required separate statistics for mishandled wheelchairs and scooters used by passengers with disabilities. The change to the matrix on how to report mishandled baggage and to provide separate reporting of mishandled wheelchairs and scooters was incorporated into the Department's Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections III final rule. As such, this document is extending the compliance date to January 1, 2019 for the provision concerning baggage handling statistics in the Department's final rule on enhancing airline passenger protections. The compliance date for the requirements pertaining to on-time performance and oversales remain unchanged.
As is the case today, until January 1, 2019, airlines that account for at least 1% of domestic scheduled passenger revenue will continue to provide mishandled baggage data only for flights they operate based on the number of Mishandled Baggage Reports and the number of domestic passenger enplanement. Airlines that account for at least 0.5% but less than 1% of the domestic scheduled passenger revenue are not required to provide mishandled baggage data until February 15, 2019 for air transportation taking place on or after January 1, 2019. Separate statistics for mishandled wheelchairs and scooters used by passengers with disabilities and transported in aircraft cargo compartment are not required until January 1, 2019.
Air carriers, Mishandled baggage, On-time statistics, Reporting, Uniform system of accounts.
Accordingly, the Department of Transportation amends 14 CFR part 234 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 329, 41101, and 41701.
(a) For air transportation taking place before January 1, 2019, an air carrier certificated under 49 U.S.C. 41102 that accounts for at least 1 percent of domestic scheduled-passenger revenues in the most recently reported 12-month period as defined by the Department's Office of Airline Information, and as reported to the Department pursuant to part 241 of this title shall, for the flights it operates, report monthly to the Department on a domestic system basis, excluding charter flights, the total number of passengers enplaned system-wide and the total number of mishandled-baggage reports filed with the carrier for any nonstop flight, including a mechanically delayed flight, to or from any airport within the contiguous 48 states that accounts for at least 1 percent of domestic scheduled-passenger enplanements in the previous calendar year, as reported to the Department pursuant to part 241 of this title.
(b) For air transportation taking place on or after January 1, 2019, an air carrier certificated under 49 U.S.C. 41102 that accounts for at least 0.5 percent of domestic scheduled-passenger revenues in the most recently reported 12-month period as defined by the Department's Office of Airline Information, and as reported to the Department pursuant to part 241 of this title shall report monthly to the Department on a domestic system basis, excluding charter flights:
(1) The total number of checked bags enplaned, including gate checked baggage, “valet bags,” interlined bags, and wheelchairs and scooters enplaned in the aircraft cargo compartment for any domestic nonstop scheduled passenger flight, including a mechanically delayed flight, operated by the carrier to or from any U.S. large, medium, small or non-hub airport as defined in 49 U.S.C. 41702 and separately for any domestic nonstop scheduled passenger flight, including a mechanically delayed flight, held out with only the carrier's designator code to or from any U.S. large, medium, small, or non-hub airport as defined in 49 U.S.C. 47102 and operated by any code-share partner that is a certificated air carrier or commuter air carrier;
(2) The total number of wheelchairs and scooters that were enplaned in the aircraft cargo compartment for any domestic nonstop scheduled passenger flight, including a mechanically delayed flight, operated by the carrier to or from any U.S. large, medium, small or non-hub airport as defined in 49 U.S.C. 41702 and separately for any domestic nonstop scheduled passenger flight, including a mechanically delayed flight, held out with only the carrier's designator code to or from any U.S. large, medium, small, or non-hub airport as defined in 49 U.S.C. 47102 and operated by any code-share partner that is a certificated air carrier or commuter air carrier;
(3) The number of mishandled checked bags, including gate-checked baggage, “valet bags,” interlined bags and wheelchairs and scooters that were enplaned in the aircraft cargo compartment for any domestic nonstop scheduled passenger flight, including a mechanically delayed flight, operated by the carrier to or from any U.S. large, medium, small or non-hub airport as defined in 49 U.S.C. 41702 and separately for any domestic nonstop scheduled passenger flight, including a mechanically delayed flight, held out with only the carrier's designator code to or from any U.S. large, medium, small, or non-hub airport as defined in 49 U.S.C. 47102 and operated by any code-share partner that is a certificated air carrier or commuter air carrier; and
(4) The number of mishandled wheelchairs and scooters that were enplaned in the aircraft cargo compartment for any domestic nonstop scheduled passenger flight, including a mechanically delayed flight, operated by the carrier to or from any U.S. large, medium, small or non-hub airport as defined in 49 U.S.C. 41702 and separately for any domestic nonstop scheduled passenger flight, including a mechanically delayed flight, held out with only the carrier's designator code to or from any U.S. large, medium, small, or non-hub airport as defined in 49 U.S.C. 47102 and operated by any code-share partner that is a certificated air carrier or commuter air carrier.
(c) The information in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section shall be submitted to the Department within 15 days after the end of the month to which the
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Final rule.
The Department of the Navy (DoN) is amending its certifications and exemptions under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS), to reflect that the Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (DAJAG) (Admiralty and Maritime Law) has determined that USS PORTLAND (LPD 27) is a vessel of the Navy which, due to its special construction and purpose, cannot fully comply with certain provisions of the 72 COLREGS without interfering with its special function as a naval ship. The intended effect of this rule is to warn mariners in waters where 72 COLREGS apply.
This rule is effective March 22, 2017 and is applicable beginning March 2, 2017.
Commander Theron R. Korsak, (Admiralty and Maritime Law), Office of the Judge Advocate General, Department of the Navy, 1322 Patterson Ave. SE., Suite 3000, Washington Navy Yard, DC 20374-5066, telephone 202-685-5040.
Pursuant to the authority granted in 33 U.S.C. 1605, the DoN amends 32 CFR part 706.
This amendment provides notice that the DAJAG (Admiralty and Maritime Law), under authority delegated by the Secretary of the Navy, has certified that USS PORTLAND (LPD 27) is a vessel of the Navy which, due to its special construction and purpose, cannot fully comply with the following specific provisions of 72 COLREGS without interfering with its special function as a naval ship: Annex I paragraph 2(i)(i), Rule 27(a)(i) and (b)(i), pertaining to the placement of all-round task lights in a vertical line; Annex I, paragraph 3(a), pertaining to the horizontal distance between the forward and after masthead lights; and Annex I, paragraph 2(k) as described in Rule 30(a)(i), pertaining to the vertical separation between anchor lights. The DAJAG (Admiralty and Maritime Law) has also certified that the lights involved are located in closest possible compliance with the applicable 72 COLREGS requirements.
Moreover, it has been determined, in accordance with 32 CFR parts 296 and 701, that publication of this amendment for public comment prior to adoption is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to public interest since it is based on technical findings that the placement of lights on this vessel in a manner differently from that prescribed herein will adversely affect the vessel's ability to perform its military functions.
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Vessels.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the DoN amends part 706 of title 32 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1605.
The additions read as follows:
20. * * *
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the NJ Transit Railroad Bridge across Shark River (South Channel), mile 0.9, at Avon, NJ. This deviation is necessary to facilitate testing and replacement of the drive motor.
This deviation is effective from 10 p.m. on March 24, 2017, through 6 a.m. on March 25, 2017.
The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2017-0137] is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Martin Bridges, Bridge Administration Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard, telephone 757-398-6422, email
The New Jersey Transit, who owns and operates the NJ Transit Railroad Bridge across the Shark River, mile 0.9, at Avon, NJ, has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulation set out in 33 CFR 117.751, to facilitate replacement of the drive motor on the vertical span of the bridge.
Under this temporary deviation, the bridge will remain in the closed-to-navigation position from 10 p.m., March 24, 2017, to 6 a.m., March 25, 2017. The drawbridge is a single span which has a vertical clearance in the closed-to-navigation position of 9 feet above mean high water.
The NJ Transit Railroad Bridge is used by recreational vessels, tug and barge traffic, fishing vessels, and small commercial vessels. The Coast Guard has carefully considered the nature and volume of vessel traffic on the waterway in publishing this temporary deviation.
Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at anytime. The bridge span will not be able to open in case of an emergency and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterway through our Local Notice and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing a limited Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) under the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) to apply to the North Coast Unified Air Quality Management District (North Coast Unified AQMD or District) in California. This limited FIP will implement provisions to regulate fine particulate matter (PM
This rule is effective on April 21, 2017.
The EPA has established Docket ID Number EPA-R09-OAR-2016-0727 for this action. All documents in the docket are listed in the
Laura Yannayon, (415) 972-3534 or
Throughout this document, the terms “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to the EPA.
On December 22, 2016 (81 FR 93872), the EPA proposed a limited FIP for the North Coast Unified AQMD in California, which would apply the EPA's PSD regulatory program under 40 CFR 52.21 specifically to sources in the District subject to PSD review for emissions of PM
The requirement that the EPA promulgate this limited FIP for the North Coast Unified AQMD stems from several actions taken previously by the EPA in accordance with CAA requirements. In 2008, the EPA promulgated a rulemaking finalizing regulations to implement the New Source Review program for PM
On January 15, 2013, the EPA issued a finding of failure to submit for the State of California in which it found that California had failed to make an infrastructure
On April 1, 2016, the EPA published a final rule partially approving and partially disapproving several CAA infrastructure SIP revisions submitted by the State of California related to the implementation, maintenance and enforcement of the NAAQS for ozone, PM
On September 2, 2014, the EPA published a final rule finding that the North Coast Unified AQMD had failed to make a complete submittal to address new requirements for PM
In sum, the EPA has not approved a PSD SIP revision for California that would address the District's PM
The EPA's proposed FIP action provided a 30-day public comment period, which closed on January 23, 2017. The EPA also preliminarily scheduled a public hearing for January 13, 2017 to receive written and oral comments on our proposed action, which we stated would be held only if we received a written request for such a hearing by December 29, 2016. No one requested such a hearing during this period and therefore the hearing was canceled. During the public comment period, we received no comments on our proposed action.
Under CAA section 110(c)(1) and for the reasons discussed in our December 22, 2016 proposed rule and in the Proposed Action section of this notice, we are finalizing the limited PSD FIP for the North Coast Unified AQMD as proposed. CAA section 110(c)(1) requires the Administrator to promulgate a FIP at any time within two years after the Administrator either finds that a state has failed to make a required submission or disapproves a state's SIP in whole or in part, unless the state submits and the EPA approves a SIP that corrects the deficiency before the Administrator promulgates a FIP. As indicated earlier in this notice, the EPA has not approved a PSD SIP revision for California to regulate PM
This limited FIP consists of the EPA regulations found in 40 CFR 52.21, including the PSD applicability provisions, with a limitation to assure that, strictly for purposes of this rulemaking, the FIP applies only to the regulation of PM
The EPA has previously promulgated limited CAA PSD FIPs for the North Coast Unified AQMD to implement the federal PSD permitting program under 40 CFR 52.21 for certain other sources and pollutants, including the PSD program as it regulates oxides of nitrogen (NO
This limited FIP is narrow in scope, in that it will only address the PM
This limited FIP will remain in place until California submits a SIP revision addressing the identified deficiencies relating to the District's PSD program for PM
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
This action is not a significant regulatory action and therefore was not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
This action does not impose any new information collection burden. The OMB has previously approved the information collection requirements contained in the existing regulations for PSD (
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. The small entities subject to the requirements of this action are a single biomass generating facility, which is currently not operating. The Agency has determined that this single facility may experience an impact associated with the requirements of this action, but only in the event that the facility elects to significantly expand its operations. The EPA is not aware of any specific new sources that would be subject to regulation under this action in the future. We expect a negligible financial impact on any facilities subject to the requirements of this action because any such facility would be subject to substantially similar, and in some respects more stringent, regulatory requirements that are already in effect under state and federal law.
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. While the EPA's action will lead to the application of federal PSD regulations for PM
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes. The FIP is not applicable on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because, as a limited FIP establishing PSD regulatory requirements for the PM
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). This action does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. With this action, the EPA is only implementing the PSD permitting requirements mandated by the CAA in order to ensure compliance with the PM
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States
Air pollution control, Environmental protection, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(v) Those projects that are major stationary sources or major modifications for emissions of PM
Environmental Protection Agency.
Direct final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve the portion of a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted on February 6, 2015, by the State of Georgia, through the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GA EPD), addressing the nonattainment new source review (NNSR) requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for the Atlanta, Georgia 2008 8-hour ozone nonattainment area (hereinafter referred to as the “Atlanta Area” or “Area”). The Atlanta Area is comprised of 15 counties in Atlanta (Bartow, Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Henry, Newton, Paulding, and Rockdale). This action is being taken pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and its implementing regulations.
This direct final rule is effective May 22, 2017 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by April 21, 2017. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0248 at
Kelly Sheckler of the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mrs. Sheckler can be reached by telephone at (404) 562-9222 or via electronic mail at
On March 12, 2008, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.075 parts per million (ppm).
Upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the CAA requires EPA to designate as nonattainment any area that is violating the NAAQS based on the three most recent years of ambient air quality data at the conclusion of the designation process. The Atlanta Area was designated nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS on April 30, 2012 (effective July 20, 2012) using 2009-2011 ambient air quality data.
Based on the initial nonattainment designation for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard, Georgia was required to develop a SIP revision addressing certain CAA requirements for the Atlanta Area. On February 6, 2015, Georgia submitted a SIP revision addressing the emissions inventory, emissions statements, and NNSR requirements related to the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the Atlanta Area.
The minimum SIP requirements for NNSR permitting programs for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS are located in 40 CFR 51.165.
Georgia's longstanding SIP-approved NNSR program, established in Air Quality Control Rule 391-3-1-.03(8)—
The version of Rule 391-3-1-.03(8) that is contained in the current SIP has not changed since the 2010 rulemaking.
EPA is approving the portion of Georgia's February 6, 2015, SIP revision addressing the NNSR requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the Atlanta Area. EPA has concluded that the State's submission fulfills the 40
EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All adverse comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on May 22, 2017 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations.
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 22, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of fatty acids, montan-wax, ethoxylated (CAS No. 68476-04-0) when used as an inert ingredient in a pesticide chemical formulation. Clariant Corporation submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of fatty acids, montan-wax, ethoxylated on food or feed commodities.
This regulation is effective March 22, 2017. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before May 22, 2017, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0337, is available at
Michael Goodis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0337 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before May 22, 2017. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0337, by one of the following methods.
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
In the
Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the exemption is “safe.” Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and use in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue . . .” and specifies factors EPA is to consider in establishing an exemption.
EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only in those cases where it can be shown that the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance may be established.
Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action and considered its validity, completeness and reliability and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. In the case of certain chemical substances that are defined as polymers, the Agency has established a set of criteria to identify categories of polymers expected to present minimal or no risk. The definition of a polymer is given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and the exclusion criteria for identifying these low-risk polymers are described in 40 CFR 723.250(d). 2- fatty acids, montan-wax, ethoxylated conforms to the definition of a polymer given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and meets the following criteria that are used to identify low-risk polymers.
1. The polymer is not a cationic polymer nor is it reasonably anticipated to become a cationic polymer in a natural aquatic environment.
2. The polymer does contain as an integral part of its composition the atomic elements carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen.
3. The polymer does not contain as an integral part of its composition, except as impurities, any element other than those listed in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(2)(ii).
4. The polymer is neither designed nor can it be reasonably anticipated to substantially degrade, decompose, or depolymerize.
5. The polymer is manufactured or imported from monomers and/or reactants that are already included on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory or manufactured under an applicable TSCA section 5 exemption.
6. The polymer is not a water absorbing polymer with a number average molecular weight (MW) greater than or equal to 10,000 daltons.
7. The polymer does not contain certain perfluoroalkyl moieties consisting of a CF3- or longer chain length as specified in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(6).
Additionally, the polymer also meets as required the following exemption criteria specified in 40 CFR 723.250(e).
8. The polymer's number average MW of 1,800 is greater than 1,000 and less than 10,000 daltons. The polymer contains less than 10% oligomeric material below MW 500 and less than 25% oligomeric material below MW 1,000,
Thus, fatty acids, montan-wax, ethoxylated meets the criteria for a polymer to be considered low risk under 40 CFR 723.250. Based on its conformance to the criteria in this unit, no mammalian toxicity is anticipated from dietary, inhalation, or dermal exposure to fatty acids, montan-wax, ethoxylated.
For the purposes of assessing potential exposure under this exemption, EPA considered that fatty acids, montan-wax, ethoxylated could be present in all raw and processed agricultural commodities and drinking water, and that non-occupational, non-dietary exposure was possible. The number average MW of fatty acids, montan-wax, ethoxylated is 20,500 daltons. Generally, a polymer of this size would be poorly absorbed through the intact gastrointestinal tract or through intact human skin. Since fatty acids, montan-wax, ethoxylated conform to the criteria that identify a low-risk polymer, there are no concerns for risks associated with any potential exposure scenarios that are reasonably foreseeable. The Agency has determined that a tolerance is not necessary to protect the public health.
Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”
EPA has not found fatty acids, montan-wax, ethoxylated to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and fatty acids, montan-wax, ethoxylated does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that fatty acids, montan-wax, ethoxylated does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the data base unless EPA concludes that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. Due to the expected low toxicity of fatty acids, montan-wax, ethoxylated, EPA has not used a safety factor analysis to assess the risk. For the same reasons the additional tenfold safety factor is unnecessary.
Based on the conformance to the criteria used to identify a low-risk polymer, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from aggregate exposure to residues of fatty acids, montan-wax, ethoxylated.
There are no existing exemptions from a tolerance for fatty acids, montan-wax, ethoxylated.
An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitation.
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
The Codex has not established a MRL for fatty acids, montan-wax, ethoxylated.
Accordingly, EPA finds that exempting residues of fatty acids, montan-wax, ethoxylated from the requirement of a tolerance will be safe.
This action establishes a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501
This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of isoamyl acetate (CAS Reg. No. 123-92-2) when used as an inert ingredient (buffering agent) in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops and raw agricultural commodities after harvest. The Technology Sciences Group on behalf of the Jeneil Biosurfactant Company submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting establishment of an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance.
This regulation is effective March 22, 2017. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before May 22, 2017, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0378, is available at
Michael Goodis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0378 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before May 22, 2017. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0378, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
In the
This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of isoamyl acetate when applied in accordance with the conditions under 40 CFR 180.910.
Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a pesticidal efficacy of their own): Solvents such as alcohols and hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents; and emulsifiers. The term “inert” is not intended to imply nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active. Generally, EPA has exempted inert ingredients from the requirement of a tolerance based on the low toxicity of the individual inert ingredients.
Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue . . . . ”
EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only in those cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance may be established.
Consistent with FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(A), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for isoamyl acetate including exposure resulting from the exemption established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with isoamyl acetate follows.
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by isoamyl acetate as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies are discussed in this unit.
Isoamyl acetate exhibits low levels of acute toxicity with oral lethal dose (LD)
The National Toxicology Program reported dogs exposed to 5,000 parts per million (ppm) isoamyl acetate via inhalation for one hour showed drowsiness and nasal irritation. Cats exposed to 4,000 ppm isoamyl acetate for 20 minutes experienced eye and nose irritation.
The potential for eye irritation in rabbits was evaluated with a mixture of n-pentyl acetate and 2-methylbutyl acetate, two structural isomers of isoamyl acetate. Moderate conjunctival irritation, with no effects to the cornea or iris, resulted from ocular exposure and minor, transient conjunctival irritation was also observed. Conjunctival effects cleared up in 7 days.
There are no repeat-dose toxicity studies with isoamyl acetate. However, there are studies available regarding isoamyl alcohol. Isoamyl acetate readily metabolizes to isoamyl alcohol and toxicity data on isoamyl alcohol may be used as a surrogate for isoamyl acetate.
In a 4-week range-finding drinking water study, SPF-Wistar rats received isoamyl alcohol doses of 360 milligrams/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day) for two weeks and 1160 mg/kg/day for the next two weeks (20,000 and 16,000 ppm respectively). The higher concentration was unpalatable to the rats. Exposure to isoamyl alcohol did not affect body weight gain or food consumption and no effects were observed upon gross post-mortem examination. The NOAEL for this study is 1,160 mg/kg/day.
In a subsequent 90-day study, rats were given daily drinking water concentrations of 0, 1,000, 4,000 and 16,000 ppm isoamyl alcohol (males 0, 73, 295, 1,068 mg/kg/day and females 91, 385, 1,657 mg/kg/day, respectively). Treatment did not induce any effect on mortality, body weight, various clinical chemistry parameters, or organ weights or any abnormality at gross and microscopic examination. There were marginal increases in red blood cell counts in the male animals of the mid- and high-dose groups and slight decreases in mean corpuscular volume and mean corpuscular hemoglobin content in the male animals of the high-dose group. The highest dose levels tested were the no observed-adverse-effect levels (NOAEL) in the drinking water study in rats (1,068 and 1,657 mg/kg/day in males and females respectively.
In a 17-week oral gavage study, Ash/CSE rats were administered daily doses of 0, 150, 500 or 1,000 mg/kg/day isoamyl alcohol. Parameters and endpoints evaluated included clinical observations, body weight, food and water consumption, hematology, clinical chemistry, urinalysis, organ weights (brain, liver, heart, spleen, stomach, small intestine, caecum, adrenals, gonads, pituitary and thyroid) and macroscopic and microscopic evaluations. Two high-dose rats died from lung congestion which was
Isoamyl acetate was negative in bacteria cell and
Prenatal toxicity to isoamyl alcohol was studied using Wistar rats and Himalayan rabbits exposed 6 hours/day on gestational days 6-15 and 7-19 respectively. Dose concentrations were 0, 500, 2,500 and 10,000 mg/m
An
The Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives summarized a chronic study where male and female rats received 2% isoamyl alcohol in their drinking water. No adverse effects or tumors were observed up to 2,000 mg/kg/day in rats given isoamyl alcohol in their drinking water for 53-56 weeks.
A DEREK analysis conducted on the isoamyl acetate structure did not reveal any structural alerts for possible carcinogenicity with regard to systemic and organ toxicity or mutagenicity. Therefore, based on the results of the DEREK analysis, the lack of toxicity in the submitted studies, and the lack of mutagenicity, isoamyl acetate is not expected to be carcinogenic to humans.
Due to the lack of adverse effects in the available data, no toxicological endpoint of concern has been identified. Therefore, a quantitative assessment of human exposure and risk is not necessary and have not been conducted.
1.
Under this exemption from the requirement of a tolerance, residues of isoamyl acetate may be found on foods from crops that were treated with pesticide formulations containing isoamyl acetate. However, a quantitative dietary exposure assessment was not conducted since an endpoint for risk assessment was not identified.
2.
3.
Isoamyl acetate may be used in pesticide products and non-pesticide products that may be used around the home. Based on the discussion in Unit IV.B., a quantitative residential exposure assessment for isoamyl acetate was not conducted.
4.
EPA has not found isoamyl acetate to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and isoamyl acetate does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that isoamyl acetate does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at
1.
As part of its qualitative assessment, the Agency did not use safety factors for assessing risk, and no additional safety factor is needed for assessing risk to infants and children. Based on an assessment of isoamyl acetate, EPA has concluded that there are no toxicological endpoints of concern for the U.S. population, including infants and children.
Because no toxicological endpoints of concern were identified, EPA concludes that aggregate exposure to residues of isoamyl acetate will not pose a risk to the U.S. population, including infants and children, and that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to isoamyl acetate residues.
An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance.
Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established under 40 CFR 180.910 for isoamyl acetate (CAS Reg. No. 123-92-2) when used as an inert ingredient (buffering agent) in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops and raw agricultural commodities after harvest.
This action establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the exemption in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501
This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of Cloquintocet-mexyl (acetic acid [5-chloro-8-quinolinyl) oxy]-1-methylhexyl ester) in or on teff when cloquintocet-mexyl is used as an inert ingredient (herbicide safener) in pesticide formulations containing pyroxsulam. Dow AgroSciences LLC requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) in order to cover residues of cloquintocet-mexyl in imported teff commodities.
This regulation is effective March 22, 2017. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before May 22, 2017, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0299, is available at
Michael L. Goodis, P.E., Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0299 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before May 22, 2017. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0299, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
In the
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .”
Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for cloquintocet-mexyl in or on teff forage, grain, hay and straw, consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2).
In the
The Agency evaluated the request to establish tolerances in or on teff forage, grain, hay, and straw. Teff is prepared like other whole grains, such as rice and barley, and may also be used to make flour in a manner similar to wheat and other cereal grains. In considering likely residue levels on teff, EPA concludes that because of the similarity in application rates for pesticides containing cloquintocet-mexyl between
For a detailed discussion of the aggregate risk assessments and determination of safety for these tolerances, please refer to the August 2, 2016,
For specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by cloquintocet-mexyl as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies, the reader is referred to the final rule published in the
Adequate enforcement methodology, high performance liquid chromatography with ultraviolet detection (HPLC-UV); method REM 138.01for the cloquintocet-mexyl (parent) and the HPLC-UV Method RED 138.10 for its acid metabolite, are available to enforce the tolerance expression.
The methods may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address:
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
The Codex has not established a MRL for cloquintocet-mexyl.
Therefore, tolerances are established for combined residues of cloquintocet-mexyl (acetic acid [(5-chloro-8-quinolinyl) oxy]-1-methylhexyl ester) and its acid metabolite (5-chloro-8-quinlinoxyacetic acid), expressed as cloquintocet-mexyl, for use as an inert ingredient (safener) in combination with the herbicide pyroxsulam in or on teff, forage at 0.2 ppm; teff, grain at 0.1 ppm; teff, hay at 0.5 ppm; and teff, straw at 0.1 ppm.
This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerances in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501
This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
The revision and additions read as follows:
(a)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of cyantraniliprole in or on multiple commodities which are identified and discussed later in this document. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Company and Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
This regulation is effective March 22, 2017. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before May 22, 2017, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0357 is available at
Michael Goodis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0357 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before May 22, 2017. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
•
•
•
In the
Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has modified the levels at which and the commodities upon which tolerances are being established. The reasons for these changes are explained in Unit IV.D.
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .”
Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for cyantraniliprole including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with cyantraniliprole follows.
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.
In general, cyantraniliprole administration in mammals produces both adverse and adaptive changes in the liver, thyroid gland, and adrenal cortex. With repeated dosing, consistent findings of mild to moderate increases in liver weights across multiple species (rats, mice, and dogs) are observed. Dogs appear to be more sensitive than rats and mice; cyantraniliprole produces adverse liver effects (increases in alkaline phosphatase, decreases in cholesterol, and decreases in albumin) in dogs at lower dose levels than in rats. In addition, the liver effects in the dog show progressive severity with increased duration of exposure. The available data also show thyroid hormone homeostasis is altered in rats following exposure to cyantraniliprole after 90 days due to enhanced metabolism of the thyroid hormones by the liver. However, cyantraniliprole does not act directly on the thyroid; the thyroid effects observed are secondary to the effects on the liver.
Cyantraniliprole is classified as “Not Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans” based on the absence of increased tumor incidence in carcinogenicity studies in rats and mice. In addition, there are no genotoxicity, mutagenicity, neurotoxicity, or immunotoxicity concerns. There are also no developmental or reproductive toxicity concerns and there is no evidence of an adverse effect attributable to a single dose.
Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by cyantraniliprole as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at
Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see
A summary of the toxicological endpoints for cyantraniliprole used for human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.B. of the final rule published in the
1.
i.
No such effects were identified in the toxicological studies for cyantraniliprole; therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary.
ii.
iii.
iv.
Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states that the Agency may use data on the actual percent of food treated for assessing chronic dietary risk only if:
• Condition a: The data used are reliable and provide a valid basis to show what percentage of the food derived from such crop is likely to contain the pesticide residue.
• Condition b: The exposure estimate does not underestimate exposure for any significant subpopulation group.
• Condition c: Data are available on pesticide use and food consumption in a particular area, the exposure estimate does not understate exposure for the population in such area.
The Agency estimated the PCT for existing uses as follows:
In most cases, EPA uses available data from United States Department of Agriculture/National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA/NASS), proprietary market surveys, and the National Pesticide Use Database for the chemical/crop combination for the most recent 6-7 years. EPA uses an average PCT for chronic dietary risk analysis. The average PCT figure for each existing use is derived by combining available public and private market survey data for that use, averaging across all observations, and rounding to the nearest 5%, except for those situations in which the average PCT is less than one. In those cases, 1% is used as the average PCT and 2.5% is used as the
The Agency estimated the PCT for new uses as follows:
Cotton 41%; peanuts 41%; carrots 23%; soybeans 21%; strawberries 59%; vegetable crop group 7: Dry beans/peas 6%, soybeans 21%, beans (snap, bush, etc.) 49%, and peas fresh/green/sweet) 38%; vegetable crop group 2: Sugar beets 40%; vegetable crop group 6A: Soybeans 21%, beans (snap, bush, etc., string) 49%; peas fresh/green/sweet) 38%; vegetable crop group 6C: Dried bean and peas 6%. For the imported grapes (wine grapes) a 50% import estimate was used in the chronic dietary risk assessment.
EPA estimates of the PCTn of cyantraniliprole represent the upper bound of use expected during the pesticide's initial five years of registration; that is, PCTn for cyantraniliprole is a threshold of use that EPA is reasonably certain will not be exceeded for each registered use site. The PCTn recommended for use in the chronic dietary assessment is calculated as the average PCT of the market leader or leaders (
Typically, EPA uses USDA/NASS as the source of data because it is publicly available and directly reports values for PCT. When a specific use site is not reported by USDA/NASS, EPA uses market survey data and calculates the PCT given reported data on acres treated and acres grown. If no data are available, EPA may extrapolate PCTn from other crops, if the production area and pest spectrum are substantially similar.
A retrospective analysis to validate this approach shows few cases where the PCT for the overall market leaders were exceeded. Further review of these cases identified factors contributing to the exceptionally high use of a new pesticide. To evaluate whether the PCTn for cyantraniliprole could be exceeded, EPA considered whether there may be unusually high pest pressure, as indicated in emergency exemption requests for cyantraniliprole; how the pest spectrum of the new pesticide compares with the market leaders; and whether pest resistance issues with past market leaders provide cyantraniliprole with significant market potential. EPA also considered the potential for resistance to cyantraniliprole to develop as a limiting factor in its use. Given currently available information, EPA concludes that it is unlikely that actual PCT for cyantraniliprole will exceed the estimated PCT for new uses during the next five years.
The Agency believes that the three conditions discussed in Unit III.C.1.iv. have been met. With respect to Condition a, PCT estimates are derived from Federal and private market survey data, which are reliable and have a valid basis. The Agency is reasonably certain that the percentage of the food treated is not likely to be an underestimation. As to Conditions b and c, regional consumption information and consumption information for significant subpopulations is taken into account through EPA's computer-based model for evaluating the exposure of significant subpopulations including several regional groups. Use of this consumption information in EPA's risk assessment process ensures that EPA's exposure estimate does not understate exposure for any significant subpopulation group and allows the Agency to be reasonably certain that no regional population is exposed to residue levels higher than those estimated by the Agency. Other than the data available through national food consumption surveys, EPA does not have available reliable information on the regional consumption of food to which cyantraniliprole may be applied in a particular area.
2.
Based on the First Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) and Pesticide in Water Calculator (PWC), the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of cyantraniliprole for chronic exposures are estimated to be 24 ppb for surface water and 64 ppb for ground water, respectively.
Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. An acute dietary risk assessment was not conducted since no acute toxicological effects were found. For the chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 64 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.
3.
4.
EPA has not found cyantraniliprole to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and cyantraniliprole does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that cyantraniliprole does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at
1.
2.
3.
i. The toxicity database for cyantraniliprole is complete.
ii. There is no indication that cyantraniliprole is a neurotoxic chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
iii. There is no evidence of susceptibility in developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits. In the reproductive toxicity study, increased incidence of thyroid follicular epithelium hypertrophy/hyperplasia occurs in F
iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The chronic dietary food exposure assessment was a refined assessment which assumed average field trial residues for all crops (except sugar beet root), PCT where available, and PCTn data. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to cyantraniliprole in drinking water. EPA used similarly conservative assumptions to assess post-application exposure of children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by cyantraniliprole.
EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.
1.
2.
3.
Cyantraniliprole is currently registered for uses that could result in short-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with short-term residential exposures to cyantraniliprole.
Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water, and residential exposures result in an aggregate MOE of 149 for children 1-2 years old. For adults, the oral and inhalation routes of exposure were not aggregated since the endpoints of concern are not common. Because EPA's level of concern for cyantraniliprole is a MOE of 100 or below, this MOE is not of concern.
4.
Cyantraniliprole is currently registered for uses that could result in intermediate-term residential exposure, however, the short-term aggregate risk estimate described above is protective of potential intermediate-term exposures and risks in children.
5.
6.
Adequate enforcement methodology (liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectroscopy (LC/MS/MS)) is available to enforce the tolerance expression.
The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address:
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
For the commodities discussed in this action, there are only Codex MRLs established for residues of cyantraniliprole on coffee beans (0.03 ppm), cucurbit fruiting vegetables (0.3 ppm), legume animal feeds (in the U.S. identified as Foliage of legume vegetables) (0.8 ppm), and root and tuber vegetables (0.05 ppm). There are also Codex MRLs for residues of cyantraniliprole in/on ruminants at (0.01-0.05 ppm), milk (0.02 ppm), and poultry commodities at (0.01 ppm).
The EPA has not harmonized the tolerances for these commodities with the existing Codex MRLs. The petitioner requested a tolerance on coffee without a U.S. registration be established at 0.05 ppm to be line with the existing MRL for coffee in Canada. The Codex MRLs established for residues of cyantraniliprole on cucurbit fruiting vegetables at 0.3 ppm, root and tuber vegetables at 0.05 ppm, and legume animal feeds at 0.8 ppm are lower than the U.S. tolerances of 0.7 ppm, 0.15 ppm and 40 ppm, respectively. The U.S. tolerances cannot be harmonized because following the label use directions could result in residues above the established Codex MRLs. The Codex MRLs for residues of cyantraniliprole in/on ruminants at (0.01-0.05 ppm), milk (0.02 ppm), and poultry commodities at (0.01 ppm) are lower than the U.S. tolerances. The U.S. and Codex livestock MRLs are not harmonized due to different animal diets and tolerances (MRLs) established for different animal feed commodities. The U.S. tolerances cannot be harmonized (lowered) because following the label use directions could result in residues above the Codex MRLs.
A comment was submitted on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity and the Center for Food Safety and was primarily concerned about EPA's consideration of the impacts of cyantraniliprole on the environment, pollinators, and endangered species. This comment is not relevant to the Agency's evaluation of safety of the cyantraniliprole tolerances under section 408 of the FFDCA, which requires the Agency to evaluate the potential harms to human health, not effects on the environment.
EPA received two other comments to the Notices of Filing noting general concerns about the toxicity of this chemical and stating, in part, that “this product represents a clear and present danger” and “should not be approved to be sold.” The Agency understands the commenter's concerns and recognizes that some individuals believe that pesticides should be banned on agricultural crops. However, the existing legal framework provided by section 408 of the FFDCA states that tolerances may be set when persons seeking such tolerances or exemptions have demonstrated that the pesticide meets the safety standard imposed by that statute. EPA has assessed the effects of this chemical on human health and determined that aggregate exposure to it will be safe.
The Agency is not establishing the proposed tolerances for corn, field and pop, forage; corn, field and pop stover; corn, sweet, forage; and corn, sweet stover because the proposed uses are seed treatment only, not a foliar use, so no residues will be present on these feed commodities. Therefore, these tolerances are not necessary.
The proposed tolerance for residues of cyantraniliprole in/on rice, grain of 0.03 ppm is being modified to 0.02 ppm based on the OECD statistical calculation applied to the field trial residue data.
The proposed wine grape tolerance is being modified from 1.5 ppm to 2.0 ppm and a tolerance is being established on olive oil at 2.0 ppm due to concentration demonstrated in the processing studies.
The proposed tolerance for residues in/on legume vegetables, subgroup 6C of 0.9 ppm is being modified to 1.0 ppm based on the OECD statistical calculation applied to the field trial residue data.
The proposed tolerance for residues in/on soybean seed including the foliage (forage and hay) is not being established since processing studies were not submitted for soybean processed commodities (hulls, meal, oil). Therefore, the proposed tolerance for residues of cyantraniliprole in/on vegetables, foliage of legume (crop group 7) is being revised to “Vegetable, foliage of legume, except soybean, group 7A.”
Numerous ruminant commodity tolerances are already established. These ruminant (cattle, goats, horses, and sheep) commodity tolerances are being increased to reflect the new dietary burdens from the tolerances established by this document.
Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of cyantraniliprole, 3-bromo-1-(3-chloro-2-pyridinyl)-
In addition, the following tolerances are modified as follows: Peanut, hay from 0.01 ppm to 3.0 ppm and Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 from 0.40 ppm to 0.70 ppm.
Also, due to the tolerances being established the following tolerances are modified as follows: Cattle, fat from 0.01 ppm to 0.10 ppm; Cattle, meat from 0.01 ppm to 0.10 ppm; Cattle, meat byproducts from 0.01 ppm to 0.40 ppm; Goat, fat from 0.01 ppm to 0.10 ppm; Goat, meat from 0.01 ppm to 0.10 ppm; Goat, meat byproducts from 0.01 ppm to 0.40 ppm; Horse, fat from 0.01 ppm to 0.10 ppm; Horse, meat from 0.01 to 0.10 ppm; Horse, meat byproducts from 0.01 ppm to 0.40 ppm; Milk from 0.01 ppm to 0.20 ppm; Sheep, fat from 0.01 ppm to 0.10 ppm; Sheep, meat from 0.01 ppm to 0.10 ppm; and Sheep, meat byproducts from 0.01 to 0.40 ppm.
Lastly, due to the tolerances being established above, the indirect or inadvertent tolerances under 40 CFR 180.672 (d) for Peanut, hay; Vegetable, foliage of legume (group 7); Vegetable, leaves of root and tuber vegetables (group 2); and Vegetable, root (subgroup 1A) are removed as unnecessary, and new tolerances are established under 180.672 (d) for Beet, sugar, roots at 0.02 ppm; Soybean, forage at 0.70 ppm; and Soybean, hay at 0.70 ppm.
This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501
This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
(a)
(d)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation amends the existing tolerance exemption for
This regulation is effective March 22, 2017. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before May 22, 2017, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0566, is available at
Robert McNally, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Publishing Office's e-CFR site at
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0566 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before May 22, 2017. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0566, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
In the
Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the exemption is “safe.” Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings but does not include
EPA evaluated the available toxicity and exposure data on
Based upon its evaluation, EPA concludes that
Based upon its evaluation, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from aggregate exposure to residues of
An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes because EPA is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitation.
This action establishes a tolerance exemption under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to EPA. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance exemption in this action, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes. As a result, this action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, EPA has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, EPA has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501
This action does not involve any technical standards that would require EPA's consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
(e) An exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for residues of
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of octadecanoic acid, 12-hydroxy-, homopolymer, ester with α, α',α”-1,2,3-propanetriyltris[ω-hydroxypoly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl)]; when used as an inert ingredient in a pesticide chemical formulation. Ethox Chemicals, LLC submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of octadecanoic acid, 12-hydroxy-, homopolymer, ester with α, α',α”-1,2,3-propanetriyltris[ω-hydroxypoly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl)] on food or feed commodities.
This regulation is effective March 22, 2017. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before May 22, 2017, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0617, is available at
Michael Goodis, Director, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Publishing Office's e-CFR site at
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0617 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before May 22, 2017. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0617, by one of the following methods.
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
In the
Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the exemption is “safe.” Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and use in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only in those cases where it can be shown that the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance may be established.
Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action and considered its validity, completeness and reliability and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. In the case of certain chemical substances that are defined as polymers, the Agency has established a set of criteria to identify categories of polymers expected to present minimal or no risk. The definition of a polymer is given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and the exclusion criteria for identifying these low-risk polymers are described in 40 CFR 723.250(d). Octadecanoic acid, 12-hydroxy-, homopolymer, ester with α, α',α”-1,2,3-propanetriyltris[ω-hydroxypoly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl)] conforms to the definition of a polymer given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and meets the following criteria that are used to identify low-risk polymers.
1. The polymer is not a cationic polymer nor is it reasonably anticipated to become a cationic polymer in a natural aquatic environment.
2. The polymer does contain as an integral part of its composition at least two of the atomic elements carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, silicon, and sulfur.
3. The polymer does not contain as an integral part of its composition, except as impurities, any element other than those listed in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(2)(ii).
4. The polymer is neither designed nor can it be reasonably anticipated to substantially degrade, decompose, or depolymerize.
5. The polymer is manufactured or imported from monomers and/or reactants that are already included on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory or manufactured under an applicable TSCA section 5 exemption.
6. The polymer is not a water absorbing polymer with a number average molecular weight (MW) greater than or equal to 10,000 daltons.
7. The polymer does not contain certain perfluoroalkyl moieties consisting of a CF3- or longer chain length as listed in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(6).
Additionally, the polymer also meets as required the following exemption criteria specified in 40 CFR 723.250(e).
8. The polymer's number average MW of 5,000 is greater than 1,000 and less than 10,000 daltons. The polymer contains less than 10% oligomeric material below MW 500 and less than 25% oligomeric material below MW 1,000, and the polymer does not contain any reactive functional groups.
Thus, octadecanoic acid, 12-hydroxy-, homopolymer, ester with α, α',α”-1,2,3-propanetriyltris[ω-hydroxypoly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl)] meets the criteria for a polymer to be considered low risk under 40 CFR 723.250. Based on its conformance to the criteria in this unit, no mammalian toxicity is anticipated from dietary, inhalation, or dermal exposure to octadecanoic acid, 12-hydroxy-, homopolymer, ester with α, α',α”-1,2,3-propanetriyltris[ω-hydroxypoly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl)].
For the purposes of assessing potential exposure under this exemption, EPA considered that octadecanoic acid, 12-hydroxy-, homopolymer, ester with α, α',α”-1,2,3-propanetriyltris[ω-hydroxypoly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl)] could be present in all raw and processed agricultural commodities and drinking water, and that non-occupational non-dietary exposure was possible. The number average MW of octadecanoic acid, 12-hydroxy-, homopolymer, ester with α, α',α”-1,2,3-propanetriyltris[ω-hydroxypoly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl)] is 5,000 daltons. Generally, a polymer of this size would be poorly absorbed through the intact gastrointestinal tract or through intact human skin. Since octadecanoic acid, 12-hydroxy-, homopolymer, ester with α, α',α”-1,2,3-propanetriyltris[ω-hydroxypoly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl)] conform to the criteria that identify a low-risk polymer, there are no concerns for risks associated with any potential exposure scenarios that are reasonably foreseeable. The Agency has determined that a tolerance is not necessary to protect the public health.
Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”
EPA has not found octadecanoic acid, 12-hydroxy-, homopolymer, ester with α, α',α”-1,2,3-propanetriyltris[ω-hydroxypoly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl)] to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and octadecanoic acid, 12-hydroxy-, homopolymer, ester with α, α',α”-1,2,3-propanetriyltris[ω-hydroxypoly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl)] does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that octadecanoic acid, 12-hydroxy-, homopolymer, ester with α, α',α”-1,2,3-propanetriyltris[ω-hydroxypoly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl)] does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the data base unless EPA concludes that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. Due to the expected low toxicity of octadecanoic acid, 12-hydroxy-, homopolymer, ester with α, α',α”-1,2,3-propanetriyltris[ω-hydroxypoly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl)], EPA has not used a safety factor analysis to assess the risk. For the same reasons the additional tenfold safety factor is unnecessary.
Based on the conformance to the criteria used to identify a low-risk polymer, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from aggregate exposure to residues of octadecanoic acid, 12-hydroxy-, homopolymer, ester with α, α',α”-1,2,3-propanetriyltris[ω-hydroxypoly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl)].
An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitation.
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
The Codex has not established a MRL for octadecanoic acid, 12-hydroxy-, homopolymer, ester with α, α',α”-1,2,3-propanetriyltris[ω-hydroxypoly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl)].
Accordingly, EPA finds that exempting residues of octadecanoic acid, 12-hydroxy-, homopolymer, ester with α, α',α”-1,2,3-propanetriyltris[ω-hydroxypoly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl)] from the requirement of a tolerance will be safe.
This action establishes a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501
This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of polyglycerol polyricinoleate when used as an inert ingredient in a pesticide chemical formulation. AgroFresh Inc., submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of polyglycerol polyricinoleate on food or feed commodities.
This regulation is effective March 22, 2017. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before May 22, 2017, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0606, is available at
Michael Goodis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0606 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before May 22, 2017. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0606, by one of the following methods.
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
In the
Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the exemption is “safe.” Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and use in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue . . .” and specifies
EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only in those cases where it can be shown that the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance may be established.
Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action and considered its validity, completeness and reliability and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. In the case of certain chemical substances that are defined as polymers, the Agency has established a set of criteria to identify categories of polymers expected to present minimal or no risk. The definition of a polymer is given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and the exclusion criteria for identifying these low-risk polymers are described in 40 CFR 723.250(d). Polyglycerol polyricinoleate conforms to the definition of a polymer given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and meets the following criteria that are used to identify low-risk polymers:
a. The polymer is not a cationic polymer nor is it reasonably anticipated to become a cationic polymer in a natural aquatic environment.
b. The polymer does contain as an integral part of its composition the atomic elements carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen.
c. The polymer does not contain as an integral part of its composition, except as impurities, any element other than those listed in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(2)(ii).
d. The polymer is neither designed nor can it be reasonably anticipated to substantially degrade, decompose, or depolymerize.
e. The polymer is manufactured or imported from monomers and/or reactants that are already included on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory or manufactured under an applicable TSCA section 5 exemption.
f. The polymer is not a water absorbing polymer with a number average molecular weight (MW) greater than or equal to 10,000 daltons.
g. The polymer does not contain certain perfluoroalkyl moieties consisting of a CF
Additionally, the polymer also meets as required the following exemption criteria specified in 40 CFR 723.250(e).
h. The polymer's number average MW of 2,500 daltons is greater than 1,000 and less than 10,000 daltons. The polymer contains less than 10% oligomeric material below MW 500 and less than 25% oligomeric material below MW 1,000, and the polymer does not contain any reactive functional groups.
Thus, polyglycerol polyricinoleate meets the criteria for a polymer to be considered low risk under 40 CFR 723.250. Based on its conformance to the criteria in this unit, no mammalian toxicity is anticipated from dietary, inhalation, or dermal exposure to polyglycerol polyricinoleate.
For the purposes of assessing potential exposure under this exemption, EPA considered that polyglycerol polyricinoleate could be present in all raw and processed agricultural commodities and drinking water, and that non-occupational non-dietary exposure was possible. The number average MW of polyglycerol polyricinoleate is 2,500 daltons. Generally, a polymer of this size would be poorly absorbed through the intact gastrointestinal tract or through intact human skin. Since polyglycerol polyricinoleate conforms to the criteria that identify a low-risk polymer, there are no concerns for risks associated with any potential exposure scenarios that are reasonably foreseeable. The Agency has determined that a tolerance is not necessary to protect the public health.
Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”
EPA has not found polyglycerol polyricinoleate to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and polyglycerol polyricinoleate does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that polyglycerol polyricinoleate does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the data base unless EPA concludes that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. Due to the expected low toxicity of polyglycerol polyricinoleate, EPA has not used a safety factor analysis to assess the risk. For the same reasons the additional tenfold safety factor is unnecessary.
Based on the conformance to the criteria used to identify a low-risk polymer, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from aggregate exposure to residues of polyglycerol polyricinoleate.
An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitation.
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint
The Codex has not established a MRL for polyglycerol polyricinoleate.
Accordingly, EPA finds that exempting residues of polyglycerol polyricinole from the requirement of a tolerance will be safe.
This action establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501
This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Final rule; correction.
This document corrects technical errors in the addenda to the final rule published in the November 15, 2016,
This correcting document is effective March 21, 2017 and is applicable beginning January 1, 2017.
Jessica Bruton (410) 786-5991.
In the addenda to FR Doc 2016-26668 (81 FR 80170 through 80562), the final rule entitled, “Medicare Program; Revisions to Payment Policies under the Physician Fee Schedule and Other Revisions to Part B for CY 2017; Medicare Advantage Bid Pricing Data Release; Medicare Advantage and Part D Medical Loss Ratio Data Release; Medicare Advantage Provider Network Requirements; Expansion of Medicare Diabetes Prevention Program Model; Medicare Shared Savings Program Requirements” there was a technical error in an element of the payment calculation for several services that is identified and corrected in this correcting document. These corrections are effective as if they had been included with the document published November 15, 2016. Accordingly, the corrections are applicable beginning January 1, 2017.
Due to a technical error in the allocation of indirect practice expense (PE) for CPT codes 97161 through 97168, the incorrect CY 2017 PE relative value units (RVUs) were included in Addendum B. The corrected CY 2017 PE RVUs for these codes are reflected in the corrected Addendum B available on the CMS Web site at
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (the APA), the agency is required to publish a notice of the proposed rule in the
In our view, this correcting document does not constitute a rulemaking that would be subject to these requirements. This document merely corrects technical errors in the CY 2017 PFS final rule. The corrections contained in this document are consistent with, and do not make substantive changes to, the policies and payment methodologies that were proposed subject to notice and comment procedures and adopted in the CY 2017 PFS final rule. As a result, the corrections made through this correcting document are intended to resolve inadvertent errors so that the rule accurately reflects the policies adopted in the final rule.
Even if this were a rulemaking to which the notice and comment and delayed effective date requirements applied, we find that there is good cause to waive such requirements. Undertaking further notice and comment procedures to incorporate the corrections in this document into the CY 2017 PFS final rule or delaying the effective date of the corrections would be contrary to the public interest because it is in the public interest to ensure that the rule accurately reflects our policies as of the date they take effect. Further, such procedures would be unnecessary because we are not making any substantive revisions to the final rule, but rather, we are simply correcting the
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; announcement of effective date.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) announces that the Office
The rules associated with the Orders related to certain high-cost carriers' obligation to report broadband location information where they have deployed facilities meeting their public interest obligations, as well as associated certifications and quarterly reports, published at 81 FR 24282, April 25, 2016, 81 FR 44414, July 7, 2016, and 81 FR 83706, November 22, 2016, as well as 47 CFR 54.316 and 54.320(d) are effective March 22, 2017.
Jonathan Lechter, Wireline Competition Bureau at (202) 418-7400 or TTY (202) 418-0484.
This document announces that, on February 27, 2017, OMB approved, for a period of three years, the information collection requirements contained in the Commission's
To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received OMB approval on February 27, 2017, for the rules associated with t the Orders related to certain high-cost carriers' obligation to report broadband location information where they have deployed facilities meeting their public interest obligations, as well as associated certifications and quarterly reports, published at 81 FR 24282, April 25, 2016, 81 FR 44414, July 7, 2016, and 81 FR 83706, November 22, 2016, as well as 47 CFR 54.316 and 54.320(d). Under 5 CFR 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number is 3060-1228.
The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.
The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; commercial trip limit reduction.
NMFS issues this temporary rule to reduce the commercial trip limit for vermilion snapper in or from the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the South Atlantic to 500 lb (227 kg), gutted weight, 555 lb (252 kg), round weight. This trip limit reduction is necessary to protect the South Atlantic vermilion snapper resource.
This rule is effective 12:01 a.m., local time, March 22, 2017, until 12:01 a.m., local time, July 1, 2017.
Mary Vara, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, email:
The snapper-grouper fishery in the South Atlantic includes vermilion snapper and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP). The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council prepared the FMP. The FMP is implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.
The commercial ACL (commercial quota) for vermilion snapper in the South Atlantic is divided into two 6-month time periods, January through June and July through December. For the January 1 through June 30, 2017, fishing season, the commercial quota is 388,703 lb (176,313 kg), gutted weight, 431,460 lb (195,707 kg), round weight (50 CFR 622.190(a)(4)(i)(D)).
Under 50 CFR 622.191(a)(6)(ii), NMFS is required to reduce the commercial trip limit for vermilion snapper from 1,000 lb (454 kg), gutted weight, 1,110 lb (503 kg), round weight, when 75 percent of the fishing season commercial quota is reached or projected to be reached, by filing a notification to that effect with the Office of the Federal Register, as established by Regulatory Amendment 18 to the FMP (78 FR 47574, August 6, 2013). The reduced commercial trip limit is 500 lb (227 kg), gutted weight, 555 lb (252 kg), round weight. Based on current information, NMFS has determined that 75 percent of the available commercial quota for the January 1 through June 30, 2017, fishing season for vermilion snapper will be reached by March 22, 2017. Accordingly, NMFS is reducing the commercial trip limit for vermilion snapper to 500 lb (227 kg), gutted weight, 555 lb (252 kg), round weight, in or from the South Atlantic EEZ at 12:01 a.m., local time, on March 22, 2017. This reduced commercial trip limit will remain in effect until the start of the next fishing season on July 1, 2017, or until the seasonal commercial quota is reached and the commercial sector closes, whichever occurs first.
The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of South Atlantic vermilion snapper and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.191(a)(6)(ii) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
These measures are exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the temporary rule is issued without opportunity for prior notice and comment.
This action responds to the best scientific information available. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds that the need to immediately implement this commercial trip limit reduction constitutes good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), because prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this temporary rule is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because the rule establishing and providing for a reduction in the commercial trip limit has already been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the commercial trip limit reduction. Providing prior notice and opportunity for public comment is contrary to the public interest because any delay in reducing the commercial trip limit could result in the commercial quota being exceeded. There is a need to immediately implement this action to protect the vermilion snapper resource, since the capacity of the fishing fleet allows for rapid harvest of the commercial quota. Providing prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this action would require time and increase the likelihood that the commercial sector could exceed its quota.
For the aforementioned reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
16 U.S.C. 1801
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM); reopening of comment period.
We are revising an earlier proposal to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2013-10-03 for all Airbus Model A330-200, -200 Freighter, and -300 series airplanes; and Model A340-200, -300, -500, and -600 series airplanes. This action revises the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) by adding a replacement of certain main landing gear (MLG) with MLG that have an improved bogie beam. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. Since these actions impose an additional burden over those proposed in the NPRM, we are reopening the comment period to allow the public the chance to comment on these proposed changes.
We must receive comments on this SNPRM by May 8, 2017.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For Airbus service information identified in this SNPRM, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 45 80; email:
For Messier-Bugatti-Dowty service information identified in this SNPRM, contact Messier Services Americas, Customer Support Center, 45360 Severn Way, Sterling, VA 20166-8910; phone: 703-450-8233; fax: 703-404-1621; Internet:
You may view this referenced 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.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1138; fax: 425-227-1149.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
On May 13, 2013, we issued AD 2013-10-03, Amendment 39-17456 (78 FR 31386, May 24, 2013) (“AD 2013-10-03”). AD 2013-10-03 requires actions intended to address an unsafe condition on all Airbus Model A330-200, -200 Freighter, and -300 series airplanes; and Model A340-200, -300, --500, and -600 series airplanes. (AD 2013-10-03 superseded AD 2010-02-10, Amendment 39-16181 (75 FR 4477, January 28, 2010)).
We issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Model A330-200, -200 Freighter, and -300 series airplanes; and Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
Since we issued the NPRM, we have determined that MLG having part number (P/N) 201252 series and P/N 201490 series should be replaced with a MLG that has an improved bogie beam, which would constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspections on the modified MLG.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2016-0108, dated June 8, 2016 (referred to after this
During a scheduled maintenance inspection on the Main Landing Gear (MLG), the bogie stop pad was found deformed and cracked. Upon removal of the bogie stop pad for replacement, the bogie beam was also found cracked. The results of a laboratory investigation indicated that an overload event had occurred and no fatigue propagation of the crack was evident. A second bogie beam crack was subsequently found on another aeroplane, located under a bogie stop pad which only had superficial paint damage.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to landing gear bogie detachment from the aeroplane, or landing gear collapse, or a runway excursion, possibly resulting in damage to the aeroplane and injury to the occupants and/or people on the ground.
To address this potential unsafe condition, EASA issued AD 2008-0223 to require accomplishment of a one-time detailed inspection under the bogie stop pad of both MLG bogie beams. As a result of the one-time inspection required by that [EASA] AD, numerous bogie stop pad were found corroded and a few cracked. The one-time inspection was retained in EASA AD 2011-0211 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2013-10-03], which superseded EASA AD 2008-0223, which also introduced repetitive inspections, except for A340-500/-600 aeroplanes.
After EASA AD 2011-0211 was issued, further investigation led to the conclusion that the one-time inspection was no longer necessary and only the repetitive inspections should remain. In addition, it was determined that repetitive inspections were also necessary for MLG on A340-500/-600 aeroplanes.
Prompted by these conclusions, EASA issued AD 2014-0120, partially retaining the requirements of EASA AD 2011-0211, which was superseded, and introducing repetitive detailed inspections of the MLG on A340-500 and A340-600 aeroplanes. Subsequently, further analysis indicated that repetitive inspections of the MLG on A340-500/-600 aeroplanes were not necessary after all. In addition, the threshold for the inspection of MLG P/N 10-210 series was raised from 24 to 126 months, and Airbus developed a modification of the MLG P/N 10-210 series which provides an (optional) terminating action for the repetitive inspections.
Consequently, EASA AD 2014-0120 was revised to delete the requirements for A340-500/-600 aeroplanes, to amend the inspection threshold for MLG P/N 10-210 series, and to introduce an optional terminating action for aeroplanes with MLG P/N 10-210 series.
Since EASA AD 2014-0120R1 was issued, Airbus developed a modification (mod 205289) of the MLG P/N 201252 series and P/N 201490 series that must be embodied in service with Airbus SB A330-32-3275 or SB A340-32-4305. It was also identified that A340-500/-600 aeroplanes could be removed from the applicability of this [EASA] AD as no more actions were required on these aeroplanes.
For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2014-0120R1, which is superseded, removes the A340-500/-600 aeroplanes from the Applicability and requires the modification of the MLG P/N 201252 series and P/N 201490 series, which constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by this [EASA] AD.
The required actions include repetitive detailed inspections for damage and corrosion of the sliding piston sub-assembly, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. Related investigative actions include a test for indications of corrosion and damage to the bogie assembly base material, and a magnetic particle inspection for cracks, corrosion, and damage of the bogie beam. Corrective actions include repairing affected parts.
The required terminating action (for MLG having P/N 201252 series or P/N 201490 series) and the optional terminating action (for MLG having P/N 10-210) are modifications of the bogie beam of an MLG, which consist of installing a nickel under chrome coating, a new bogie beam stop pad, and new stop pad brackets.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
Airbus has issued the following service information.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A330-32-3248, Revision 05, including Appendix 1, dated May 4, 2016; and Airbus Service Bulletin A340-32-4286, Revision 02, including Appendix 1, dated January 5, 2016; which describe procedures for doing an inspection for damage and corrosion of the MLG sliding piston sub-assembly, bogie beam stop pad and the bogie beam under the stop pad, and related investigative and corrective actions. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A330-32-3268, Revision 01, dated September 21, 2015, which describes procedures for modification of the bogie beam of an MLG having P/N 10-210 that includes installing a nickel under chrome coating, a new bogie beam stop pad, and new stop pad brackets.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A330-32-3275, dated December 23, 2015, which describes procedures for modification of the bogie beam of an MLG having P/N 201252 series or P/N 201490 series that include installing a nickel under chrome coating, a new bogie beam stop pad, and new stop pad brackets.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A340-32-4300, dated April 20, 2015; and Revision 01, dated September 21, 2015; which describe procedures for modification of the bogie beam of an MLG having P/N 10-210 that include installing a nickel under chrome coating, a new bogie beam stop pad, and new stop pad brackets. These service bulletins are distinct since they are different revision levels.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A340-32-4305, dated December 23, 2015, which describes procedures for modification of the bogie beam of an MLG having P/N 201252 series or P/N 201490 series that includes installing a nickel under chrome coating, a new bogie beam stop pad, and new stop pad brackets.
Messier-Bugatti-Dowty has issued the following service information.
• Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34-32-305, including Appendix A, dated April 13, 2015, which describes procedures for modification of the bogie beam of an MLG having MLG P/N 10-210 series that includes installing a nickel under chrome coating, a new bogie beam stop pad, and new stop pad brackets.
• Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34-32-306, Revision 1, including Appendix A, dated May 31, 2016, which describes procedures for modification of the bogie beam of an MLG having P/N 201252 series or P/N 201490 series that includes installing a nickel under chrome coating, a new bogie beam stop pad, and new stop pad brackets.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this proposed AD. We considered the comments received on the proposal and the FAA's response to each comment.
Air France (AF) and American Airlines (AAL) requested that we revise the applicability of the proposed AD to exclude airplanes that have had Airbus Modification 204421 or Airbus
AAL also requested that we exclude airplanes from the applicability that have accomplished the actions specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A330-32-3268, dated April 20, 2015, which describes procedures for modification of the bogie beam of an MLG having P/N 10-210, and Airbus Service Bulletin A330-32-3275, dated December 23, 2015, which describes procedures for modification of the bogie beam of an MLG having P/N 201490.
AAL and AF also requested that we add Airbus Service Bulletin A330-32-3275, dated December 23, 2015, as a terminating action in paragraph (m) of the proposed AD. AF also asked that we add Airbus Service Bulletin A340-32-4305, dated December 23, 2015, as a terminating action in paragraph (m) of the proposed AD. AF and AAL referenced the applicability in the MCAI as justification for the requests.
We partially agree with the commenters' requests. We have revised paragraph (c) of this proposed AD to exclude airplanes that have embodied Airbus Modification 204421 or Airbus Modification 205289 in production, which corresponds with the MCAI. However, we have not revised paragraph (c) of this proposed AD to exclude airplanes on which Airbus Service Bulletin A330-32-3268, dated April 20, 2015; or Airbus Service Bulletin A330-32-3275, dated December 23, 2015; has been done because those airplanes are not excluded from the MCAI.
We have added information to paragraph (m) of this proposed AD to specify that accomplishing the actions specified in Messier-Bugatti-Dowty-Service Bulletin A33/34-32-305, including Appendix A, dated April 13, 2015, for MLG having P/N 10-210, constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections. We also have added information in paragraph (m) of this proposed AD to specify that accomplishing the actions specified in the service information referenced in paragraph (k) of this proposed AD (which includes references to Airbus Service Bulletin A330-32-3275, dated December 23, 2015; and Airbus Service Bulletin A340-32-4305, dated December 23, 2015) constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections.
We have clarified the affected airplanes for paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(3) of this AD by changing the text “For airplanes . . . having an MLG P/N 201252 series and P/N 201490 series” to “For airplanes . . . having an MLG P/N 201252 series or P/N 201490 series” (replaced the “and” with an “or”).
We have removed the reporting requirements from this SNPRM. We have also revised the Costs of Compliance section of this SNPRM to reflect the revised proposed requirements.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs.
Certain changes described above expand the scope of the NPRM. As a result, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for the public to comment on this SNPRM.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 89 Model A330-200, -200 Freighter, and -300 series airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate that it would take about 13 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $98,345, or $1,105 per product.
Currently, there are no Model A340-200, or -300 series airplanes on the U.S. Register. However, if an affected airplane is imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future, it would be subject to the same per-airplane cost specified above for the Model A330-200, -200 Freighter, and -300 series airplanes.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 24 work-hours and require parts costing $78, for a cost of $2,118 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions.
According to the manufacturer, all of the parts costs of the optional terminating action specified in this SNPRM 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. We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide the work-hour cost estimates for the optional terminating action specified in this proposed AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by May 8, 2017.
This AD replaces AD 2013-10-03, Amendment 39-17456 (78 FR 31386, May 24, 2013) (“AD 2013-10-03”).
This AD applies to Airbus airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD, certificated in any category, all serial numbers, except those airplanes that have embodied Airbus Modification 204421 or Airbus Modification 205289 in production.
(1) Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -223F, -243, -243F, -301, -302, -303,
-321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes.
(2) Model A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, and -313 airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing gear.
This AD was prompted by reports of corroded and cracked bogie beams under the bogie stop pad. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct damage or corrosion under the bogie stop pad of both main landing gear (MLG) bogie beams; this condition could result in a damaged bogie beam and consequent detachment of the beam from the airplane, collapse of the MLG, or departure of the airplane from the runway, possibly resulting in damage to the airplane and injury to occupants.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
For Model A330-200, -200 Freighter, and -300 series airplanes; and Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes; equipped with a MLG having part number (P/N) 201252 series, P/N 201490 series, or P/N 10-210 series: Do the applicable actions required by paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD.
(1) For airplanes equipped, as of the effective date of this AD, with a MLG that has been previously inspected as specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A330-32-3220, Airbus Service Bulletin A330-32-3248, Airbus Service Bulletin A340-32-4264, or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-32-4286, as applicable: At applicable times specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD, do a detailed inspection for damage (
(2) For airplanes equipped, as of the effective date of this AD, with a MLG that has not been previously inspected as specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A330-32-3220, Airbus Service Bulletin A330-32-3248, Airbus Service Bulletin A340-32-4264, or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-32-4286, as applicable: At the applicable times specified in paragraphs (h)(3) and (h)(4) of this AD, do a detailed inspection for damage (
Do the applicable actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD at the applicable time specified in paragraph (h)(1), (h)(2), (h)(3), or (h)(4) of this AD.
(1) For airplanes identified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD having an MLG P/N 201252 series or P/N 201490 series: Before the accumulation of 2,500 total flight cycles or 24 months, whichever occurs first since the later of the times specified in paragraphs (h)(1)(i) and (h)(1)(ii) of this AD.
(i) Since first flight after a MLG overhaul.
(ii) Since first flight after the most recent accomplishment of an inspection of the MLG, as specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A330-32-3220, Airbus Service Bulletin A330-32-3248, Airbus Service Bulletin A340-32-4286, or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-32-4264, as applicable.
(2) For airplanes identified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD having an MLG P/N 10-210 series: Before the accumulation of 126 months since first flight of the MLG on an airplane or since first flight on an airplane after the most recent inspection of the MLG, as specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A330-32-3248, or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-32-4286, as applicable.
(3) For airplanes identified in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD having an MLG P/N 201252 series or P/N 201490 series: At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (h)(3)(i) and (h)(3)(ii) of this AD.
(i) Before the accumulation of 2,500 total flight cycles or 24 months, whichever occurs first since the later of the times specified in paragraphs (h)(3)(i)(A) and (h)(3)(i)(B) of this AD.
(A) Since first flight of the MLG on an airplane.
(B) Since first flight after a MLG overhaul.
(ii) Within 16 months after the effective date of this AD.
(4) For airplanes identified in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD having MLG P/N 10-210 series: Before the accumulation of 126 months since first flight of the MLG on an airplane.
For the purposes of this AD, accomplishment of an MLG overhaul is acceptable instead of an inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD. The inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD are not terminated by an MLG overhaul, but are required at the next applicable compliance time required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
If the applicable service information specified in paragraph (g) of this AD specifies to contact Messier-Dowty for instructions, or if any repair required by paragraph (g) of this AD is beyond the maximum repair allowance specified in the applicable service information specified in paragraph (g) of this AD: Before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).
For airplanes equipped with MLG having P/N 201252 series or MLG having P/N 201490 series: Before the accumulation of 126 months since first flight of the MLG on an airplane or since first flight on an airplane after the most recent overhaul as of the effective date of this AD, as applicable, replace that MLG with a MLG having P/N 201252 series or MLG having P/N 201490 series that has an improved bogie beam, as defined in Airbus Service Bulletin A330-32-3275, dated December 23, 2015; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-32-4305, dated December 23, 2015; as applicable; and in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34-32-306, Revision 1, including Appendix A, dated May 31, 2016.
Accomplishment of corrective actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD does not constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by this AD.
(1) For airplanes with any MLG having P/N 10-210 series: Modification of the bogie beam of each MLG having P/N 10-210 series, as specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A330-32-3268, Revision 01, dated September 21, 2015; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-32-4300, dated April 20, 2015; or Revision 01, dated September 21, 2015; as applicable; and in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34-32-305, including Appendix A, dated April 13, 2015; constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspection requirements of this AD for that airplane, provided that, following in-service modification, the airplane remains in post-service bulletin configuration.
(2) For airplanes with any MLG having P/N 201252 series or P/N 201490 series: Installation of both left-hand and right-hand MLG having P/N 201252 series or P/N 201490 series that has an improved bogie beam, as required by paragraph (k) of this AD, constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections requirements of this AD for that airplane, provided that, following in-service modification, the airplane remains in post-service bulletin configuration.
Do not install on any airplane a pre-Airbus modification MLG having P/N 201252 series or pre-Airbus modification MLG having P/N 201490 series, as specified in paragraph (n)(1) or (n)(2) of this AD, as applicable; or a pre-Airbus modification MLG having P/N 10-210 series, as specified in paragraph (n)(3) or (n)(4) of this AD, as applicable.
(1) For any airplane that is in post-Airbus Modification 205289 configuration, or on which the modification required by paragraph (k) of this AD has been done: From the effective date of this AD.
(2) For any airplane that is in pre-Airbus Modification 205289 configuration, or on which the modification required by paragraph (k) of this AD has not been done: After modification of that airplane, as required by paragraph (k) of this AD.
(3) For any airplane that is in post-Airbus Modification 204421 configuration, or on which the modification specified in paragraph (m)(1) of this AD has been done: From the effective date of this AD.
(4) For an airplane that is in pre-Airbus Modification 204421, or on which the modification required by paragraph (m)(1) of this AD has not been done: After modification of that airplane, as required by paragraph (m)(1) of this AD.
(1) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the service information identified in paragraphs (o)(1)(i) through (o)(1)(vii) or (o)(2) of this AD, as applicable.
(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-32-3248, dated October 5, 2011, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-32-3248, Revision 01, including Appendix 01, dated December 13, 2012, which was incorporated by reference in AD 2013-10-03, Amendment 39-17456 (78 FR 31386, May 24, 2013).
(iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-32-3248, Revision 02, dated April 16, 2014, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(iv) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-32-3248, Revision 03, dated November 27, 2015, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(v) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-32-3248, Revision 04, dated January 5, 2016, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(vi) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-32-4286, dated October 5, 2011, which was incorporated by reference in AD 2013-10-03, Amendment 39-17456 (78 FR 31386, May 24, 2013).
(vii) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-32-4286, Revision 01, dated November 27, 2015, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(2) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraph (k) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34-32-306, dated December 21, 2015, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(i) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
(ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2013-10-03 are not approved as AMOCs with this AD.
(2)
(3)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2016-0108, dated June 8, 2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For Airbus service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 45 80; email:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Proposed rule; withdrawal.
The FAA is withdrawing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). The NPRM proposed a new
As of March 22, 2017, the proposed rule published January 5, 2017 (82 FR 52) is withdrawn.
Martin Adler, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7157; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
The FAA proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with a proposed AD (82 FR 1258, January 5, 2017). Since we published the NPRM, Directorate Identifier 2016-NE-21-AD, in the
Withdrawal of the NPRM (82 FR 1258, January 5, 2017) constitutes only such action, and does not preclude the agency from issuing another notice in the future, nor does it commit the agency to any course of action in the future.
Since this action only withdraws a notice of proposed rulemaking, it is neither a proposed nor a final rule. Therefore, Executive Order 12866, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, or DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979) do not cover this withdrawal.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, the notice of proposed rulemaking, Docket No. FAA-2016-9380; Directorate Identifier 2016-NE-21-AD, published in the
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Proposed rule; extension of comment period.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is extending the comment period for the proposed rule that appeared in the
FDA is extending the comment period on the proposed rule published January 23, 2017 (82 FR 8004). Submit either electronic or written comments by July 10, 2017[. Late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before July 10, 2017. The
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Beth Buckler or Colleen Lee, Office of Regulations, Center for Tobacco Products (CTP), Food and Drug Administration, Document Control Center, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. G335, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 877-287-1373,
In the
The Agency has received requests for a 75-day extension of the comment period for the proposed rule. Each request expressed concern that the current 75-day comment period does not allow the public sufficient time to develop thoughtful responses to the proposed rule.
The Agency also has received a request to clarify a formula in the Laboratory Information Bulletin (LIB) titled, “Determination of N-nitrosonornicotine (NNN) in Smokeless Tobacco and Tobacco Filler by HPLC-MS/MS” (LIB No. 4620, January 2017). Upon further review, FDA has determined that the formula for converting NNN on a wet weight basis to a dry weight basis contains a typographical error—some of the terms and variables in the numerator and denominator were inadvertently switched. FDA has revised the LIB to correct this error (LIB No. 4623, March 2017, available at
FDA has considered the requests and is extending the comment period for the proposed rule for 90 days, until [
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to revise the Washington State Implementation Plan (SIP) to approve updates to the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) air quality regulations. The EFSEC regulations primarily adopt by reference the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) general air quality regulations, which the EPA approved in the fall of 2014 and spring of 2015. Consistent with our approval of the Ecology general air quality regulations, we are also proposing to approve revisions to implement the preconstruction permitting regulations for large industrial (major source) facilities in attainment and unclassifiable areas, called the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program. The PSD program for major energy facilities under EFSEC's jurisdiction has historically been operated under a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP), in cooperation with the EPA and Ecology. If finalized, the EPA's proposed approval of the EFSEC PSD program would narrow the FIP to include only those few potential facilities, emission sources, geographic areas, and permits for which EFSEC does not have jurisdiction or authority. The EPA is also proposing to approve EFSEC's visibility protection permitting program which overlaps significantly with the PSD program in most cases.
Written comments must be received on or before April 21, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2016-0785 at
Jeff Hunt, Air Planning Unit, Office of Air and Waste (AWT-150), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Ave, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101; telephone number: (206) 553-0256; email address:
By statute, EFSEC has jurisdiction for managing the air program with respect to major energy facilities in the State of Washington. See Chapter 80.50 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW). The EFSEC air quality regulations are contained in Chapter 463-78 Washington Administrative Code (WAC)
The EPA last approved EFSEC's air quality regulations on May 23, 1996 (61 FR 25791). Aside from recodification from 463-39 to 463-78 WAC, grammatical changes, and minor clarifications, the EFSEC air quality regulations remain substantially unchanged since the EPA's last approval. The more substantive changes include EFSEC's modification of WAC 463-78-095
The most substantive component of EFSEC's regulations is WAC 463-78-005
We note two additional factors regarding EFSEC's incorporation by reference of Chapter 173-400 WAC. First, while EFSEC generally adopts most of the provisions of Chapter 173-400 WAC by reference, not all provisions are included. For example, consistent with the EPA's prior approval of the EFSEC regulations, EFSEC did not adopt by reference the enforcement and authority provisions contained in WAC 173-400-220 through 260. For these provisions, EFSEC relies on its own independent authorities, which are currently part of Washington's federally-approved SIP under WAC 463-39-135 through 230. In other cases, such as WAC 173-400-118
Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) of the CAA requires that agencies have adequate personnel, funding, and authority under state law to carry out the SIP. EFSEC's authority under state law to carry out the air program for major energy facilities, including the PSD and visibility protection permitting programs, is derived from Chapter 80.50 RCW. With respect to personnel and funding, EFSEC has issued CAA PSD permits, in coordination with Ecology, under a partial delegation agreement with the EPA since 1993. These PSD permits include the visibility protection requirements of WAC 173-400-117
The EPA's January 7, 2015 proposed approval of Ecology's PSD program included a discussion of the
On June 23, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in
EFSEC's SIP submittal does not discuss the fact that, because it adopted the EPA's PSD regulations as of May 1, 2015, its rules include the elements of the EPA's 2012 rule implementing Step 3 of the phase-in of PSD permitting requirements for GHGs described in the Tailoring Rule, which became effective on August 13, 2012 (77 FR 41051, July 12, 2012). The incorporation of the Step 3 rule provisions allows GHG-emitting sources to obtain plantwide applicability limits (PALs) for their GHG emissions on a carbon dioxide equivalent (CO
The EPA proposes to approve and incorporate by reference into the Washington SIP at 40 CFR 52.2470(c)—
In addition to the regulations proposed for approval and incorporation by reference above, the EPA reviews and approves state submissions to ensure they provide adequate enforcement authority and other general authority to implement and enforce the SIP. However, regulations describing state enforcement and other general authorities are generally not incorporated by reference, so as to avoid potential conflict with the EPA's independent authorities. The EPA has reviewed and is proposing to approve WAC 463-78-135
As discussed in our July 10, 2014 proposed approval of revisions to Chapter 173-400 WAC, Ecology formerly relied on the registration program under WAC 173-400-100 for determining the applicability of the new source review (NSR) permitting program (see 79 FR 39351 at page 39354). By statutory directive, this means of determining NSR applicability was replaced by revisions to WAC 173-400-110 which set de minimis emission unit, activity, and annual emission thresholds. In our October 3, 2014 final action, we approved WAC 173-400-110 as the means of determining NSR applicability, and at Ecology's request, removed WAC 173-400-100 from the SIP (79 FR 59653). Consistent with our proposed and final approval of revisions to Chapter 173-400 WAC, we are now
As previously discussed, EFSEC adopted by reference most of the provisions in Chapter 173-400 WAC, but excluded certain provisions pertaining to authorities or source categories outside EFSEC's jurisdiction. WAC 173-400-151
As part of the SIP submittal, EFSEC requested approval to exercise its authority to fully administer the PSD program with respect to those sources under EFSEC's permitting jurisdiction that have existing PSD permits issued by the EPA. This includes authority to conduct general administration of these existing permits, authority to process and issue any and all subsequent PSD permit actions relating to such permits (
The EPA is excluding from the scope of this proposed approval certain limitations as they relate to PSD requirements for carbon dioxide emissions from industrial combustion of biomass. As discussed in our April 29, 2015 approval of Ecology's PSD program, a Washington State statutory provision contained in RCW 70.235.020
If finalized, the EPA is proposing to revise the PSD FIP at 40 CFR 52.2497 and the visibility protection FIP at 40 CFR 52.2498 to reflect the approval of EFSEC's PSD and visibility permitting programs. Specifically, the EPA is proposing to delete paragraph (a)(1) of 40 CFR 52.2497 and paragraph (a)(1) of 40 CFR 52.2498, both of which address facilities subject to the jurisdiction of EFSEC in these FIPs.
In approving state NSR rules into SIPs, the EPA has a responsibility to ensure that all states properly implement their SIP-approved preconstruction permitting programs. The EPA's proposed approval of EFSEC's PSD rules does not divest the EPA of the responsibility to continue appropriate oversight to ensure that permits issued by EFSEC are consistent with the requirements of the CAA, Federal regulations, and the SIP. The EPA's authority to oversee permit program implementation is set forth in sections 113, 167, and 505(b) of the CAA. For example, section 167 provides that the EPA shall issue administrative orders, initiate civil actions, or take whatever other action may be necessary to prevent the construction or modification of a major stationary source that does not “conform to the requirements of” the PSD program. Similarly, section 113(a)(5) of the CAA provides for administrative orders and civil actions whenever the EPA finds that a state “is not acting in compliance with” any requirement or prohibition of the CAA regarding the construction of new sources or modification of existing sources. Likewise, section 113(a)(1) provides for a range of enforcement remedies whenever the EPA finds that a person is in violation of an applicable implementation plan.
In making judgments as to what constitutes compliance with the CAA and regulations issued thereunder, the EPA looks to (among other sources) its prior interpretations regarding those statutory and regulatory requirements and policies for implementing them. It follows that state actions implementing the Federal CAA that do not conform to the CAA may lead to potential oversight action by the EPA.
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to revise our incorporation by reference of 40 CFR 52.2470(c)—
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because this action does not involve technical standards; and
• does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. As discussed above, the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, except for non-trust land within the exterior boundaries of the Puyallup Indian Reservation (also known as the 1873 Survey Area), or any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. Consistent with EPA policy, the EPA provided a consultation opportunity to the Puyallup Tribe in a letter dated July 1, 2016. The EPA did not receive a request for consultation.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve, and incorporate by reference, specific changes to Oregon's State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted on April 22, 2015. The changes relate to the criteria pollutants for which the EPA has established national ambient air quality standards—carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. Specifically, the changes account for new federal requirements for fine particulate matter, update the major and minor source pre-construction permitting programs, and add state-level air quality designations. The changes also address public notice procedures for informational meetings, and tighten emission standards for dust and smoke. In addition, Oregon reorganized rules in the SIP by consolidating definitions, removing duplicate provisions, correcting errors, and removing outdated provisions. We note that certain rule changes are not appropriate for SIP approval, or are inconsistent with Clean Air Act requirements. In those cases, we are not approving the revisions.
Comments must be received on or before April 21, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2015-0333, at
Kristin Hall, Air Planning Unit, Office of Air and Waste (OAW-150), Environmental Protection Agency—Region 10, 1200 Sixth Ave., Seattle, WA 98101; telephone number: (206) 553-6357; email address:
Throughout this document, wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.
Each state has a SIP containing the control measures and strategies used to attain and maintain the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) established by the EPA for the criteria pollutants (carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide). The SIP is extensive, containing such elements as air pollution control regulations, emission inventories, monitoring network, attainment demonstrations, and enforcement mechanisms. The SIP is a living compilation of these elements and is revised and updated by the state over time—to keep pace with federal requirements and to address changing air quality issues in the state.
On April 22, 2015, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) submitted significant revisions to the Oregon SIP. Oregon made changes to 26 Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) divisions within Chapter 340, and two source sampling and monitoring manuals related to the rules. These changes, effective April 16, 2015, are part of Oregon's ongoing efforts to update state air quality rules and the SIP.
Oregon's April 22, 2015 submission documents the public notice and hearing process undertaken by the state, including the state's response to comments received. The submission requests EPA approval of the following changes to air quality rules in Oregon's federally-approved State Implementation Plan (SIP):
• Updates particulate matter emission standards;
• revises permitting requirements for emergency generators and small natural gas or oil-fired equipment;
• establishes two new state air quality area designations—sustainment and reattainment;
• revises the major and minor source pre-construction permitting programs;
• changes public processes for informational meetings;
• revises the state's woodstove replacement program for small commercial solid fuel boilers regulated under the permitting program;
• updates the Oregon Source Sampling Manual, Volumes I and II, and the Oregon Continuous Monitoring Manual; and
• removes annual reporting requirements for small gasoline dispensing facilities.
As part of the submission, Oregon included a staff report outlining the changes to the state air quality rules and how the revised rules have been designed to protect air quality standards. Oregon also developed a “crosswalk” document—a comprehensive list of the rule changes and why they were proposed. The submission, including the staff report, crosswalk document, public comments and responses, is located in the docket for this action.
We note that on November 14, 2016, Oregon submitted a letter to correct administrative errors in the original April 20, 2015, cover letter and attachment. In the letter of correction, Oregon identified several rules that were submitted to the EPA in error. These rules were not adopted by the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) as part of the Oregon SIP, and should not have been submitted for SIP approval. Oregon also noted one provision that was adopted by the EQC and should have been submitted. Please see the November 14, 2016 letter of correction in the docket for this action.
Below, we discuss our review of the submitted changes to the Oregon SIP, and our proposed action. We have focused on the substantive rule revisions. We did not describe the many typographical corrections, minor edits, and renumbering changes. We also note this action does not address submitted revisions for small gasoline dispensing facilities because we approved the revisions on October 27, 2015 (80 FR 65655).
Division 200 contains definitions used throughout the air quality divisions of Chapter 340 of the OAR, as well as other generally-applicable rules. However, over time, terms and definitions have also been established throughout other divisions. In the submitted changes, Oregon re-organized and streamlined rules to move most air quality terms and definitions into Division 200. Oregon also moved procedural elements out of the definitions in Division 200, and into the specific divisions to which they apply. Duplicate and obsolete terms were removed. In this section of our evaluation, we discuss key changes to existing definitions and new terms used in multiple divisions. Substantive new terms, or revisions to definitions that are mostly used in a single division, are evaluated in Sections B through X below (in the discussion of the changes to the specific division).
To improve clarity, the state revised key definitions to consistently use certain terms—such as “regulated pollutant,” “control device,” “major modification,” “major source,” and “unclassified,”—and removed variations on these terms that may have created confusion. Oregon also added new definitions to Division 200. “Capture efficiency,” “control efficiency,” “destruction efficiency,” and “removal efficiency” were added to differentiate amongst similar terms. The state defined the term “internal combustion sources” to clarify the universe of regulated fuel burning equipment under Oregon's rules.
Oregon also defined the term “portable,” as “designed and capable of being carried or moved from one location to another.” At the same time, the state revised the definition of “stationary source” to include portable sources required to have permits under Oregon's air contaminant discharge permitting (ACDP) program at Division 216. “Wood fuel-fired device” was used in multiple Oregon rules, but was never formally defined. The state added the term, defined as “a device or appliance designed for wood fuel combustion, including cordwood stoves, woodstoves, and fireplace stove inserts, fireplaces, wood fuel-fired cook stoves, pellet stoves and combination fuel furnaces and boilers that burn wood fuels.” The remainder of the new definitions established are common dictionary terms.
Oregon also made substantive changes to several definitions. The definition of “adjacent” at OAR 340-200-0020(4) was narrowed by limiting the use of this defined term (“interdependent facilities that are nearby to each other”) to its use in the “major source” definition at OAR 340-200-0020(91), and in the air contaminant discharge permit program (ACDP) at OAR 340-216-0070. In other places where the term “adjacent” is used, the ODEQ's response to comments document in the submission indicates that the ODEQ intends to use the dictionary definition.
Oregon revised the term “categorically insignificant activities” at OAR 340-200-0020(23) in several respects. In general, the revisions narrow when emissions may be excluded from consideration—in some aspects of Oregon's permitting program—as “insignificant.” For example, Oregon put a cap on the aggregate emissions from fuel burning equipment that may be considered categorically insignificant, and also restricted when emergency generators may be considered categorically insignificant (limiting the exemption to no more than 3,000 horsepower, in the aggregate). Oregon also narrowed when emissions from oil/water separators in effluent treatment systems may be considered categorically insignificant. We note that Oregon did create a
Oregon revised the definition of “modification,” at OAR 340-200-0020(93), to differentiate it from the terms “major modification,” “permit modification,” and “title I modification,” and to make clear that it applies to a change in a portion of a source, as well as a source in its entirety. The state also simplified the definition of “ozone precursor” at OAR 340-200-0020(107) to remove redundant language pointing to the reference method for measuring volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Oregon made the same type of change to the definition of “particulate matter” at OAR 340-200-0020(110). For consistency, at OAR 340-200-0020(119) and (120), the short-hand terms for coarse and fine particulate matter, “PM
We have evaluated these changes, and the additional changes to definitions discussed in Sections B through X below, and propose to find that they are consistent with Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements and the EPA's implementing regulations. We therefore propose to approve the revised and added definitions into the Oregon SIP.
A key aspect of the submitted revisions relates to jurisdiction. Oregon added new applicability language to Division 200, and throughout the air quality rules, to address the applicability of state rules in Lane County, the authority of the Lane Regional Air Protection Agency (LRAPA) to implement and enforce state rules in the county, and the authority of LRAPA to adopt local rules. The changes clarify that the ODEQ administers its rules in all areas, except where the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) has designated the LRAPA to have primary jurisdiction in Lane County. The revisions also make clear that the LRAPA is authorized to implement state rules within Lane County, and may promulgate a local rule in lieu of a state rule provided: (1) It is as stringent as the state rule; and (2) it has been submitted to and approved by the EQC. We propose to approve the delegation of authority language in Division 200, and in all other divisions, because it is consistent with CAA section 110(a)(2)(E) requirements for state and local air agencies.
We note that the state also submitted the ODEQ-LRAPA Stringency Analysis and Directive, comparing the Oregon state rule revisions to the corollary rules generally applicable in Lane County. The analysis identifies which of the revised state rules are more stringent, and directs the LRAPA to implement them, until such time as the LRAPA revises its own rules to be at least as strict. Please see Section IV below for a listing of the submitted rule revisions that we propose to approve as also applying in Lane County. The ODEQ-LRAPA Stringency Analysis and Directive is in Attachment B of the submission, and may be found in the docket for this action.
The submission also includes changes to the generally applicable sections in Division 200. Oregon submitted changes to OAR 340-200-0030 to clarify that woodstove emissions are regulated, and may also be used to create emissions reduction credits. In addition, Oregon added a general rule section at OAR 340-200-0035, listing updated versions of key reference materials for air quality requirements. We propose to approve and incorporate by reference these changes.
We note that this division contains rules on conflicts of interests at OAR 340-200-0100, 0110, and 0120. These rules were not substantively changed in the submittal and remain consistent with the CAA requirements for such rules at CAA sections 110(a)(2)(E) and 128. We propose to approve, but not incorporate by reference, OAR 340-200-0100, 0110, and 0120, to avoid the potential for confusion or potential conflict with the EPA's independent authorities. We note that, consistent with our 2003 action, we are not approving OAR 340-200-0050 because any compliance schedule established by Oregon under this provision must be submitted to, and approved by EPA, before it will be federally-enforceable or change the requirements of the EPA-approved SIP. 40 CFR 51.102(a)(2) and (c) and 260; 68 FR 2891, 2894 (Jan. 22, 2003).
Division 202 contains Oregon's ambient air quality standards and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) increments. Oregon revised Division 202 by removing obsolete definitions and moving definitions used in more than one division to the general definitions in Division 200. At OAR 340-202-0050, Oregon added language expressly stating that no source may cause or contribute to a new violation of an ambient air quality standard or a PSD increment, even if the single source impact is less than the significant impact level. Oregon made this change to address a court decision vacating and remanding regulatory text for the PM
At OAR 340-202-0210, the specific PSD increments were moved from a table to the text of the rule for readability. Oregon also clarified that PSD increments are compared to
This division contains provisions for the designation of air quality areas in Oregon. In the submission, the state removed a reference to “Indian Governing Bodies” at OAR 340-204-0060 because the ODEQ does not have authority or jurisdiction to regulate them. Oregon also replaced an expired oxygenated gasoline requirement at OAR 340-204-0090 with an updated reference to the applicable maintenance plan and its associated provisions.
A significant change in this division is the introduction of three new concepts: “sustainment areas,” “reattainment areas,” and “priority” sources.
To designate an area as sustainment or reattainment, the ODEQ will undertake the same process as used in the past to designate a state maintenance area. The process includes public notice, a rule change, and approval by the EQC. Oregon asserts that the new designations and associated requirements are intended to help solve air quality issues, and do not change attainment planning requirements or federal requirements for major stationary sources.
The sustainment area designation at OAR 340-204-0300 is designed to apply to an area where monitored values exceed, or have the potential to exceed, ambient air quality standards, but has not been formally designated nonattainment by the EPA.
The reattainment area designation is designed to apply to an area that is formally designated nonattainment by the EPA, has an EPA-approved attainment plan, and also has three years of quality-assured/quality-controlled monitoring data showing the area is attaining the relevant standard.
We propose to approve the revisions to Division 204 because the added rules for state-level designations are consistent with CAA requirements and the EPA's implementing regulations for attainment planning and major source pre-construction permitting. The changes to Oregon's major and minor source permitting program—and our evaluation of those changes—are discussed in detail in Section L below.
This division establishes criteria for identifying and declaring air pollution episodes at levels below the levels of significant harm. Oregon submitted minor changes to this division, such as updating references to the outdated total suspended particulate matter standard, and moving information from four tables into regulatory text. We propose to approve these revisions.
Division 208 contains provisions regulating visible emissions, odor, nuisance, and fugitive emissions from sources. Oregon made substantive changes to the visible emission standards at OAR 340-208-0100 through 0110, supported by a demonstration of why the state believes the changes continue to protect air quality. For all point sources, the state changed visible emission standards from an aggregate exception of three minutes in a 60-minute period to a six-minute block average, aligning the form of and test method for Oregon's visible emission standards with federal New Source Performance Standards (NSPS). At the same time, Oregon made visible emission standards applicable to each individual stack or emission point, to preclude averaging across the source.
Oregon also made changes to phase out less stringent visible emission limits granted to certain older facilities in operation before 1970. These sources were required to meet a 40% visible emission limit. However, starting in 2020, these sources will be required to meet the state's standard 20% visible emissions limit. Wood-fired boilers constructed or installed before 1970, and not since modified, also will be held to the tighter 20% visible emissions limit starting in 2020, except for certain, limited situations.
Oregon asserted in its SIP submittal that a visible emissions standard based on a six-minute average is no more or less stringent than a standard based on an aggregate exception of three minutes in any hour. Oregon argued that, theoretically, either basis could be more stringent than the other, but practically, sources do not typically have intermittent puffs of smoke. Oregon also claimed that changing to a six-minute average is appropriate because a reference compliance method has not been developed for the three-minute standard; EPA Method 9 results are also reported as six-minute averages; and using a three-minute standard results in additional costs for sources that also monitor visible emissions with continuous opacity monitoring systems (COMS).
Many COMS are designed for six-minute averages, and must be modified to record and report data for a three-minute standard. Oregon stated in the
We have evaluated the visible emissions rule changes and Oregon's justification for the changes. We propose to approve the revised version of OAR 340-208-0110 and the removal of OAR 340-208-0100 because we agree that the changes will streamline visible emissions and related testing and monitoring requirements for sources, impose more stringent requirements on certain older sources, and are, overall, at least as protective of the ambient air quality standards as the existing SIP requirements.
The final changes made to this division revise fugitive emission requirements at OAR 340-208-0200 through 0210. The revised rules require sources to take reasonable precautions to prevent fugitive emissions, and may require a fugitive emissions control plan to prevent visible emissions from leaving a facility property for more than 18 seconds in a six-minute period. Compliance is based on EPA Method 22, Visual Determination of Fugitive Emissions from Material Sources and Smoke Emissions from Flares. Oregon also replaced the specific references to “asphalt” and “oil” in the lists of dust suppressants and control measures with the term “other suitable chemicals,” to discourage the use of oil and asphalt as dust suppressants.
We propose to approve the revised version of OAR 340-208-0210 and the repeal of OAR 340-208-0200 because we have determined that the fugitive emissions rule changes are consistent with CAA requirements and are expected to improve the effectiveness of controls and compliance with emission limits.
Division 209 governs public participation in the review of proposed permit actions. Oregon revised this division to modernize and clarify public notice requirements. The Oregon SIP provides four different levels of public process, depending on the type of permitting action, with Category I having the least amount of public notice and opportunities for public participation and Category IV having the most. Most new source review permitting actions are subject to category III, for which the ODEQ provides public notice and an opportunity for a hearing at a reasonable time and place if requested, or if the ODEQ otherwise determines a public hearing is necessary. For the state's category IV public process, which applies to Major NSR permitting actions, the ODEQ provides an informational meeting that occurs before issuing a draft permit for public review and comment. The ODEQ has revised the requirements for informational meetings to provide at least a 14-day public notice, prior to the scheduled informational meeting. The revisions also make clear that although the ODEQ accepts, and will consider, comments from the public during the informational meeting, the ODEQ does not maintain an official record of the informational meeting, or respond in writing to comments provided at the informational meeting.
Oregon also revised this division to address permitting in new state-designated sustainment and reattainment areas, added email notification as an option, and specified where the public comment records would be made available. We note that revisions to the hearing procedures in OAR 340-209-0070 were reorganized, moving the notice and comment requirements for informational meetings to OAR 340-209-0030.
We have concluded that the submitted revisions to Oregon's public participation rules remain consistent with the CAA and federal requirements for public notice of new source review actions in 40 CFR 51.161
Division 210 contains a registration program for sources not subject to one of Oregon's operating permit programs, as well as some of the requirements for the construction and modification of sources. In OAR 340-210-0010, Oregon broadened the applicability of this division so that it applies to “air contaminant sources” and to “modifications of existing portable sources that are required to have permits under OAR 340 division 216”—in addition to stationary sources. Oregon also revised source registration requirements at OAR 340-210-0100 to specify in more detail the information an owner or operator must submit to register and re-register. In addition, at OAR 340-210-0205, Oregon made changes to clarify when a Notice of Construction application is required—with certain exceptions the state has specifically listed.
Oregon revised construction approval and approval to operate provisions at OAR 340-210-0240 and 0250 to spell out when sources may proceed with construction or modification, and that construction approval does not mean approval to operate the source, unless the source is not required to obtain an ACDP under Division 216.
We are proposing to approve the revisions to Division 210 because we have determined they are consistent with CAA requirements, and correct or clarify existing source notification requirements, to help ensure that changes to sources go through the appropriate approval process.
This division contains general requirements for source testing and monitoring. Most of the revisions to this division were clarifications or updates. For example, Oregon revised Division 212 to clarify that the term “stationary source” in this division includes portable sources that require permits under Division 216. This change is consistent with the term as used in other divisions. Oregon also made clear that, with respect to stack height and dispersion technique requirements, the procedures referenced in 40 CFR 51.164 are the major and minor NSR review procedures used in Oregon, as applicable.
OAR 340-212-0140 of this division sets forth test methods, and requires that sampling, testing, or measurements performed pursuant to Division 212 conform to the methods in Oregon's
A final change to this division is Oregon's request to remove rules that were approved into the Oregon SIP on January 22, 2003 (68 FR 2891). The specified rules, under the compliance assurance monitoring section, apply to title V sources only and implement the requirements of 40 CFR parts 64 and 70. We agree with Oregon that these rules are not necessary for SIP approval under section 110 of title I of the CAA, because
This division contains Oregon's provisions for reporting and recordkeeping, information requests (CAA section 114 authority), credible evidence, business confidentiality, emissions statements, and excess emissions. Oregon made substantive changes to several sections of this division. First, at OAR 340-214-0010, Oregon changed the definition of “large source” to align with a recent court decision on the regulation of GHG emissions from new and modified major stationary sources in attainment and unclassifiable areas, in addition to title V sources. Please see our discussion at Section L, below. Oregon also removed from the definition of “large source,” those sources subject to a National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). NESHAP reporting requirements are separate and independent of the SIP and CAA section 110 criteria pollutant requirements, and we propose to approve the revision.
Oregon revised OAR 340-214-0100 of this division to clarify that stationary sources include portable sources required to have ACDPs under Division 216. In addition, at OAR 340-214-0114(5), starting on July 1, 2015, owners and operators of specific sources must retain records of all required monitoring data and supporting information for five years. Oregon also revised the section on disclosure of information at OAR 340-214-0130, to spell out that emissions data cannot be exempted from disclosure as a trade secret. Under OAR 340-214-0200, with respect to emission statements for VOC and NO
Oregon made several revisions to the excess emissions and emergency provision requirements in Division 214, at OAR 340-214-0300 through 0360, that are currently in the SIP, and these revisions are included in the submittal that is the subject of this proposed action. First, in OAR 340-214-0300, the state clarified that “emissions in excess of applicable standards are not excess emissions if the standard is in an NSPS or NESHAP and the NSPS or NESHAP exempts startups, shutdowns and malfunctions as defined in the applicable NSPS or NESHAP.” By its terms, this provision only applies to standards in NSPS or NESHAPs, and Oregon's incorporation by reference of the federal NSPS and NESHAP standards are not included in the SIP. Because this addition relates solely to standards that are not in the SIP, the EPA is not approving this provision. The state also expanded the prohibition on planned startups, shutdowns, and scheduled maintenance—that may result in excess emissions during declared air quality alerts, warning or emergencies, or during times when residential wood burning is curtailed in PM
In addition, Oregon made changes to a provision in its SIP that contains criteria for determining whether Oregon will take an enforcement action for excess emissions (OAR 340-214-0350). In the context of the EPA's recent “SSM SIP Action of 2015,” the EPA evaluated the enforcement discretion provision of OAR 340-214-0350 (re-codified from OAR 340-028-1450) and found it to be consistent with CAA requirements and with the EPA's SSM policy as it applies to SIPs.
In the SSM SIP Action of 2015, we noted that Oregon's provision provides that “[i]n determining whether to take enforcement action for excess emissions, DEQ considers, based upon information submitted by the owner or operator,” a list of factors. As discussed in the SSM SIP Action of 2015, the EPA has interpreted the CAA to allow states to elect to have SIP provisions that pertain to the exercise of enforcement discretion by state personnel.
In the submittal that is the subject of this proposed action, Oregon has added to OAR 340-214-0350 two criteria that the ODEQ considers in determining whether to take enforcement action: (1) Whether any federal NSPS or NESHAP apply to the source in question and whether the excess emission event caused a violation of the federal standard,
Further, Oregon changed an affirmative defense provision for excess emissions (OAR 340-214-0360) that is in the current SIP. OAR 340-214-0360 provides, by its title and language, an affirmative defense to excess emissions due to an “emergency.” The language in this provision closely follows language in regulations that govern title V operating permit programs, and states are currently authorized under the 40 CFR part 70 regulations to include this provision in title V permits.
Oregon revised OAR 340-214-0360 so that it provides an affirmative defense available only in penalty actions due to noncompliance with technology-based emission limits in title V operating permits; as revised, the affirmative defense would no longer be available for violations of SIP requirements. Oregon's revision makes OAR 340-214-0360 consistent with current requirements for title V operating permit programs. Oregon has not submitted the revised version of section 0360 for approval into the SIP and instead, as part of the current submittal, has requested that the EPA remove the old version of OAR 340-214-0360 from the SIP. The removal of this affirmative defense provision from the SIP is consistent with EPA guidance in the SSM SIP Call and CAA requirements for SIP provisions. We are therefore proposing to approve the removal of this title V affirmative defense provision from the Oregon SIP.
We note that Oregon also repealed the sulfur dioxide emission inventory requirements at OAR 340-214-0400 through 0430. These provisions are not part of the federally-approved Oregon SIP. These provisions were repealed as a matter of state law because they were replaced with more stringent sulfur dioxide limits established as a part of the state's regional haze plan (July 5, 2011; 76 FR 38997).
Oregon's Air Contaminant Discharge Permit (ACDP) program is both Oregon's federally-enforceable non-title V state operating permit program, and also the administrative mechanism used to implement the notice of construction and new source review programs. There are six types of ACDPs under Oregon's rules: Construction, General, Short Term Activity, Basic, Simple, and Standard. The types of ACDPs have not changed, but the ODEQ has made some changes and clarifications to the criteria and requirements for the various ACDPs. Oregon also revised application requirements to set application renewal deadlines, and to clarify the required contents of applications.
The applicability section at OAR 340-216-0020 references the table of applicability criteria for the various types of permits in OAR 340-216-8010. The associated fees are listed at OAR 340-216-8020. Oregon made clarifying changes throughout the table in OAR 340-216-8010, and made some revisions to the type of ACDP (Basic, General, Simple, or Standard) each source category is required to obtain prior to construction and operation. Overall, Oregon slightly expanded the list of sources required to obtain Basic, General, Simple, or Standard ACDPs, with one exception. Oregon removed the requirement that GHG-only sources obtain a Standard ACDP, and pay the associated permitting fees, consistent with the federal court decision described below in Section L.
Oregon also made revisions, mostly clarifying, to the requirements for applying for and issuing certain types of permits, as well as the contents of the various permits. For Construction ACDPs at OAR 340-216-0052, Oregon added a qualifier to the rule that construction commence within 18 months after the permit is issued. This deadline now applies only if a source is subject to federal major NSR and certain state major NSR permitting (discussed in more detail below). Oregon also added language to the public notice requirements for a modified Construction ACDP, making clear when public notice as a Category I permit action is appropriate, as opposed to a Category II permit action under OAR 340 Division 209. Oregon spelled out that, although the construction permit itself expires, the requirements remain in effect and must be added to the subsequent operating permit (ACDP or Title V operating permit).
General ACDP requirements at OAR 340-216-0060 were updated to refer to the appropriate public notice procedures, reference the fee class for specific source categories, and confirm the procedures the ODEQ will use to rescind a source's General ACDP if the source no longer qualifies and must obtain a Simple or Standard ACDP instead. Oregon also changed the rule to make clear that the ODEQ may rescind an individual source's assignment to a General Permit. When the ODEQ notifies the source that the department intends to rescind the permit, the source has 60 days to submit an application for a Simple or Standard ACDP. Oregon also revised General ACDP Attachments to clarify public notice requirements and fees.
For Simple ACDPs at OAR 340-216-0064, it is now clear that the ODEQ may determine a source ineligible for a Simple ACDP with generic emission limits, and instead, require the source obtain a Standard ACDP with source-specific emission limits, as necessary. Oregon has also clarified the public notice requirements and fees for Simple ACDPs and removed redundant requirements from the Simple ACDP section that are also in the applicability and jurisdiction section.
The Standard ACDP requirements at OAR 340-216-0066 were updated to lay out the different application requirements for sources seeking this type of permit when they are subject to federal major versus minor NSR. Oregon also changed this section to allow sources with multiple activities or processes at a single site, covered by more than one General ACDP or that has multiple processes, to obtain a Standard ACDP.
With respect to processing permits, Oregon's provision at OAR 340-216-0082 now expressly provide that sources with expired ACDP permits may continue operating under the expired permit if they have submitted a timely and complete renewal application. Sources may also request a contested case hearing, if the ODEQ revokes a permit or denies a permit renewal. The ODEQ has clarified in a written supplement that department-initiated modifications at OAR 340-216-0084 follow the public notice procedures for the relevant ACDP permit type spelled out in Division 209. Based on the evaluation above and this clarification from the ODEQ, we propose to approve the revisions to Division 216.
This division contains the Oregon program for managing airshed capacity
“Netting basis” is a concept in Oregon's program that defines both the baseline emissions from which increases are measured—to determine if changes are subject to review—as well as the process for re-establishing the baseline, after changes have been through the new source review permitting process.
As noted above, Oregon's PSEL program is used, in part, to implement NSR permitting. For major NSR, if a PSEL is calculated at a level greater than an established significant emission rate (SER) over the baseline actual emission rate, an evaluation of the air quality impact and major NSR permitting are required. If not, the PSEL is set without further review (a construction permit may also be required). For minor NSR (State NSR), a similar calculation is conducted. If the difference is greater than the SER, an air quality analysis is required to evaluate whether ambient air quality standards and increments are protected. The air quality analysis results may require the source to reduce the airshed impact and/or comply with a tighter emission limit.
Oregon submitted a number of changes to the PSEL requirements in this division. Many of the changes are organizational, centralizing requirements related to PSELs in Division 222. We propose to approve the organizational changes. Other submitted changes are substantive. Oregon revised the criteria for establishing PSELs at OAR 340-222-0035 through 0090 by consolidating requirements from other sections into these provisions, and revising them to take into account the differentiated major and State NSR requirements. Oregon also updated the source-specific annual PSEL provision, at OAR 340-222-0041, to account for PM
Oregon also revised the short-term PSEL requirements at OAR 340-222-0042 to spell out the process a source must follow to request an increase in a short-term PSEL—and when that source must obtain offsets, or an allocation, from an available growth allowance in the area.
At OAR 340-222-0046, Oregon clarified the process for setting the initial netting basis for PM
At OAR 340-222-0048, Oregon consolidated baseline period and baseline emission rate provisions, and indicated when a baseline emission rate may be recalculated—limited to circumstances when more accurate or reliable emission factor information becomes available or when regulatory changes require that additional emissions units be addressed. Changes were also made to OAR 340-222-0051, which addresses actual emissions, and how to appropriately calculate the mass emissions of a pollutant from an emissions source during a specified time period. The state revised this provision to account for the changes in the program that differentiate major NSR from State NSR.
We note that Oregon also clarified OAR 340-222-0055, which establishes how unassigned emissions are to be treated. The rule was revised to state that a source may not use emissions that are removed from the netting basis—including emission reductions required by rule, order or permit condition—for netting any future permit actions.
Oregon also revised OAR 340-222-0060, applicable to sources of hazardous air pollutants, and submitted it for approval. However, the provision is not appropriate for SIP approval because it is related to CAA section 112 and hazardous air pollutants, not CAA section 110 and the criteria pollutants. Oregon also updated OAR 340-222-0090, which addresses the impact on PSEL calculations and permitting requirements when sources combine, split, and change primary Standard Industrial Code. The changes make clear that sources must qualify to combine, and that it will impact the netting basis and SER, and trigger new source review and recordkeeping requirements, if applicable.
With the exception noted below, we are proposing to approve the submitted changes to Division 222 because we believe the revisions to the PSEL provisions are intended to clarify and strengthen the rules. We are not approving OAR 340-222-0060 because it is related to CAA section 112 and hazardous air pollutants, not CAA section 110 and the criteria pollutants.
Parts C and D of title I of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7470-7515, set forth preconstruction review and permitting program requirements that apply to new and modified major stationary sources of air pollutants, known as major New Source Review (major NSR). The CAA major NSR programs include a combination of air quality planning and air pollution control technology program requirements. States adopt major NSR programs as part of their SIP. Part C is the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program, which applies in areas that meet the NAAQS (attainment areas), as well as in areas for which there is insufficient information to determine whether the area meets the NAAQS (unclassifiable areas). Part D is the Nonattainment New Source Review (major nonattainment NSR) program, which applies in areas that are not in attainment of the NAAQS (nonattainment areas). The EPA regulations for SIPs implementing these programs are contained in 40 CFR 51.165 and 51.166, and appendix S to part 51. As discussed above, regulations addressing the EPA's minor new source review (NSR) requirements are set forth at 40 CFR 51.160 through 164. States
Oregon's major NSR program has long differed from the federal major NSR programs in several respects. Oregon's program does not subject the same sources and modifications to major NSR as would the EPA's rules. Oregon's program has had lower major source thresholds for sources in nonattainment and maintenance areas. The program also requires fugitive emissions to be included in applicability determinations for all new major sources and modifications to existing major sources. However, Oregon also utilizes a PSEL approach to defining “major” modifications, rather than the contemporaneous net emissions increase approach used in the EPA's main, non-PAL major NSR program. The EPA has previously determined that, over all, Oregon's major NSR program is at least as stringent as the EPA's major NSR program and meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.165 and 51.166.
Under Oregon's SIP-approved program, to which the state has made changes, both federal major sources and large minor sources have been covered by this Division. The submitted changes to Division 224 revise this approach and establish distinct components within Division 224, referred to as Major New Source Review (Oregon Major NSR—sections 0045 through 0100) and State New Source Review (State NSR—sections 0245 through 0270) to help clarify the requirements that apply to federal major sources and larger minor sources. Pre-construction review and permitting of other minor sources continue to be covered in Division 210
As discussed above, Oregon has also created two new state designations. Sustainment areas are state-designated areas that are violating or close to violating the NAAQS but which are not formally designated nonattainment by the EPA. Reattainment areas are state-designated areas that have been designated nonattainment by the EPA but that now have air quality data showing the area is attaining the NAAQS. Key changes to the Oregon Major NSR and State NSR programs are discussed below.
Oregon has narrowed the scope of sources that are subject to Oregon Major NSR in nonattainment and maintenance areas by increasing the thresholds, from the significant emission rate (SER) to the major source thresholds in the CAA specified for the current nonattainment areas in Oregon.
Oregon has divided its State NSR program into two parts: Type A, which generally applies in nonattainment, reattainment, and maintenance areas, and Type B, for attainment, unclassifiable, and sustainment areas. Sources subject to Type A State NSR remain subject to many of the same requirements that apply to such sources under Oregon's current SIP-approved program in nonattainment
The state also made revisions here, and in several other places in its rules, to be consistent with revisions to the federal PSD rules made in response to a Supreme Court decision
Oregon also made clear in this section that a source is subject to Division 224 requirements for the designated area in which the source is located—for each regulated pollutant, including precursors. Finally, Oregon spelled out that sources subject to Division 224 must not begin actual construction, continue construction, or operate without complying with the requirements of Division 224 and obtaining an ACDP permit authorizing construction or operation.
Importantly, Oregon moved the definition of “major modification” from Division 200 to Division 224, to reflect that the former definition was really a procedure for determining whether a major modification has or will occur, rather than a true definition. The revised definition and procedure are intended to better explain how emissions increases and decreases are tracked to determine whether a major modification has, or will, occur.
Oregon also specified that emissions from categorically insignificant activities, aggregate insignificant emissions, and fugitive emissions must be included in determining whether a major modification has occurred. In addition, the state clarified that major modifications for ozone precursors, or PM
Oregon revised this section to account for differing Oregon Major NSR and State NSR procedures. These revisions include when the ODEQ will determine whether an application is complete, when a final determination will be made, when construction is permitted,
This section was moved and amended to account for State NSR requirements. For sources subject to Oregon Major NSR and Type A State NSR, fugitive emissions are included in the calculation of emission rates and subject to the same control requirements and analyses required for emissions from identifiable stacks or vents. Secondary emissions are not included in potential to emit calculations for Oregon Major NSR or Type A State NSR, but once a source is subject to Oregon Major NSR or Type A State NSR, secondary emissions must be considered in the required air quality impact analysis under Divisions 224 and 225.
Oregon has specified Oregon Major NSR requirements for each of the following designations: Sustainment, nonattainment, reattainment, maintenance, and attainment/unclassifiable.
New sources and modifications subject to Oregon Major NSR in sustainment areas (areas that are classified as attainment/unclassifiable by the EPA but have air quality either violating the NAAQS or just below the NAAQS) must meet PSD requirements for each sustainment pollutant, but must also satisfy additional requirements for obtaining offsets and demonstrating a net air quality benefit to address the air quality problems in the area, as discussed in more detail below. Because such areas are designated as attainment/unclassifiable by the EPA, requiring compliance with Oregon's PSD requirements meets federal requirements. The additional requirements for obtaining offsets and demonstrating a net air quality benefit go beyond CAA requirements for attainment/classifiable areas and are thus approvable.
For new sources and modifications subject to Oregon Major NSR in nonattainment areas, Oregon reorganized and clarified the requirements, including that they apply for each pollutant for which the area is designated nonattainment. Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) and offsets continue to be required for such sources and modifications. Oregon's submitted revisions tighten offsets required in nonattainment areas (except with respect to ozone). Oregon's rules now initially require 1.2:1 offsets to emissions in non-ozone areas. If offsets are obtained from priority sources in the area, the ratio may be reduced to 1:1, equivalent to the federal requirement in 40 CFR 51.165(a)(9)(i). Oregon's revisions also tighten requirements for sources seeking construction permit extensions, and limits extension requests to two 18-month periods, with certain additional review and re-evaluation steps. We note that beyond the federal rules, Oregon's rules extend BACT and offset requirements to new and modified minor sources in nonattainment areas.
The EPA is proposing limited, rather than full, approval of the Oregon Major NSR program for nonattainment areas because, although the submitted revisions strengthen the existing SIP-approved program, we cannot fully evaluate the program for the following reasons. On January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in
As a result of the court's decision, the EPA withdrew its guidance for implementing the 2006 PM
In reattainment areas (areas meeting the NAAQS but not yet redesignated to attainment), new sources and modifications subject to Oregon Major NSR must continue to meet all nonattainment Oregon Major NSR requirements for the reattainment pollutant. In addition, to ensure air quality does not again deteriorate, Oregon now requires that sources subject to Oregon Major NSR also meet other requirements for each reattainment pollutant. Specifically, the owner or operator of the source must demonstrate the source will not cause or contribute to a new violation of the ambient air quality standard or PSD increment by conducting an air quality analysis as outlined in Division 225.
In maintenance areas, as under Oregon's current federally-approved SIP, new sources and modifications subject to Oregon Major NSR must continue to comply with Oregon Major NSR requirements for attainment/unclassifiable areas (
For the construction of new sources and modifications subject to Oregon Major NSR in attainment or unclassifiable areas, Oregon revised its rules to address several court decisions impacting federal PSD rules. First, as discussed above, Oregon revised definitions and procedures in Divisions 200, 214, 216, 222 and 224 to remove GHG-only sources from PSD applicability. Therefore, as required under the EPA's federal PSD program, a source is now subject to the Oregon Major NSR requirements for GHGs only when the source also is subject to Oregon PSD requirements for one or more criteria pollutants. As required, Oregon's rules continue to require that sources of GHGs subject to Oregon's PSD rules for a criteria pollutant are also subject to PSD for GHGs.
Second, Oregon revised its requirements for preconstruction monitoring to address another court decision and resulting revisions to the EPA's PSD rules. On October 20, 2010, the EPA promulgated the 2010 PSD PM
At the EPA's request, the decision also vacated and remanded the portions of the 2010 PSD PM
In response to the vacatur and remand, Oregon submitted revisions to several divisions, including Divisions 200, 202, 224 and 225. Oregon revised the PM
Oregon also revised its PSD rules to address a court decision vacating provisions of EPA's 2011 biogenic deferral. In 2011, the EPA revised the definition of “subject to regulation” at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(ii)(
In addition to revisions addressing these three court decisions, Oregon also eliminated language that allowed the substitution of post-construction monitoring for preconstruction monitoring. Oregon added an exemption from the preconstruction ambient air monitoring requirement, with the ODEQ's approval, if representative or conservative background concentration data is available, and the source demonstrates that such data is adequate to determine that the source would not cause or contribute to a violation of an ambient air quality standard or any applicable PSD increment. These revisions, along with the other existing provisions regarding preconstruction monitoring in Oregon's PSD regulations,
Finally, Oregon added the requirement to demonstrate a net air quality benefit for subject sources that will have a significant impact on air quality in a designated area other than the area in which the source is located. This demonstration of net air quality benefit is beyond federal PSD requirements, and will be discussed in more detail below.
Division 224 now also specifies State NSR requirements for sustainment, nonattainment, reattainment, maintenance, and attainment/unclassifiable areas. For sources that emit between the SER and 100 tons per year in nonattainment and maintenance areas (Type A State NSR sources), Oregon has relaxed some of the requirements, as compared to its current SIP, that historically went beyond federal requirements. In nonattainment areas, if the increase in emissions from the source is the result of a major modification,
Because BACT, LAER, pre-construction monitoring, and offsets are not required components of a State's SIP-approved minor NSR program, and because the offset requirements now provide sources with incentives to obtain offsets from sources found to be specifically contributing to air quality problems in the area, the EPA proposes to find that Oregon's minor NSR program continues to meet CAA requirements for approval.
Oregon moved the net air quality benefit emission offset rules from Division 225 to Division 224 to better consolidate new source review requirements. The CAA requires that, for major nonattainment NSR, the proposed major source or major modifications must obtain emissions reductions of the affected nonattainment pollutant from the same source or other sources in the area to offset the proposed emissions increase.
Oregon revised the state's criteria for demonstrating a net air quality benefit. In addition to the incentives provided to sources subject to Type A State NSR in sustainment and reattainment areas to obtain offsets from priority sources discussed above, Oregon made an additional change. The state revised its rules to provide incentives for major sources to use priority source offsets for Oregon Major NSR sources in nonattainment and reattainment areas by increasing the required offset ratio for major sources to 1.2:1 from the current 1:1. If a source subject to Oregon Major NSR obtains offsets of some emissions increases from priority sources, the ratio may be reduced to no less than 1:1, the minimum offset level under the federal major nonattainment NSR program.
We most recently reviewed and took action on submitted changes to Division 225 on December 27, 2011 (76 FR 80747). Although Oregon adopted the EPA's recommended inter-pollutant offset ratios for PM
We are proposing to approve the revisions to Division 224, with the exceptions and limitations noted above, because we have determined that, in conjunction with other provisions in Divisions 200, 222, and 225, the revisions are consistent with the requirements of the EPA's PSD, major nonattainment NSR, and minor NSR permitting programs.
This division contains the air quality analysis requirements, which are primarily used in Oregon's NSR program. By its terms, it does not apply unless a rule in another division, primarily Division 224, refers to Division 225 or a rule in Division 225.
Substantive changes include revising the definition of “allowable emissions” at OAR 340-225-0020(1) to add “40 CFR part 62” to the list of referenced standards and clarifying the definition of “baseline concentration year” at OAR 340-225-0020(3) that varies depending on the pollutant for a particular designated area. Oregon revised the definitions of “competing PSD increment consuming source impacts” and “competing NAAQS [national ambient air quality standards] source impacts,” at OAR 340-225-0020(4) and (5) respectively, to broaden the reference to include all of Oregon's ambient air quality standards at Division 202 (which include the NAAQS)
Oregon revised the PSD requirements to align with the court decision vacating and remanding the PM
The state also updated the PSD requirements for demonstrating compliance with air quality related values. Oregon made clear that, if applicable, the analysis applies to each emission unit that increases the actual emissions of a regulated pollutant above the portion of the netting basis attributable to that emission unit. The state also spelled out that the term “air quality related values” includes visibility, deposition, and ozone impacts. In addition, the state mandated a visibility analysis for sources impacting the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area (Gorge), instead of recommending sources also evaluate potential impacts on the Gorge. We propose to approve the revisions to Division 225 as meeting CAA requirements, including the EPA's major NSR permitting regulations at 40 CFR 51.165 and 51.166, and the regional haze requirements at 40 CFR part 51, subpart P.
As discussed above, Oregon repealed the
This division contains emission standards and requirements of general applicability, including requirements for highest and best practicable treatment and control, operating and maintenance, typically achievable control technology, additional requirements imposed on a permit by permit basis, alternative emission limits (bubbles), and particulate emission limits for process equipment and other sources (other than fuel or refuse burning equipment or fugitive emissions). In OAR 340-226-0120, Oregon clarified that pressure drop and ammonia slip are operational, maintenance and work practice requirements that the ODEQ may establish in a permit condition or notice of construction approval. Oregon also revised OAR 340-226-0130
Notably, the state made substantive revisions to the particulate emission limits under the
These rules establish generally applicable requirements for fuel burning equipment, including limits on sulfur content and particulate matter. Oregon removed a coal space-heating exemption that expired in 1983 and clarified that sulfur dioxide emissions from recovery furnaces are not subject to this division but are instead regulated under the SO
Oregon revised Division 228 to tighten grain loading standards for fuel burning equipment in the same manner as in Division 226, discussed above. We propose to approve the revisions because they tighten particulate emission standards for fuel burning equipment and strengthen the SIP. We note that revisions to this division related to the federal Acid Rain Program (OAR 340-228-0300, and -0400 through -0530) were not submitted, but were included to show a complete record of the revisions. These rules are not a part of Oregon's federally-approved SIP.
This division restricts emissions of VOC from new and existing listed source categories in the Portland and Medford Air Quality Maintenance Areas and in Salem-Keizer in the Salem-Keizer Area Transportation Study Area as well as any source in these areas with the potential to emit over 100 tons of VOC per year. Consistent with CAA requirements, Oregon has clarified that the determination of whether a source has a potential to emit over 100 tons of VOC per year is made before consideration of add-on controls.
Oregon expanded the section on marine tank vessels so that the marine vapor control requirements now apply to marine tank vessel loading of other volatile organic liquids in addition to gasoline, effective July 1, 2018. The loading of organic liquids stored in pressurized tanks, such as liquefied natural gas and propane, are not included in this expansion. Consistent with the change discussed above, the state also made clear that, in determining whether a course is subject to the rules on surface coating in manufacturing, determination of the source's potential to emit is made before consideration of add-on controls. Oregon also requires records under the surface coating in manufacturing rule to be retained for five years rather than two, consistent with title V. Finally, Oregon also clarified that determining potential to emit for rotogravure and flexographic printing sources subject to VOC requirements is made before consideration of add-on controls. We propose to approve the changes described above because they strengthen the SIP and are consistent with the CAA.
Oregon repealed two sections of this division—the neutral sulfite semi-chemical section (OAR 340-234-0300
In the
Oregon also added source test methods for particulate matter and required demonstrations of oxygen concentrations in recovery furnace and lime kiln gases. Under the
Oregon made minor changes to OAR 340-234-0270, a provision authorizing the ODEQ to determine that upset conditions at a subject source are chronic and correctable by the installation of new or modified process or control equipment and requiring a program and schedule to effectively eliminate the deficiencies causing the upset conditions. This provision makes clear that such upsets causing emissions in excess of applicable limits may be subject to a civil penalty or other appropriate action. The EPA is proposing to reapprove this provision with these changes based on the understanding that it does not excuse excess emissions from enforcement action seeking penalties or injunctive relief.
Oregon moved the test method for the opacity limit for veneer and plywood manufacturing operations from the definitions into the requirement itself (OAR 340-234-0510(1)(b)(A)). The state also added test methods for moisture content to the emission standards for veneer and plywood manufacturing requirements. For hardboard tempering ovens, Oregon revised the emission requirements to require that alternative temperatures be approved using the procedures in the federal NESHAP for Plywood and Composite Wood Products, 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD. Because these rules did not include testing and monitoring requirements, Oregon added a new section, OAR 340-234-0540
We propose to approve the changes to Division 234, except with respect to requirements regulating total reduced sulfur and odor, because they strengthen the SIP and are consistent with CAA requirements. Total reduced sulfur and odor requirements are not appropriate for SIP approval because they are not criteria pollutants under title I of the CAA. We therefore are excluding from approval into the Oregon SIP the references to total reduced sulfur and odor in definitions at OAR 340-234-0010(8) and (10), and in Kraft Pulp Mill rules at OAR 340-234-0210(1), OAR 340-234-0220(2), OAR 340-234-0240(1), and OAR 340-234-0250(1) and (2).
Under Division 236, Oregon repealed rules designed to regulate aluminum (OAR 340-236-0100 through 0150) and laterite ore production of ferronickel (OAR 340-236-0200 through 0230) because sources of this type no longer exist in the state. Any new facilities would be subject to new source review as well as applicable NSPS and NESHAP requirements. Oregon also made clear the appropriate test method to determine compliance with the hot mix asphalt plant rules at OAR 340-236-0410(1). In addition, the state added a requirement that hot mix asphalt plants must develop a fugitive emissions control plan if requested by the ODEQ.
We note that Oregon repealed OAR 340-236-0430 specific to portable hot mix asphalt plants, which addressed only permit requirements for such plants, because these plants are now regulated under general permits in Division 216. With the exception of the provisions regulating animal matter and municipal solid waste landfills, we propose to approve the revisions and repeals because they are consistent with CAA requirements. The provisions regulating animal matter and municipal solid waste landfills are not related to the criteria pollutants regulated under title I of the CAA, not essential for meeting and maintaining the NAAQS, nor related to the requirements for SIPs under section 110 of the CAA.
In the submission, Oregon revised air quality control requirements for certain areas—these are generally areas that are, or have been, designated nonattainment by the EPA. At OAR 340-240-0050, the state clarified the appropriate test methods for determining compliance with emission standards in this division, improving the enforceability of the standards. In addition, visible emissions requirements, at OAR 340-240-0110, 0140, 0330, 0350, and 0510, were revised to update opacity testing averaging times from an aggregate three-minute exception in any one hour to a six-minute average. The state explained the basis for this change in its submission, and we describe, in Section E above, why we propose to approve this change.
Oregon also revised particulate control requirements for air conveying systems, at OAR 340-240-0350, setting removal efficiency standards designed to ensure that the pollution collected from a source is not ultimately discharged into the atmosphere. In making this change, the state regulated design removal efficiency rather than actual removal efficiency because of the challenges of testing for removal efficiency, which requires measuring emissions at the inlet and the outlet. Oregon updated the grain loading standard for air conveying systems in the La Grande Urban Growth Area emitting ten tons or less a year (from 0.1 to 0.10 grains per standard cubic foot) but allowed extensions of up to one year, if necessary to install controls to meet the revised standard. Oregon made the changes intending to better align the rules with federally-approved standards and testing methods.
Also in this division, Oregon repealed the charcoal producing plant rules at OAR 340-240-0170 because there are no longer any existing sources of this type in Oregon outside of Lane County (which is subject to rules in addition to, or in lieu of, these rules), and any new charcoal producing plants would be subject to new source review and any applicable NSPS and NESHAP requirements. In accord with changes to other divisions discussed above, the state removed the sanctioned use of asphalt and oil as dust suppressants. Oregon also repealed old, expired provisions in this division.
We note that Oregon's federally-approved SIP currently controls sources
Oregon also revised this section to expand offsets to the Lakeview sustainment area as well as other eligible areas.
This division contains additional requirements that apply in the Portland area. The industrial emissions management program was updated to account for the changes to Oregon's Major NSR and State NSR programs. Oregon also moved the net air quality benefit provisions to Division 224 to consolidate NSR requirements. We note that we already approved the changes to the
Oregon repealed the
Oregon submitted a change to the definitions section of this division, at OAR 340-262-0450. Oregon's rules now expressly exclude boilers providing process heat to a commercial, industrial, or institutional establishment (that obtain a construction approval from the ODEQ) from the definition of “solid fuel burning device” regulated under the Heat Smart Program. These units are currently exempt from the Heat Smart Program under Oregon's SIP and the revision to Oregon's rules continues that exemption. We propose to approve the change because as a matter of federal law, this revision results in no change to the Oregon SIP.
The only substantive change to this division is the repeal of the forced air pit incinerators rule and associated references at OAR 340-264-0190. Forced air pit and air curtain incinerators are regulated under the EPA's rules for Commercial/Industrial Solid Waste Incinerators and are required to have title V operating permits. The ODEQ has therefore determined that such units should no longer be regulated under Oregon's rules for open burning. We propose to approve the repeal as consistent with the CAA.
In Division 268, Oregon submitted revisions to OAR 340-268-0030 to clarify when reductions in criteria pollutant emissions that are also hazardous air pollutant emissions are creditable. Emissions reductions required to meet federal NESHAP standards in 40 CFR part 61 or 63 are not creditable as emission reduction credits for purposes of Major NSR in nonattainment or reattainment areas in Oregon. However, criteria pollutant reductions that are in excess of, or incidental to, the required hazardous air pollutant reductions can potentially earn credits—as long as all conditions are met. Oregon also lowered the threshold for banking credits in the Klamath Falls and Lakeview areas from ten tons to one ton—to encourage trading activity. Finally, Oregon specified when such credits are considered used up, and when they expire. The revisions are consistent with the CAA and the EPA's implementing regulations and we propose to approve them.
Oregon submitted the ODEQ Source Sampling Manual, Volumes I and II, and the ODEQ Continuous Monitoring Manual, revised as of April 2015. These manuals are key reference materials used in OAR Divisions 200 through 268. As noted above, Oregon added references to the April 2015 edition of both manuals in Division 200. Oregon incorporates changes to testing and monitoring requirements—spelled out in these manuals—into the permits of source owners and operators, as necessary.
The Source Sampling Manual addresses air emissions source sampling practices and procedures for projects in Oregon. Volume I of this manual was updated to account for changes to the EPA methods for measuring fine particulate matter, and other new and modernized methods. Volume II of this manual was revised to remove the annual reporting requirements for small gasoline dispensing facilities (throughput of less than 10,000 gallons of gasoline per month). The state determined that the annual reporting requirement was not needed to measure compliance because the ODEQ collected one-time throughput data from these facilities and is authorized to request additional information if needed.
Oregon extensively revised the Continuous Monitoring Manual, originally published in 1992. The manual includes federal monitoring requirements for the NSPS, NESHAP, and Acid Rain programs and was updated primarily to address continuous monitoring systems of all types. The changes affect commercial operations that are required to install and operate continuous monitoring systems, contractors that audit or certify the systems, and vendors that sell or design the systems. We reviewed the revised manuals, and we propose to approve the changes as consistent with 40 CFR part 51, subpart M, and part 60, subparts A and B, for purposes of the emission limits and requirements approved into the SIP.
We propose to approve, and incorporate by reference, specific rule revisions submitted by Oregon on May 21, 2015. As documented in the submission, we propose to approve certain of the state rule revisions to also apply in Lane County, because the Oregon EQC has determined those rule to be more stringent that the
In addition, we propose to remove repealed rules from Oregon's federally-approved SIP, as requested by the state, because they are obsolete or redundant. Finally, we are not approving certain rules that are inconsistent with CAA requirements, or that are inappropriate for SIP approval, because they are not related to the criteria pollutants regulated under title I of the CAA, not essential for meeting and maintaining the NAAQS, or not related to the requirements for SIPs under section 110 of the CAA.
We propose to approve into the Oregon SIP, and incorporate by reference at 40 CFR part 52, subpart MM, the submitted revisions to Chapter 340 of the OAR listed below, state effective April 16, 2015:
• Division 200—General Air Pollution Procedures and Definitions (0010, 0020, 0025, 0030, 0035);
• Division 202—Ambient Air Quality Standards and PSD Increments (0010, 0020, 0050, 0070, 0100, 0130, 0200, 0210, 0220, 0225);
• Division 204—Designation of Air Quality Areas (0010, 0020, 0030, 0040, 0050, 0060, 0070, 0080, 0090, 0300, 0310, 0320);
• Division 206—Air Pollution Emergencies (0010, 0020, 0030, 0040, 0050, 0060, 0070, 8010, 8020, 8030, 8040);
• Division 208—Visible Emissions and Nuisance Requirements (0005, 0010, 0110, 0210);
• Division 209—Public Participation (0010, 0020, 0030, 0040, 0050, 0060, 0070, 0080);
• Division 210—Stationary Source Notification Requirements (0010, 0020, 0100, 0110, 0120, 0205, 0215, 0225, 0230, 0240, 0250);
• Division 212—Stationary Source Testing and Monitoring (0005, 0010, 0110, 0120, 0130, 0140, 0150);
• Division 214—Stationary Source Reporting Requirements (0005, 0010, 0100, 0110, 0114, 0130, 0200, 0210, 0220, 0300—except introductory sentence related to NSPS and NESHAPs, 0310, 0320, 0330, 0340, 0350);
• Division 216—Air Contaminant Discharge Permits (0010, 0020, 0025, 0030, 0040, 0052, 0054, 0060, 0062, 0064, 0066, 0068, 0070, 0082, 0084, 0090, 0094, 8010, 8020);
• Division 222—Stationary Source Plant Site Emission Limits (0010, 0020, 0030, 0035, 0040, 0041, 0042, 0046, 0048, 0051, 0055, 0080, 0090);
• Division 224—New Source Review (0010, 0020, 0025, 0030, 0034, 0038, 0040, 0045, 0050, 0055, 0060, 0070, 0245, 0250, 0255, 0260, 0270, 0500, 0510—except paragraph (3), 0520, 0530, 0540);
• Division 225—Air Quality Analysis Requirements (0010, 0020, 0030, 0040, 0045, 0050, 0060, 0070);
• Division 226—General Emissions Standards (0005, 0010, 0100, 0110, 0120, 0130, 0140, 0210, 0310, 0320, 0400, 8010);
• Division 228—Requirements for Fuel Burning Equipment and Fuel Sulfur Content (0010, 0020, 0100, 0110, 0120, 0130, 0200, 0210);
• Division 232—Emission Standards for VOC Point Sources (0010, 0020, 0030, 0040, 0050, 0060, 0080, 0085, 0090, 0100, 0110, 0120, 0130, 0140, 0150, 0160, 0170, 0180, 0190, 0200, 0210, 0220, 0230);
• Division 234—Emission Standards for Wood Products Industries (0005, 0010—except (8) and (10), 0100, 0140, 0200, 0210—except (1), 0220—except (2), 0240—except (1), 0250—except (1) and (2), 0270, 0500, 0510, 0520, 0530, 0540);
• Division 236—Emission Standards for Specific Industries (0005, 0010, 0400, 0410, 0420, 0440, 8010);
• Division 240—Rules for Areas with Unique Air Quality Needs (0010, 0020, 0030, 0050, 0100, 0110, 0120, 0130, 0140, 0150, 0160, 0180, 0190, 0210, 0220, 0250, 0300, 0320, 0330, 0340, 0350, 0360, 0400, 0410, 0420, 0430, 0440, 0510, 0550, 0560, 0610);
• Division 242—Rules Applicable to the Portland Area (0400, 0410, 0420, 0430, 0440, 0600, 0610, 0620, 0630);
• Division 262—Heat Smart Program for Residential Woodstoves and Other Solid Fuel Heating Devices (0450);
• Division 264—Rules for Open Burning (0010, 0020, 0030, 0040, 0050, 0060, 0070, 0075, 0078, 0080, 0100, 0110, 0120, 0130, 0140, 0150, 0160, 0170, 0175, 0180); and
• Division 268—Emission Reduction Credits (0010, 0020, 0030).
• Division 200—General Air Pollution Procedures and Definitions (0020);
• Division 202—Ambient Air Quality Standards and PSD Increments (0050);
• Division 204—Designation of Air Quality Areas (0300, 0310, 0320);
• Division 208—Visible Emissions and Nuisance Requirements (0110, 0210);
• Division 214—Stationary Source Reporting Requirements (0114) (5);
• Division 216—Air Contaminant Discharge Permits (0040, 8010);
• Division 222—Stationary Source Plant Site Emission Limits (0090);
• Division 224 -New Source Review (0030, 0530);
• Division 225—Air Quality Analysis Requirements (0010, 0020, 0030, 0040, 0045, 0050, 0060, 0070);
• Division 226—General Emissions Standards (0210); and
• Division 228—Requirements for Fuel Burning Equipment and Fuel Sulfur Content (0210).
We propose to approve, but not incorporate by reference, the following provisions:
• ODEQ Source Sampling Manual, Volumes I and II, April 2015 (for purposes of the limits approved into the SIP);
• ODEQ Continuous Emissions Monitoring Manual, April 2015 (for purposes of the limits approved into the SIP);
• ODEQ-LRAPA Stringency Analysis and Directive, Attachment B; and
• Division 200—General Air Pollution Procedures and Definitions (0100, 0110, 0120).
We propose to remove the following sections from the Oregon SIP because they have been repealed, replaced by rules noted in paragraph A above, or the state has asked that they be removed:
• Division 208—Visible Emissions and Fugitive Emissions Requirements (0100, 0200);
• Division 212—Compliance Assurance Monitoring (0200, 0210, 0220, 0230, 0240, 0250, 0260, 0270, 0280);
• Division 214—Stationary Source Reporting Requirements (0360);
• Division 222—Stationary Source Plant Site Emissions Limits (0043, 0045, 0070);
• Division 224—New Source Review (0080, 0100);
• Division 225—Air Quality Analysis Requirements (0090);
• Division 226—General Emission Standards (0200);
• Division 228—Requirements for Fuel Burning Equipment and Fuel Sulfur Content (0400, 0410, 0420, 0430, 0440, 0450, 0460, 0470, 0480, 0490, 0500, 0510, 0520, 0530);
• Division 234—Emission Standards for Wood Products Industries (0300, 0310, 0320, 0330, 0340, 0350, 0360, 0400, 0410, 0420, 0430);
• Division 236—Emission Standards for Specific Industries (0100, 0110,
• Division 240—Rules for Areas with Unique Air Quality Needs (0170, 0230, 0310);
• Division 242—Rules Applicable to the Portland Areas (0700, 0710, 0720, 0730, 0740, 0750, 0760, 0770, 0780, 0790); and
• Division 264—Rules for Open Burning (0190).
For the reasons stated above, we are not approving the following revised provisions submitted by Oregon because they are inconsistent with CAA requirements, or because they are inappropriate for SIP approval under section 110, title I of the CAA:
• Division 200—General Air Pollution Procedures and Definitions (0050) (compliance schedules);
• Division 214—Stationary Source Reporting Requirements (0300 introductory sentence related to NSPS and NESHAPs);
• Division 222—Stationary Source Plant Site Emission Limits (0060) (hazardous air pollutants);
• Division 224—New Source Review (0510(3)) (PM
• Division 234—Emission Standards for Wood Products Industries (0010(8) and (10), 0210(1), 0220(2), 0240(1), 0250 (1) and (2)) (total reduced sulfur and odor).
In this rule, we are proposing to include in a final rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are proposing to incorporate by reference the provisions described above in Section IV. Proposed Action. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through
Oregon Revised Statute 468.126 prohibits the ODEQ from imposing a penalty for violation of an air, water or solid waste permit unless the source has been provided five days' advanced written notice of the violation and has not come into compliance or submitted a compliance schedule within that five-day period. By its terms, the statute does not apply to Oregon's title V program or to any program if application of the notice provision would disqualify the program from federal delegation. Oregon has previously confirmed that, because application of the notice provision would preclude EPA approval of the Oregon SIP, no advance notice is required for violation of SIP requirements.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because this action does not involve technical standards; and
• does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency.
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve the portion of a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Georgia, through Georgia Environmental Protection Division on February 6, 2015, addressing the nonattainment new source review requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards for the Atlanta, Georgia 2008 8-hour ozone nonattainment area (hereinafter referred to as the “Atlanta Area”). The Atlanta Area is comprised of 15 counties in Atlanta (Bartow, Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Henry, Newton, Paulding, and Rockdale). This action is being taken pursuant to the Clean Air Act and its implementing regulations.
Written comments must be received on or before April 21, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0248 at
Kelly Sheckler of the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mrs. Sheckler can be reached by telephone at (404) 562-9222 or via electronic mail at
In the Final Rules section of this
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Department of Transportation's (DOT) National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
Notice of intent.
EPA announces its intention to reconsider the Final Determination of the Mid-Term Evaluation of greenhouse gas (GHG) standards for model year (MY) 2022-2025 light-duty vehicles and to coordinate its reconsideration with the parallel process to be undertaken by the DOT's NHTSA regarding Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for cars and light trucks for the same model years.
March 22, 2017.
William Charmley, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Fuel Emissions Laboratory/OAR, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, telephone (734) 214-4466. Email:
By this notice, EPA announces its intention to reconsider its Final Determination of the Mid-Term Evaluation of GHG standards for MY 2022-2025 light-duty vehicles. The EPA has inherent authority to reconsider past decisions and to revise, replace or repeal a decision to the extent permitted by law and supported by a reasoned explanation.
The Mid-Term Evaluation was established to review standards set in a 2012 joint rulemaking by the EPA and NHTSA, which set federal GHG emissions and CAFE standards for MY 2017 and beyond for light-duty vehicles. 2017 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, Final Rule, 77 FR 62624 (Oct. 15, 2012). These standards, codified for EPA at 40 CFR 86.1818-12, apply to passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles (
The EPA and NHTSA finalized separate sets of standards under their respective statutory authorities. EPA set GHG standards (including standards for emissions of carbon dioxide (CO
The 2012 rulemaking establishing these standards included a regulatory requirement for the EPA to conduct a Mid-Term Evaluation of the GHG standards established for MYs 2022-2025. 77 FR 62625 (October 15, 2012), codified at 40 CFR 86.1818-12(h). In July 2016, EPA, NHTSA, and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) released for public comment a jointly prepared Draft Technical Assessment Report, which examined a range of issues relevant to GHG emissions and CAFE standards for MYs 2022-2025. 81 FR 49217 (July 27, 2016). In November, 2016, EPA issued a proposed determination for the Mid-Term Evaluation. 81 FR 87927 (Dec. 6, 2016). On January 12, 2017, the EPA
Under 40 CFR 86.1818-12(h), no later than April 1, 2018, the EPA Administrator must determine whether the GHG standards previously established under 40 CFR 86.1818-12(c) for MYs 2022-2025 are appropriate under section 202(a) of the CAA, in light of the record then before the Administrator. Given that CO
For its part, NHTSA will continue to engage with stakeholders as it works to develop a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to set CAFE standards for MYs 2022-2025. As explained in the 2012 final rule, this proposal will be part of “a de novo rulemaking conducted . . . with fresh inputs and a fresh consideration and balancing of all relevant factors, based on the best and most current information before the agency at that time.” 77 FR 62652. A final rule for MY 2022 is statutorily required to be issued by NHTSA by April 1, 2020.
In accord with the schedule set forth in EPA's regulations, the EPA intends to make a new Final Determination regarding the appropriateness of the MY 2022-2025 GHG standards no later than April 1, 2018.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by April 21, 2017 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725—17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Using a wide range of data elements producers are required to report specific data when they apply for ARPI such as acreage and yields. Insurance companies accept applications; issue policies; establish and provide insurance coverage; compute liability, premium, subsidies, and losses; indemnify producers; and report specific data to FCIC as required in Appendix III/M13 Handbook.
If producers and insurance companies did not submit the required data at the specified time, accurate liabilities, premium, and subsidies may not be determined, errors may not be resolved timely, producers may not receive accurate indemnities, payments may be late, crop insurance may not be actuarially sound as mandated by the Act.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Forest Service is seeking comments from all interested individuals and organizations on the renewal of an information collection, Federal Land Management Agencies (FLMAs) Collaborative Visitor Transportation Information Collections.
Comments must be received in writing on or before May 22, 2017 to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.
Comments concerning this notice should be addressed to Margaret Petrella, The Volpe Center (RVT-321), 55 Broadway Street, Cambridge, MA 02142. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Comments also may be submitted via facsimile to (617) 494-3522 or by email to:
The public may inspect comments received at 55 Broadway Street, Cambridge, MA 02142 in Room 3-67 during normal business hours. Visitors are encouraged to call ahead to 617-494-3582 to facilitate entry to the building.
Margaret Petrella, Social Scientist, U.S. Department of Transportation, The Volpe Center, (617) 494-3582.
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339 twenty-four hours a day, every day of the year, including holidays.
The benefits of an FLMA interagency generic Information Collection (IC) would include significant public and agency time and cost savings. If multiple FLMAs in an area or landscape work jointly on one quantitative visitor feedback information collection under a generic clearance from OMB, there would be significant savings in government time and costs related to survey development and OMB survey approval, as well as savings in the costs of survey administration and data processing. In particular, the public burden would be diminished as the public would only need to respond to one jointly-sponsored survey, instead of to multiple similar surveys at multiple units in an area.
Under the following authorities, the participating FLMAs are obligated to actively solicit public input to improve public lands management to better serve the public:
1. Forest Service Administration Organic Act of 1897 [16 U.S.C. 473-478, 479-482, and 551] as amended by the Transfer Act of 1905 [16 U.S.C. 472, 524, 554];
2. Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 [Pub. L. 86-15, § 3];
3. Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources and Planning Act of 1974 [Pub. L. 93-378 § 3(2,3)] as amended;
4. National Forest Management Act of 1976 [Pub. L. 94-588, §§ 2(3), 6(d)], as amended;
5. Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 [Pub. L. 103-62] as amended;
6. Executive Order 12862 of September 11, 1993;
7. Executive Order 13571 of April 27, 2011;
8. Executive Act 12996 of March 25, 1996;
9. National Park Services Act of 1916;
10. National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act;
11. National Wildlife Refuge System Centennial Act [Pub. L. 106-408];
12. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976;
13. General Survey Act of 1824; and
14. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
Survey respondents would include visitors and potential visitors to FLMA units or subunits, and residents of communities in or near FLMA units. Since many of the FLMA surveys are similar in terms of the populations being surveyed, the types of questions being asked, the research methodologies being used, and the database structures and data being utilized, the FLMAs propose a generic Interagency Information Collections clearance from OMB to obtain quantitative and/or qualitative visitor/user feedback utilizing collection mechanisms such as surveys, focus groups, and/or interviews.
Information collection could occur at one location, several locations, across FLMA units, across regions, across the nation, and could be multi-jurisdictional at any of these levels. Information collection activities could occur once, could occur as iterative collections over a limited period of time, or could occur over long periods of time at some periodic, planned time interval. Direct visitor feedback could be collected through facilitated focus groups or through surveys or individual interviews (qualitative or quantitative), with either electronically-recorded or hand-written responses, via mail-back, or via internet, apps, or social media electronic surveys (
In general, questions will relate to visitor experience at one or more
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Participation in surveys will be strictly voluntary. The information could be collected by FLMA personnel, or by private contractors, other government agency partners, or universities or other educational institutions conducting the information collection on behalf of the FLMAs. The data collected would provide managers with reliable information to better serve the public, by better-informing strategic planning; allocations of physical, fiscal, or human resources; modification or refinement of various program management goals and objectives or management plan revisions; and future planning efforts focused on developing more effective and efficient delivery of program services, whether on one or several unit(s) or at an interagency, cross-jurisdictional scope. FLMAs may also get requests for this kind of information from the general public and/or a variety of organizations including Congressional staffs, newspapers, magazines, and transportation and/or recreational trade organizations.
Primary analysis of the information could be conducted by FLMA staff or by one or more research station(s), or by private contractors, other government agency partners, or universities or other educational institutions doing the analyses on behalf of the FLMA. All results will be aggregated so specific responses cannot be correlated to specific respondents.
The information collected, including approved survey instruments, final reports, and data will be archived in a shared database that can be accessed by all FLMAs. In this way, FLMAs will be kept informed about the survey efforts of their partner agencies and can use the results to inform the development of their own surveys, thus reducing the duplication of effort and public burden. In addition, analyzed data could be shared among other agencies, stakeholders, educational institutions, interested parties, or the public through written or electronic reports. FLMA units will use this information to inform strategic planning, allocation of resources, revisions of management program goals and objectives, revisions of Land Management Plans, and long-range planning with statistically-reliable, visitor input data necessary to help FLMA units provide their customers with better service and coordinate more effectively across jurisdictions.
Without these joint, coordinated information collections, the FLMAs will continue to lack the information necessary to identify and implement feasible and publicly-accepted transportation and other facility and service improvements to help protect public land resources and enhance visitor experience. These joint information collections will become ever more important as FLMA budgets continue to shrink and demand for access to FLMA recreation sites and opportunities continue to grow. These information collections will directly impact FLMA resources and visitor experience quality, and help the FLMAs meet their various resource, recreation, and transportation management mandates.
Comment is invited on:
(1) Whether this collection of information is necessary for the stated purposes and the proper performance of the functions of the FLMAs, including whether the information will have practical or scientific utility;
(2) the accuracy of the FLMAs' estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the assumptions used;
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the submission request toward Office of Management and Budget approval.
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA.
Notice.
The designation of the official agency listed below will end on March 31, 2017. We are asking persons or governmental agencies interested in providing official services in the areas presently served by this agency to submit an application for designation. In addition, we are asking for comments on the quality of services provided by the following designated agency: Northern Plains Grain Inspection Service, Inc. (Northern Plains).
Applications and comments must be received by April 21, 2017.
Submit applications and comments concerning this notice using any of the following methods:
• Applying for Designation on the Internet: Use FGISonline (
•
•
•
•
Read Applications and Comments: All applications and comments will be available for public inspection at the office above during regular business hours (7 CFR 1.27(c)).
Mark Wooden, 816-659-8413 or
Section 79(f) of the United States Grain Standards Act (USGSA) authorizes the Secretary to designate a qualified applicant to provide official services in a specified area after determining that the applicant is better able than any other applicant to provide such official services (7 U.S.C. 79 (f)). Under section 79(g) of the USGSA, designations of official agencies are effective for no longer than five years, unless terminated by the Secretary, and may be renewed according to the criteria and procedures prescribed in section 79(f) of the USGSA.
Pursuant to Section 79(f)(2) of the United States Grain Standards Act, the following geographic area in the States of Minnesota and North Dakota is assigned to this official agency.
Kittson, Roseau, Lake of the Woods, Marshall, Beltrami, Polk, Pennington, Red Lake, and Clearwater Counties.
Bounded on the north by the North Dakota State line; bounded on the east by the North Dakota State line south to the southern Grand Forks County line; bounded on the south by the southern Grand Forks and Nelson County lines west to the western Nelson County line; the western Nelson County line north to the southern Benson County line, the southern Benson and Pierce County lines west to State Route 3; and bounded on the west by State Route 3 north to the southern Rolette County line; the southern Rolette County line west to the western Rolette County line to the north to the North Dakota State line.
Interested persons or governmental agencies may apply for designation to provide official services in the geographic areas specified above under the provisions of section 79(f) of the USGSA and 7 CFR 800.196. Designation in the specified geographic areas in Minnesota and North Dakota is for the period beginning April 1, 2017, to March 31, 2022. To apply for designation or to request more information, contact Mark Wooden at the address listed above.
We are publishing this notice to provide interested persons the opportunity to comment on the quality of services provided by the Northern Plains official agency. In the designation process, we are particularly interested in receiving comments citing reasons and pertinent data supporting or objecting to the designation of the applicant. Submit all comments to Mark Wooden at the above address or at
We consider applications, comments, and other available information when determining which applicants will be designated.
7 U.S.C. 71-87k.
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA.
Notice.
The designation of the official agency listed below will end on March 31, 2017. We are asking persons or governmental agencies interested in providing official services in the areas presently served by this agency to submit an application for designation. In addition, we are asking for comments on the quality of services provided by the following designated agency: J.W. Barton Grain Inspection Service, Inc. (Barton).
Applications and comments must be received by April 21, 2017.
Submit applications and comments concerning this notice using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
All applications and comments will be available for public inspection at the office above during regular business hours (7 CFR 1.27(c)).
Mark Wooden, 816-659-8413 or
Section 79(f) of the United States Grain Standards Act (USGSA) authorizes the Secretary to designate a qualified applicant to provide official services in a specified area after determining that the applicant is better able than any other applicant to provide such official services (7 U.S.C. 79(f)). Under section 79(g) of the USGSA, designations of official agencies are effective for no longer than five years, unless terminated by the Secretary, and may be renewed according to the criteria and procedures prescribed in section 79(f) of the USGSA.
Pursuant to Section 79(f)(2) of the United States Grain Standards Act, the following geographic area in the States of Indiana, Kentucky, and Tennessee is assigned to this official agency.
Clark, Crawford, Floyd, Harrison, Jackson, Jennings, Jefferson, Lawrence, Martin, Orange, Perry, Scott, Spencer, and Washington Counties.
Bounded on the north by the northern Daviess, Hancock, Breckinridge, Meade, Hardin, Jefferson, Oldham, Trimble, and Carroll County lines; bounded on the east by the eastern Carroll, Henry, Franklin, Scott, Fayette, Jessamine, Woodford, Anderson, Nelson, Larue, Hart, Barren, and Allen County lines; bounded on the south by the southern Allen and Simpson County lines; and bounded on the west by the western Simpson and Warren County lines; the southern Butler and Muhlenberg County lines; the Muhlenberg County line west to the Western Kentucky Parkway; the Western Kentucky Parkway west to State Route 109; State Route 109 north to State Route 814; State Route 814 north to U.S. Route Alternate 41; U.S. Route Alternate 41 north to the Webster County line; the northern Webster County line; the western McLean and Daviess County lines.
Bounded on the north by the northern Tennessee State line from Sumner County east; bounded on the east by the eastern Tennessee State line southwest; bounded on the south by the southern Tennessee State line west to the western Giles County line; and bounded on the west by the western Giles, Maury, and Williamson County lines North; the northern Williamson County line east; the western Rutherford, Wilson, and Sumner County lines north.
Interested persons or governmental agencies may apply for designation to provide official services in the geographic areas specified above under the provisions of section 79(f) of the USGSA and 7 CFR 800.196. Designation in the specified geographic areas in Indiana, Kentucky, and Tennessee is for the period beginning April 1, 2017, to March 31, 2022. To apply for designation or to request more information, contact Mark Wooden at the address listed above.
We are publishing this notice to provide interested persons the opportunity to comment on the quality of services provided by the Barton official agency. In the designation process, we are particularly interested in receiving comments citing reasons and pertinent data supporting or objecting to the designation of the applicant. Submit all comments to Mark Wooden at the above address or at
We consider applications, comments, and other available information when determining which applicants will be designated.
7 U.S.C. 71-87k.
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA.
Notice.
The designation of the official agency listed below will end on March 31, 2017. We are asking persons or governmental agencies interested in providing official services in the areas presently served by this agency to submit an application for designation. In addition, we are asking for comments on the quality of services provided by the following designated agency: Sioux City Inspection and Weighing Service Company (Sioux City).
Applications and comments must be received by April 21, 2017.
Submit applications and comments concerning this notice using any of the following methods:
•
•
• (
•
•
•
All applications and comments will be available for public inspection at the office above during regular business hours (7 CFR 1.27(c)).
Jacob Thein, 816-866-2223 or
Section 79(f) of the United States Grain Standards Act (USGSA) authorizes the Secretary to designate a qualified applicant to provide official services in a specified area after determining that the applicant is better able than any other applicant to provide such official services (7 U.S.C. 79 (f)). Under section 79(g) of the USGSA, designations of official agencies are effective for no longer than five years, unless terminated by the Secretary, and may be renewed according to the criteria and procedures prescribed in section 79(f) of the USGSA.
Pursuant to Section 79(f)(2) of the United States Grain Standards Act, the following geographic area in the States of Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, and South Dakota is assigned to this official agency.
Bounded on the north by the northern Iowa State line from the Big Sioux River east to U. S. Route 169; bounded on the
Yellow Medicine, Renville, Lincoln, Lyon, Redwood, Pipestone, Murray, Cottonwood, Rock, Nobles, Jackson, and Martin Counties.
Cedar, Dakota, Dixon, Pierce (north of U.S. Route 20), and Thurston Counties.
Bounded on the North by State Route 44 (U.S. 18) east to State Route 11; State Route 11 south to A54B; A54B east to the Big Sioux River; bounded on the east by the Big Sioux River; and bounded on the south and west by the Missouri River. The following grain elevators are part of this geographic area assignment. In D. R. Schaal Agency's area: Maxyield Coop, Algona, Kossuth County; Stateline Coop, Burt, Kossuth County; Gold-Eagle, Goldfield, Wright County; and North Central Coop, Holmes, Wright County, Iowa; Agvantage F.S., Chapin, Franklin County and Five Star Coop, Rockwell, Cerro Gordo County, Iowa.
The following grain elevators are not part of this geographic area assignment and are assigned to: Omaha Grain Inspection Service, Inc.: Scoular Elevator, Elliot, Montgomery County and two Scoular elevators, Griswold, Cass County, Iowa.
Interested persons or governmental agencies may apply for designation to provide official services in the geographic areas specified above under the provisions of section 79(f) of the USGSA and 7 CFR 800.196. Designation in the specified geographic areas in Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, and South Dakota is for the period beginning April 1, 2017, to March 31, 2022. To apply for designation or to request more information, contact Jacob Thein at the address listed above.
We are publishing this notice to provide interested persons the opportunity to comment on the quality of services provided by the Sioux City official agency. In the designation process, we are particularly interested in receiving comments citing reasons and pertinent data supporting or objecting to the designation of the applicant. Submit all comments to Jacob Thein at the above address or at
We consider applications, comments, and other available information when determining which applicants will be designated.
7 U.S.C. 71-87k.
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA.
Notice.
The designation of the official agency listed below will end on March 31, 2017. We are asking persons or governmental agencies interested in providing official services in the areas presently served by this agency to submit an application for designation. In addition, we are asking for comments on the quality of services provided by the following designated agency: Central Illinois Grain Inspection, Inc. (Central Illinois).
Applications and comments must be received by April 21, 2017.
Submit applications and comments concerning this notice using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
All applications and comments will be available for public inspection at the office above during regular business hours (7 CFR 1.27(c)).
Sharon Lathrop, 816-891-0415 or
Section 79(f) of the United States Grain Standards Act (USGSA) authorizes the Secretary to designate a qualified applicant to provide official services in a specified area after determining that the applicant is better able than any
Pursuant to Section 79(f)(2) of the United States Grain Standards Act, the following geographic area in the State of Illinois is assigned to this official agency.
Bounded on the north by State Route 18 east to U.S. Route 51; U.S. Route 51 south to State Route 17; State Route 17 east to Livingston County; and the Livingston County line east to State Route 47; bounded on the east by State Route 47 south to State Route 116; State Route 116 west to Pontiac, which intersects with a straight line running north and south through Arrowsmith to the southern McLean County line; the southern McLean County line east to the eastern DeWitt County line; the eastern DeWitt County Line; the eastern Macon County line south to Interstate 72; Interstate 72 northeast to the eastern Piatt County line; the eastern Piatt, Moultrie, and Shelby County lines; bounded on the south by the southern Shelby County line; and a straight line running along the southern Montgomery County line west to State Route 16 to a point approximately one mile northeast of Irving; and bounded on the west by a straight line from this point northeast to Stonington on State Route 48; a straight line from Stonington northwest to Elkhart on Interstate 55; a straight line from Elkhart northeast to the west side of Beason on State Route 10; State Route 10 west to the Logan County line; the western Logan County line; the southern Tazewell County line; the western Tazewell County line; the western Peoria County line north to Interstate 74; Interstate 74 southeast to State Route 116; State Route 116 north to State Route 26; and State Route 26 north to State Route 18.
The following grain elevators are not part of this geographic area assignment and are assigned to: Champaign-Danville Grain Inspection Departments, Inc.: East Lincoln Farmers Grain Co., Lincoln, Logan County, Illinois; Okaw Cooperative, Cadwell, Moultrie County; ADM (3 elevators), Farmer City, Dewitt County; and Topflight Grain Company, Monticello, Piatt County, Illinois.
Interested persons or governmental agencies may apply for designation to provide official services in the geographic areas specified above under the provisions of section 79(f) of the USGSA and 7 CFR 800.196. Designation in the specified geographic areas in Illinois is for the period beginning April 1, 2017, to March 31, 2022. To apply for designation or to request more information, contact Sharon Lathrop at the address listed above.
We are publishing this notice to provide interested persons the opportunity to comment on the quality of services provided by the Central Illinois official agency. In the designation process, we are particularly interested in receiving comments citing reasons and pertinent data supporting or objecting to the designation of the applicant. Submit all comments to Sharon Lathrop at the above address or at
We consider applications, comments, and other available information when determining which applicants will be designated.
7 U.S.C. 71-87k.
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA.
Notice.
The designation of the official agency listed below will end on March 31, 2017. We are asking persons or governmental agencies interested in providing official services in the areas presently served by this agency to submit an application for designation. In addition, we are asking for comments on the quality of services provided by the following designated agency: Plainview Grain Inspection and Weighing Service, Inc. (Plainview).
Applications and comments must be received by April 21, 2017.
Submit applications and comments concerning this notice using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
All applications and comments will be available for public inspection at the office above during regular business hours (7 CFR 1.27(c)).
Jacob Thein, 816-866-2223 or
Section 79(f) of the United States Grain Standards Act (USGSA) authorizes the Secretary to designate a qualified applicant to provide official services in a specified area after determining that the applicant is better able than any other applicant to provide such official services (7 U.S.C. 79 (f)). Under section 79(g) of the USGSA, designations of official agencies are effective for no longer than five years, unless terminated by the Secretary, and may be renewed according to the criteria and procedures prescribed in section 79(f) of the USGSA.
Pursuant to Section 79(f)(2) of the United States Grain Standards Act, the following geographic area in the State of Texas is assigned to this official agency.
Bounded on the north by the northern Deaf Smith County line east to U.S. Route 385; U.S. Route 385 south to FM 1062; FM 1062 east to State Route 217; State Route 217 east to Prairie Dog Town Fork of the Red River; Prairie Dog Town Fork of the Red River southeast to the Briscoe County line; the northern Briscoe County line; the northern Hall County line east to U.S. Route 287; U.S. Route 287 southeast to the eastern Hall
Interested persons or governmental agencies may apply for designation to provide official services in the geographic areas specified above under the provisions of section 79(f) of the USGSA and 7 CFR 800.196. Designation in the specified geographic area in Texas is for the period beginning April 1, 2017 to March 31, 2022. To apply for designation or to request more information, contact Jacob Thein at the address listed above.
We are publishing this notice to provide interested persons the opportunity to comment on the quality of services provided by the Plainview official agency. In the designation process, we are particularly interested in receiving comments citing reasons and pertinent data supporting or objecting to the designation of the applicant. Submit all comments to Jacob Thein at the above address or at
We consider applications, comments, and other available information when determining which applicants will be designated.
7 U.S.C. 71-87k.
Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA.
Notice.
This Notice announces that the Rural Business-Cooperative Service (Agency) is accepting fiscal year (FY) 2017 applications for the Rural Cooperative Development Grant (RCDG) program. This Notice is being issued prior to enactment of a full year appropriation act for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017. The RCDG program is authorized under section 310B(e) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (CONACT) as amended by the Agricultural Act of 2014. The purpose of announcing the RCDG program prior to the enactment of full year appropriations is to provide applicants sufficient time to prepare and submit their applications in response to this solicitation and to provide the Agency time to process applications within FY 2017. Expenses incurred in developing applications will be at the applicant's risk.
The purpose of this program is to provide financial assistance to improve the economic condition of rural areas through cooperative development. Eligible applicants include a non-profit corporation or an institution of higher education.
Completed applications must be submitted on paper or electronically according to the following deadlines:
Paper applications must be postmarked and mailed, shipped, or sent overnight no later than June 2, 2017. You may also hand carry your application to one of our field offices, but it must be received by close of business on the deadline date. Late applications are not eligible for funding under this Notice and will not be evaluated.
Electronic applications must be received by May 26, 2017, to be eligible for grant funding. Please review the
You should contact a USDA Rural Development State Office (State Office) if you have questions. You are encouraged to contact your State Office well in advance of the application deadline to discuss your project and ask any questions about the application process. Contact information for State Offices can be found at
Program guidance as well as application and matching funds templates may be obtained at
Grants Division, Cooperative Programs, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, United States Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Mail Stop-3253, Room 4208-South, Washington, DC 20250-3253, (202) 690-1374.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, the paperwork burden associated with this Notice has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB Control Number 0570-0006.
The RCDG program is authorized under section 310B(e) of the
The terms you need to understand are defined and published at 7 CFR 4284.3 and 7 CFR 4284.504. In addition, the terms “rural” and “rural area,” defined at section 343(a) (13) of the CONACT (7 U.S.C. 1991(a)), are incorporated by reference, and will be used for this program instead of those terms currently published at 7 CFR 4284.3. The term “you” referenced throughout this Notice should be understood to mean “you” the applicant. Finally, there has been some confusion on the Agency's meaning of the terms “conflict of interest” and “mutually-owned business,” because they are not defined in the CONACT or in the regulations used for the program. Therefore, the terms are clarified and should be understood as follows.
Applicants must meet all of the following eligibility requirements. Applications which fail to meet any of these requirements by the application deadline will be deemed ineligible and will not be evaluated further.
You must be a nonprofit corporation or an institution of higher education to apply for this program. Public bodies and individuals cannot apply for this program. See 7 CFR 4284.507. You must also meet the following requirements:
a. An applicant is ineligible if they have been debarred or suspended or otherwise excluded from or ineligible for participation in Federal assistance programs under Executive Order 12549, “Debarment and Suspension.” The Agency will check the System for Award Management (SAM) to determine if the applicant has been debarred or suspended. In addition, an applicant will be considered ineligible for a grant due to an outstanding judgment obtained by the U.S. in a Federal Court (other than U.S. Tax Court), is delinquent on the payment of Federal income taxes, or is delinquent on Federal debt. See 7 CFR 4284.6. The applicant must certify as part of the application that they do not have an outstanding judgment against them. The Agency will check the Credit Alert Interactive Voice Response System (CAIVRS) to verify this.
b. Any corporation that has been convicted of a felony criminal violation under any Federal law within the past 24 months or that has any unpaid Federal tax liability that has been assessed, for which all judicial and administrative remedies have been exhausted or have lapsed, and that is not being paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the authority responsible for collecting the tax liability, is not eligible for financial assistance provided with funds appropriated by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (Pub. L. 114-113), unless a Federal agency has considered suspension or debarment of the corporation and has made a determination that this further action is not necessary to protect the interests of the Government. Applicants will be required to complete Form AD-3030, “Representations Regarding Felony Conviction and Tax Delinquent Status for Corporate Applicants,” if you are a corporation.
c. Applications will be deemed ineligible if the application includes any funding restrictions identified under Section D.6. a and b. Inclusion of funding restrictions outlined in Section D.6. a. and b. precludes the agency from making a federal award.
d. Applications will be deemed ineligible if the application is not complete in accordance with the requirements stated in Section C.3.e., and will not be reviewed.
Your matching funds requirement is 25 percent of the total project cost (5 percent for 1994 Institutions). See 7 CFR 4284.508. When you calculate your matching funds requirement, please round up or down to whole dollars as appropriate. An example of how to calculate your matching funds is as follows:
a. Take the amount of grant funds you are requesting and divide it by .75. This will give you your total project cost.
b. Subtract the amount of grant funds you are requesting from your total project cost. This will give you your matching funds requirement.
c. A quick way to double check that you have the correct amount of matching funds is to take your total project cost and multiply it by .25.
You must verify that all matching funds are available during the grant period and provide this documentation with your application in accordance with requirements identified in Section D.2.e.8. If you are awarded a grant, additional verification documentation may be required to confirm the availability of matching funds.
Other rules for matching funds that you must follow are listed below.
• They must be spent on eligible expenses during the grant period.
• They must be from eligible sources.
• They must be spent in advance or as a pro-rata portion of grant funds being spent.
• They must be provided by either the applicant or a third party in the form of cash or an in-kind contribution.
• They cannot include board/advisory council members' time.
• They cannot include other Federal grants unless provided by authorizing legislation.
• They cannot include cash or in-kind contributions donated outside the grant period.
• They cannot include over-valued, in-kind contributions.
• They cannot include any project costs that are ineligible under the RCDG program.
• They cannot include any project costs that are unallowable under the applicable grant “Cost Principles,” including 2 CFR part 200, subpart E, and the Federal Acquisition Regulation (for-profits) or successor regulation.
• They can include loan funds from a Federal source.
• They can include travel and incidentals for board/advisory council members if you have established written policies explaining how these costs are normally reimbursed, including rates. You must include an explanation of this policy in your application or the contributions will not be considered as eligible matching funds.
• You must be able to document and verify the number of hours worked and the value associated with any in-kind contribution being used to meet a matching funds requirement.
• In-kind contributions provided by individuals, businesses, or cooperatives which are being assisted by you cannot be provided for the direct benefit of their own projects as USDA Rural Development considers this to be a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest.
Your application must propose the establishment or continuation of a cooperative development center concept. You must use project funds, including grant and matching funds for eligible purposes only (see 7 CFR 4284.508). In addition, project funds may be used for programs providing for the coordination of services and sharing of information among the centers (see 7 U.S.C. 1932(e) (4) (C) (vi)).
All project activities must be for the benefit of a rural area.
Only one application can be submitted per applicant. If two applications are submitted (regardless of the applicant name) that include the same Executive Director and/or advisory boards or committees of an existing center, both applications will be determined not eligible for funding.
Your application must include a one-year grant period or it will not be considered for funding. The grant period should begin no earlier than October 1, 2017, and no later than January 1, 2018. Prior approval is needed from the Agency if you are awarded a grant and desire the grant period to begin earlier or later than previously discussed. Projects must be completed within a one-year timeframe. The Agency may approve requests to extend the grant period for up to an additional 12 months at its discretion. Further guidance on grant period extensions will be provided in the award document.
Your application will not be considered for funding if it fails to meet an eligibility criterion by time of application deadline and does not provide sufficient information to determine eligibility and scoring. In particular, you must include all of the forms and proposal elements as discussed in the regulation and as clarified further in this Notice. Incomplete applications will not be reviewed by the Agency. For more information on what is required for an application, see 7 CFR 4284.510.
If you have an existing RCDG award, you must discuss the status of your existing RCDG award at application time under the Eligibility Discussion. You must be performing satisfactorily to be considered eligible for a new award. Satisfactory performance includes being up-to-date on all financial and performance reports and being current on all tasks as approved in the work plan. The Agency will use its discretion to make this determination. In addition, if you have an existing award from the Socially-Disadvantaged Groups Grant (SDGG) program, you must discuss the status of your existing SDGG award at application time under Eligibility Discussion and be performing satisfactorily to be considered for a new RCDG award.
Your negotiated indirect cost rate approval does not need to be included in your application, but you will be required to provide it if a grant is awarded. Approval for indirect costs that are requested in an application without an approved indirect cost rate agreement is at the discretion of the Agency.
For further information, you should contact your State Office at
You may submit your application in paper form or electronically through
To submit an application electronically, you must use the
You can locate the
When you enter the
To use
You must submit all of your application documents electronically through
After electronically submitting an application through
If you want to submit a paper application, send it to the State Office located in the State where your project will primarily take place. You can find State Office Contact information at:
Your application must contain all of the required forms and proposal elements described in 7 CFR 4284.510 and as otherwise clarified in this Notice. Specifically, your application must include: (1) The required forms as described in 7 CFR 4284.510(b) and (2) the required proposal elements as described in 7 CFR 4284.510(c). If your application is incomplete, it is ineligible to compete for funds. Applications lacking sufficient information to determine eligibility and scoring will be considered ineligible. Information submitted after the application deadline will not be accepted. You are encouraged, but not required to utilize the application template found at
• Standard Form (SF) 424—Your DUNS number should be identified in the “Organizational DUNS” field on SF 424, “Application for Federal Assistance.” Since there are no specific fields for a Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code and expiration date, you may identify them anywhere you want to on Form SF 424. In addition, you should provide the DUNS number and the CAGE code and expiration date under the applicant eligibility discussion in your proposal narrative. If you do not include the CAGE code and expiration date and the DUNS number in your application, it will not be considered for funding.
• Form AD-3030, “Representations Regarding Felony Conviction and Tax Delinquent Status for Corporate Applicants,” if you are a corporation. A corporation is any entity that has filed articles of incorporation in one of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of Palau, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands, or the various territories of the United States including American Samoa, Guam, Midway Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, or the U.S. Virgin Islands. Corporations include both for profit and non-profit entities.
• You can voluntarily fill out and submit the “Survey on Ensuring Equal Opportunity for Applicants,” as part of your application if you are a nonprofit organization.
1. You must include the title of the project as well as any other relevant identifying information on the Title Page.
2. You must include a Table of Contents with page numbers for each component of the application to facilitate review.
3. Your Executive Summary must include the items in 7 CFR 4284.510(c)(3), and also discuss the percentage of work that will be performed among organizational staff, consultants, or other contractors. It should not exceed two pages.
4. Your Eligibility Discussion must not exceed two pages and cover how you meet the eligibility requirements for applicant, matching funds, other eligibility requirements and grant period. If you have an existing RCDG or the Socially-Disadvantaged Groups Grant (SDGG) program, you must discuss the current status of those award(s) under grant period eligibility.
5. Your Proposal Narrative must not exceed 40 pages and should describe the essential aspects of the project.
i. You are only required to have one title page for the proposal.
ii. If you list the evaluation criteria on the Table of Contents and specifically and individually address each criterion in narrative form, then it is not necessary for you to include an Information Sheet. Otherwise, the Information Sheet is required under 7 CFR 4284.510(c)(ii).
iii. You should include the following under Goals of the Project:
A. A statement that substantiates that the Center will effectively serve rural areas in the United States;
B. A statement that the primary objective of the Center will be to improve the economic condition of rural areas through cooperative development;
C. A description of the contributions that the proposed activities are likely to make to the improvement of the economic conditions of the rural areas for which the Center will provide services. Expected economic impacts should be tied to tasks included in the work plan and budget; and
D. A statement that the Center, in carrying out its activities, will seek, where appropriate, the advice, participation, expertise, and assistance of representatives of business, industry, educational institutions, the Federal government, and State and local governments.
iv. The Agency has established annual performance evaluation measures to evaluate the RCDG program. You must provide estimates on the following performance evaluation measures.
• Number of groups who are not legal entities assisted.
• Number of businesses that are not cooperatives assisted.
• Number of cooperatives assisted.
• Number of businesses incorporated that are not cooperatives.
• Number of cooperatives incorporated.
• Total number of jobs created as a result of assistance.
• Total number of jobs saved as a result of assistance.
• Number of jobs created for the Center as a result of RCDG funding.
• Number of jobs saved for the Center as a result of RCDG funding.
It is permissible to have a zero in a performance element. When you calculate jobs created, estimates should be based upon actual jobs to be created by your organization as a result of the RCDG funding or actual jobs to be created by cooperative businesses or other businesses as a result of assistance from your organization. When you calculate jobs saved, estimates should be based only on actual jobs that would have been lost if your organization did not receive RCDG funding or actual jobs that would have been lost without assistance from your organization.
v. You can also suggest additional performance elements for example where job creation or jobs saved may not be a relevant indicator (
vi. You must describe in the application how you will undertake to
A. Take all practicable steps to develop continuing sources of financial support for the Center, particularly from sources in the private sector (should be presented under proposal evaluation criterion j., utilizing the specific requirements of Section E.1.j.);
B. Make arrangements for the Center's activities to be monitored and evaluated (should be addressed under proposal evaluation criterion number h. utilizing the specific requirements of Section E.1.h.); and
C. Provide an accounting for the money received by the grantee in accordance with 7 CFR part 4284, subpart F. This should be addressed under proposal evaluation criterion number a., utilizing the specific requirements of Section E.1.a.
vii. You should present the Work Plan and Budget proposal element under proposal evaluation criterion number h., utilizing the specific requirements of Section E.1.h. of this Notice to reduce duplication in your application.
viii. You should present the Delivery of Cooperative development assistance proposal element under proposal evaluation criterion number b., utilizing the specific requirements of Section E.1.b. of this Notice.
ix. You should present the Qualifications of Personnel proposal element under proposal evaluation criterion number i., utilizing the specific requirements of Section E.1.i. of this Notice.
x. You should present the Local Support and Future Support proposal elements under proposal evaluation criterion number j., utilizing the requirements of Section E.1.j. of this Notice.
xi. Your application will not be considered for funding if you do not address all of the proposal evaluation criteria. See Section E.1. of this Notice for a description of the proposal evaluation criteria.
xii. Only appendices A-C will be considered when evaluating your application. You must not include resumes of staff or consultants in the application.
6. You must certify that there are no current outstanding Federal judgments against your property and that you will not use grant funds to pay for any judgment obtained by the United States. To satisfy the Certification requirement, you should include this statement in your application: “[INSERT NAME OF APPLICANT] certifies that the United States has not obtained an unsatisfied judgment against its property, is not delinquent on the payment of Federal income taxes, or any Federal debt, and will not use grant funds to pay any judgments obtained by the United States.” A separate signature is not required.
7. You must certify that matching funds will be available at the same time grant funds are anticipated to be spent and that expenditures of matching funds are pro-rated or spent in advance of grant funding, such that for every dollar of the total project cost, not less than the required amount of matching funds will be expended. Please note that this Certification is a separate requirement from the Verification of Matching Funds requirement. To satisfy the Certification requirement, you should include this statement in your application: “[INSERT NAME OF APPLICANT] certifies that matching funds will be available at the same time grant funds are anticipated to be spent and that expenditures of matching funds shall be pro-rated or spent in advance of grant funding, such that for every dollar of the total project cost, at least 25 cents (5 cents for 1994 Institutions) of matching funds will be expended.” A separate signature is not required.
8. You must provide documentation in your application to verify all of your proposed matching funds. The documentation must be included in Appendix A of your application and will not count towards the 40-page limitation. Template letters are available for each type of matching funds contribution at
a. If matching funds are to be provided in cash, you must meet the following requirements.
•
•
b. If matching funds are to be provided by an in-kind donation, you must meet the following requirements.
•
•
To ensure that you are identifying and verifying your matching funds appropriately, please note the following:
• If you are paying for goods and/or services as part of the matching funds requirement, the expenditure is considered a cash match, and you must verify it as such. Universities must verify the goods and services they are providing to the project as a cash match and the verification must be approved by the appropriate approval official (
• If you have already received cash from a third-party (
• Board resolutions for a cash match must be approved at the time of application.
• You can only consider goods or services for which no expenditure is made as an in-kind contribution.
• If a non-profit or another organization contributes the services of affiliated volunteers, they must follow the third-party, in-kind donation verification requirement for each individual volunteer.
• Expected program income may not be used to fulfill your matching funds requirement at the time you submit your application. However, if you have a contract to provide services in place at the time you submit your application, you can verify the amount of the contract as a cash match.
• The valuation process you use for in-kind contributions does not need to be included in your application, but you must be able to demonstrate how the valuation was derived if you are awarded a grant. The grant award may be withdrawn or the amount of the grant reduced if you cannot demonstrate how the valuation was derived.
Successful applicants must comply with requirements identified in Section F, Federal Award Administration.
In order to be eligible (unless you are excepted under 2 CFR 25.110(b), (c) or (d), you are required to:
(a) Provide a valid DUNS number in your application, which can be obtained at no cost via a toll-free request line at (866) 705-5711;
(b) Register in SAM before submitting your application. You may register in SAM at no cost at
(c) Continue to maintain an active SAM registration with current information at all times during which you have an active Federal award or an application or plan under consideration by a Federal awarding agency.
If you have not fully complied with all applicable DUNS and SAM requirements, the Agency may determine that the applicant is not qualified to receive a Federal award and the Agency may use that determination as a basis for making an award to another applicant. Please refer to Section F.2 for additional submission requirements that apply to grantees selected for this program.
Paper applications must be postmarked and mailed, shipped, or sent overnight no later than June 2, 2017, to be eligible for grant funding. The Agency will determine whether your application is late based on the date shown on the postmark or shipping invoice. You may also hand carry your application to one of our field offices, but it must be received by close of business on the deadline date. If the due date falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday, the reporting package is due the next business day. Late applications will automatically be deemed ineligible.
Electronic applications must be received by
Executive Order (E.O.) 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs,” applies to this program. This E.O. requires that Federal agencies provide opportunities for consultation on proposed assistance with State and local governments. Many States have established a Single Point of Contact (SPOC) to facilitate this consultation. For a list of States that maintain a SPOC, please see the White House Web site:
a. Project funds, including grant and matching funds, cannot be used for ineligible grant purposes (see 7 CFR 4284.10). Also, you shall not use project funds for the following:
• To purchase, rent, or install laboratory equipment or processing machinery;
• To pay for the operating costs of any entity receiving assistance from the Center;
• To pay costs of the project where a conflict of interest exists;
• To fund any activities prohibited by 2 CFR part 200; or
• To fund any activities considered unallowable by 2 CFR part 200, subpart E, “Cost Principles,” and the Federal Acquisition Regulation (for-profits) or successor regulations.
b. In addition, your application will not be considered for funding if it does any of the following:
• Focuses assistance on only one cooperative or mutually-owned business;
• Requests more than the maximum grant amount; or
• Proposes ineligible costs that equal more than 10 percent of total project costs. The ineligible costs will NOT be removed at this stage to proceed with application processing. For purposes of this determination, the grant amount requested plus the matching funds amount constitutes the total project costs.
We will consider your application for funding if it includes ineligible costs of 10 percent or less of total project costs, as long as the remaining costs are determined eligible otherwise. However, if your application is successful, those ineligible costs must be removed and replaced with eligible costs before the Agency will make the grant award, or the amount of the grant award will be reduced accordingly. If we cannot determine the percentage of ineligible costs, your application will not be considered for funding.
a. You should not submit your application in more than one format. You must choose whether to submit your application in hard copy or electronically. Applications submitted in hard copy should be mailed or hand-delivered to the State Office located in the State where you are headquartered. You can find State Office contact information at:
b. National Environmental Policy Act.
All recipients under this Notice are subject to the requirements of 7 CFR part 1970. However, technical assistance awards under this Notice are classified as a Categorical Exclusion according to 7 CFR 1970.53(b), and usually do not require any additional documentation.
The Agency will review each grant application to determine its compliance with 7 CFR part 1970. The applicant may be asked to provide additional information or documentation to assist the Agency with this determination.
c. Civil Rights Compliance Requirements.
All grants made under this Notice are subject to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as required by the USDA (7 CFR part 15, subpart A) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
The State Offices will review applications to determine if they are eligible for assistance based on requirements in 7 CFR part 4284, subparts A and F, this Notice, and other applicable Federal regulations. If determined eligible, your application will be scored by a panel of USDA employees in accordance with the point allocation specified in this Notice. A recommendation will be submitted to the Administrator to fund applications in highest ranking order. Applications that cannot be fully funded may be offered partial funding at the Agency's discretion.
Scoring criteria will follow criteria published at 7 CFR 4284.513 as supplemented below including any amendments made by the Section 6013 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-234), which is incorporated by reference in this Notice. The regulatory and statutory criteria are clarified and supplemented below. You should also include information as described in Section D.2.e.5.vi. if you choose to address these items under the scoring criteria. Evaluators will base scores only on the information provided or cross-referenced by page number in each individual evaluation criterion. The maximum amount of points available is 100. Newly established or proposed Centers that do not yet have a track record on which to evaluate the following criteria should refer to the expertise and track records of staff or consultants expected to perform tasks related to the respective criteria. Proposed or newly established Centers must be organized well-enough at time of application to address its capabilities for meeting these criteria.
a. Administrative capabilities (maximum score of 10 points). A panel of USDA employees will evaluate your demonstrated track record in carrying out activities in support of development assistance to cooperatively and mutually owned businesses. At a minimum, you must discuss the following administrative capabilities:
1. Financial systems and audit controls;
2. Personnel and program administration performance measures;
3. Clear written rules of governance; and
4. Experience administering Federal grant funding no later than the last 5 years, including but not limited to past RCDGs. Please list the name of the Federal grant program(s) and the amount(s) of funding received.
You will score higher on this criterion if you can demonstrate that the Center has independent governance. For applicants that are universities or parent organizations, you should demonstrate that there is a separate board of directors for the Center.
b. Technical assistance and other services (maximum score of 10 points). A panel of USDA employees will evaluate your demonstrated expertise no later than the last 5 years in providing technical assistance and accomplishing effective outcomes in rural areas to promote and assist the development of cooperatively and mutually owned businesses. You must discuss at least:
1. Your potential for delivering effective technical assistance;
2. The types of assistance provided;
3. The expected effects of that assistance;
4. The sustainability of organizations receiving the assistance; and
5. The transferability of your cooperative development strategies and focus to other areas of the U.S.
A chart or table showing the outcomes of your demonstrated expertise based upon the performance elements listed in Section D.2.e.5.iv. or as identified in your award document on previous RCDG awards. At a minimum, please provide information for FY 2013—FY 2015 awards. We prefer that you provide one chart or table separating out award years. The intention here is for you to provide actual performance numbers based upon award years even though your grant period for the award was for the next calendar or fiscal year. Please provide a narrative explanation if you have not received a RCDG award.
You will score higher on this criterion if you provide more than 3 years of outcomes and can demonstrate that the organizations you assisted within the last 5 years are sustainable. Additional outcome information should be provided on RCDG grants awarded before FY 2013. Please describe specific project(s) when addressing a-e of this paragraph.
c. Economic development (maximum score of 10 points). A panel of USDA employees will evaluate your demonstrated ability to facilitate:
1. Establishment of cooperatives or mutually owned businesses;
2. New cooperative approaches (
3. Retention of businesses, generation of employment opportunities or other factors, as applicable, that will otherwise improve the economic conditions of rural areas.
You will score higher on this criterion if you provide economic statistics showing the impacts of your past development projects no later than 5 years old and identify your role in the economic development outcomes.
d. Past performance in establishing legal business entities (maximum score of 10 points). A panel of USDA employees will evaluate your demonstrated past performance in establishing legal cooperative business entities and other legal business entities during January 1, 2014-December 31, 2016. Provide the name of the organization(s) established, the date of formation and your role in assisting with the incorporation(s) under this criterion. In addition, documentation verifying the establishment of legal business entities must be included in Appendix C of your application and will not count against the 40-page limit for the narrative. The documentation must include proof that organizational documents were filed with the Secretary of State's Office (
e. Networking and regional focus (maximum score of 10 points). A panel of USDA employees will evaluate your demonstrated commitment to:
1. Networking with other cooperative development centers, and other organizations involved in rural economic development efforts, and
2. Developing multi-organization and multi-state approaches to addressing the economic development and cooperative needs of rural areas.
You will score higher on this criterion if you can demonstrate the outcomes of your multi-organizational and multi-state approaches. Please describe the project(s), partners and the outcome(s) that resulted from the approach.
f. Commitment (maximum score of 10 points). A panel of USDA employees will evaluate your commitment to providing technical assistance and other services to under-served and
g. Matching Funds (maximum score of 10 points). A panel of USDA employees will evaluate your commitment for the 25 percent (5 percent for 1994 Institutions) matching funds requirement. A chart or table should be provided to describe all matching funds being committed to the project. However, formal documentation to verify all of the matching funds must be included in Appendix A of your application. You will be scored on how you identify your matching funds.
1. If you met the 25 percent (5 percent for 1994 Institutions) matching requirement, points will be assigned as follows:
• In-kind only—1 point,
• Mix of in-kind and cash—3-4 points (maximum points will be awarded if the ratio of cash to in-kind is 30 percent and above of matching funds), or
• Cash only—5 points.
2. If you exceeded the 25 percent (5 percent for 1994 Institutions) matching requirement, points will be assigned as follows:
• In-kind only—2 points,
• Mix of in-kind and cash—6-7 points (maximum points will be awarded if the ratio of cash to in-kind is 30 percent and above of matching funds), or
• Cash only—10 points.
h. Work Plan/Budget (maximum score of 10 points). A panel of USDA employees will evaluate your work plan for detailed actions and an accompanying timetable for implementing the proposal. The budget must present a breakdown of the estimated costs associated with cooperative and business development activities as well as the operation of the Center and allocate these costs to each of the tasks to be undertaken. Matching funds as well as grant funds must be accounted for in the budget.
You must discuss at a minimum:
1. Specific tasks (whether it be by type of service or specific project) to be completed using grant and matching funds;
2. How customers will be identified;
3. Key personnel; and
4. The evaluation methods to be used to determine the success of specific tasks and overall objectives of Center operations. Please provide qualitative methods of evaluation. For example, evaluation methods should go beyond quantitative measurements of completing surveys or number of evaluations.
You will score higher on this criterion if you present a clear, logical, realistic, and efficient work plan and budget.
i. Qualifications of those Performing the Tasks (maximum score of 10 points). A panel of USDA employees will evaluate your application to determine if the personnel expected to perform key tasks have a track record of:
1. Positive solutions for complex cooperative development and/or marketing problems; or
2. A successful record of conducting accurate feasibility studies, business plans, marketing analysis, or other activities relevant to your success as determined by the tasks identified in the work plan; and
3. Whether the personnel expected to perform the tasks are full/part-time employees of your organization or are contract personnel.
You will score higher on this criterion if you demonstrate commitment and availability of qualified personnel expected to perform the tasks.
j. Local and Future Support (maximum score of 10 points). A panel of USDA employees will evaluate your application for local and future support. Support should be discussed directly within the response to this criterion.
1. Discussion on local support should include previous and/or expected local support and plans for coordinating with other developmental organizations in the proposed service area or with state and local government institutions. You will score higher if you demonstrate strong support from potential beneficiaries and formal evidence of intent to coordinate with other developmental organizations. You may also submit a maximum of 10 letters of support or intent to coordinate with the application to verify your discussion. These letters should be included in Appendix B of your application and will not count against the 40-page limit for the narrative.
2. Discussion on future support will include your vision for funding operations in future years. You should document:
(i) New and existing funding sources that support your goals;
(ii) Alternative funding sources that reduce reliance on Federal, State, and local grants; and
(iii) The use of in-house personnel for providing services versus contracting out for that expertise. Please discuss your strategy for building in-house technical assistance capacity.
You will score higher if you can demonstrate that your future support will result in long-term sustainability of the Center.
The State Offices will review applications to determine if they are eligible for assistance based on requirements in 7 CFR part 4284, subparts A and F, this Notice, and other applicable Federal regulations. If determined eligible, your application will be scored by a panel of USDA employees in accordance with the point allocation specified in this Notice. A recommendation will be submitted to the Administrator to fund applications in highest ranking order. Applications that cannot be fully funded may be offered partial funding at the Agency's discretion. If your application is evaluated, but not funded, it will not be carried forward into the next competition.
If you are selected for funding, you will receive a signed notice of Federal award by postal mail from the State Office where your application was submitted, containing instructions on requirements necessary to proceed with execution and performance of the award.
If you are not selected for funding, you will be notified in writing via postal mail and informed of any review and appeal rights. You must comply with all applicable statutes, regulations, and notice requirements before the grant award will be approved. There will be no available funds for successful appellants once all FY 2017 funds are awarded and obligated. See 7 CFR part 11 for USDA National Appeals Division procedures.
Additional requirements that apply to grantees selected for this program can be found in 7 CFR part 4284, subpart F; the Grants and Agreements regulations of the Department of Agriculture codified in 2 CFR parts 180, 400, 415, 417, 418, 421; 2 CFR parts 25 and 170; and 48 CFR 31.2, and successor regulations to these parts.
In addition, all recipients of Federal financial assistance are required to report information about first-tier subawards and executive compensation (see 2 CFR part 170). You will be required to have the necessary processes and systems in place to comply with the
The following additional requirements apply to grantees selected for this program:
• Agency-approved Grant Agreement.
• Letter of Conditions.
• Form RD 1940-1, “Request for Obligation of Funds.”
• Form RD 1942-46, “Letter of Intent to Meet Conditions.”
• Form AD-1047, “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters-Primary Covered Transactions.”
• Form AD-1048, “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion-Lower Tier Covered Transactions.”
• Form AD-1049, “Certification Regarding Drug-Free Workplace Requirements (Grants).”
• Form RD 400-4, “Assurance Agreement.”
• SF LLL, “Disclosure of Lobbying Activities,” if applicable.
• Form AD-3031, “Assurance Regarding Felony Conviction or Tax Delinquent Status for Corporate Applicants.” Must be signed by corporate applicants who receive an award under this Notice.
After grant approval and through grant completion, you will be required to provide the following:
a. A SF-425, “Federal Financial Report,” and a project performance report will be required on a semiannual basis (due 30 working days after end of the semiannual period). The project performance reports shall include the following: A comparison of actual accomplishments to the objectives established for that period;
b. Reasons why established objectives were not met, if applicable;
c. Reasons for any problems, delays, or adverse conditions, if any, which have affected or will affect attainment of overall project objectives, prevent meeting time schedules or objectives, or preclude the attainment of particular objectives during established time periods. This disclosure shall be accompanied by a statement of the action taken or planned to resolve the situation; and
d. Objectives and timetable established for the next reporting period.
e. Provide a final project and financial status report within 90 days after the expiration or termination of the grant.
f. Provide outcome project performance reports and final deliverables.
If you have questions about this Notice, please contact the appropriate State Office at
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (
To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at
(1)
(2)
(3)
Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a planning meeting of the Virginia Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene by conference call at 12:00 p.m. (EDT) on Thursday, April 6, 2017. The purpose of the meeting is to begin discussion of a project proposal on hate crime in Virginia.
The meeting will be held on Thursday, April 6, 2017, at 12:00 p.m. EST.
Ivy L. Davis, at
Interested members of the public may listen to the discussion by calling the following toll-free conference call-in number: 1-888-601-3861 and conference ID: 417838. Please be advised that before being placed into the conference call, you will be prompted to provide your name, organizational affiliation (if any), and email address (so that callers may be notified of future meetings). Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free conference call-in number.
Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the discussion by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the operator with the toll-free conference
Members of the public are invited to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office approximately 30 days after each scheduled meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Eastern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425, faxed to (202) 376-7548, or emailed to Evelyn Bohor at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at
Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a planning meeting of the District of Columbia Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 11:30 a.m. (EDT) Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at the offices of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425. The purpose of the planning meeting is to discuss and select the topic for the committee's civil rights project.
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, April 4, 2017, at 11:30 a.m. EDT.
1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425.
Ivy Davis, DFO, at
Members of the public are entitled to attend the meeting or to submit written comments. The comments must be received in the regional office by Tuesday, May 2, 2017. Comments may be mailed to the Eastern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425 or emailed to Evelyn Bohor at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at
Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meetings.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a planning meeting of the Wyoming Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 11:00 a.m. (MDT) on Thursday, March 30, 2017, via teleconference. The purpose of the meeting is to receive additional information on hate crimes legislation, update on progress of education bill, and select a topic for study.
Thursday, March 30, 2017, at 11 a.m. (MDT)
To be held via teleconference: Conference Call Toll-Free Number: 1-888-339-3503, Conference ID: 1496942.
Malee V. Craft, DFO,
Members of the public may listen to the discussion by dialing the following Conference Call Toll-Free Number: 1-888-339-3503, Conference ID: 1496942. Please be advised that before being placed into the conference call, the operator will ask callers to provide their names, their organizational affiliations (if any), and an email address (if available) prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free phone number.
Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the discussion by first calling the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-977-8339 and provide the FRS operator with the Conference Call Toll-Free Number: 1-888-339-3503, Conference ID: 1496942. Members of the public are invited to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office by Monday, May 1, 2017. Written comments may be mailed to the Rocky Mountain Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1961 Stout Street, Suite 13-201, Denver, CO 80294, faxed to (303) 866-1050, or emailed to Evelyn Bohor at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at
Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce.
Notice of public virtual meeting.
The Bureau of the Census (Census Bureau) is giving notice of a virtual meeting of the National Advisory Committee on Racial, Ethnic and Other Populations (NAC). The Committee will address the U.S. Census Bureau's release of the 2015 National Content Test Race and Ethnicity Analysis Report, which presents findings to the Census Bureau Director and executive staff on the optimal design elements of the race/ethnicity question(s) as preparations continue for the 2020 Census. The 2015 National Content Test is part of the research and development cycle leading up to a re-engineered 2020 Census. The test was designed to compare different questionnaire design strategies for race and ethnicity.
The NAC will meet virtually on Wednesday, April 5, 2017. Last minute changes to the schedule are possible, which could prevent giving advance public notice of schedule adjustments. Please visit the Census Advisory Committees Web site for the most current meeting agenda at:
Wednesday, April 5, 2017. The virtual meeting will begin at approximately 1:00 p.m. ET and end at approximately 4:00 p.m. ET.
The meeting will be held via WebEx at the following URL link:
Tara Dunlop Jackson, Advisory Committee Branch Chief, Customer Liaison and Marketing Services Office,
The NAC was established in March 2012 and operates in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Title 5, United States Code, Appendix 2, Section 10). NAC members are appointed by the Director, U.S. Census Bureau, and consider topics such as hard to reach populations, race and ethnicity, language, aging populations, American Indian and Alaska Native tribal considerations, new immigrant populations, populations affected by natural disasters, highly mobile and migrant populations, complex households, rural populations, and population segments with limited access to technology. The Committee also advises on data privacy and confidentiality, among other issues.
All meetings are open to the public. A brief period will be set aside at the meeting for public comment on April 5. Individuals with extensive questions or statements must submit them in writing to:
NAFTA Secretariat, United States Section, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of Completion of Panel Review of the Determination on Remand made by the United States International Trade Commission in the matter of Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Mexico (Secretariat File No. USA-MEX-2014-1904-02).
Pursuant to the Final Panel Decision of the Binational Panel dated February 2, 2017, affirming the Determination on Remand described above, the Panel Review was completed on March 16, 2017.
Paul E. Morris, United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, Room 2061, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, (202) 482-5438.
On February 2, 2017, the Binational Panel issued a Final Panel Decision affirming the U.S. International Trade Commission's Determination on Remand in the matter of Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Mexico. As a result, the NAFTA Secretariat was instructed to issue a Notice of Completion of Panel Review on the 31st day following the issuance of the Notice of Final Panel Action, if no request for an Extraordinary Challenge Committee was filed. No such request was filed. Therefore, on the basis of the Final Panel Decision and Rule 80 of the
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On February 7, 2017, the Department of Commerce (the “Department”) published its notice of initiation and preliminary results of changed circumstances reviews (“CCR”) of the antidumping duty (“AD”) and countervailing duty (“CVD”) orders on multilayered wood flooring from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) (
Effective March 22, 2017.
Jonathan Hill, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3518.
On December 8, 2011, the Department published the AD and CVD orders on multilayered wood flooring from the PRC.
The merchandise covered by the orders includes wood flooring, subject to certain exceptions. Imports of the subject merchandise are provided for under the following subheadings of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”): 4412.31.0520; 4412.31.0540; 4412.31.0560; 4412.31.2510; 4412.31.2520; 4412.31.3175; 4412.31.4040; 4412.31.4050; 4412.31.4060; 4412.31.4070; 4412.31.4075; 4412.31.4080; 4412.31.5125; 4412.31.5135; 4412.31.5155; 4412.31.5165; 4412.31.5175; 4412.31.6000; 4412.31.9100; 4412.32.0520; 4412.32.0540; 4412.32.0560; 4412.32.0565; 4412.32.0570; 4412.32.2510; 4412.32.2520; 4412.32.2525; 4412.32.2530; 4412.32.3125; 4412.32.3135; 4412.32.3155; 4412.32.3165; 4412.32.3175; 4412.32.3185; 4412.32.5600; 4412.39.1000; 4412.39.3000; 4412.39.4011; 4412.39.4012; 4412.39.4019; 4412.39.4031; 4412.39.4032; 4412.39.4039; 4412.39.4051; 4412.39.4052; 4412.39.4059; 4412.39.4061; 4412.39.4062; 4412.39.4069; 4412.39.5010; 4412.39.5030; 4412.39.5050; 4412.94.1030; 4412.94.1050; 4412.94.3105; 4412.94.3111; 4412.94.3121; 4412.94.3131; 4412.94.3141; 4412.94.3160; 4412.94.3171; 4412.94.4100; 4412.94.5100; 4412.94.6000; 4412.94.7000; 4412.94.8000; 4412.94.9000; 4412.94.9500; 4412.99.0600; 4412.99.1020; 4412.99.1030; 4412.99.1040; 4412.99.3110; 4412.99.3120; 4412.99.3130; 4412.99.3140; 4412.99.3150; 4412.99.3160; 4412.99.3170; 4412.99.4100; 4412.99.5100; 4412.99.5105; 4412.99.5115; 4412.99.5710; 4412.99.6000; 4412.99.7000; 4412.99.8000; 4412.99.9000; 4412.99.9500; 4418.71.2000; 4418.71.9000; 4418.72.2000; 4418.72.9500; and 9801.00.2500.
While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the subject merchandise is dispositive.
Because the record contains no information or evidence that calls into question the
Based on these final results, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to collect estimated AD and CVD duties for all shipments of subject merchandise exported by Yihua Tech and entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of this notice in the
This notice serves as a final reminder to parties subject to administrative
We are issuing and publishing this final results notice in accordance with sections 751(b) and 777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.216 and 351.221(c)(3).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On February 7, 2017, the Department of Commerce (the “Department”) published its notice of initiation and preliminary results of a changed circumstances review (“CCR”) of the antidumping duty (“AD”) order on wooden bedroom furniture (“WBF”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) (
Effective March 22, 2017.
Jonathan Hill, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3518.
On January 5, 2005, the Department published the AD order on WBF from the PRC.
The product covered by the order is wooden bedroom furniture, subject to certain exceptions.
Because the record contains no information or evidence that calls into question the
Based on these final results, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to collect estimated AD duties for all shipments of subject merchandise exported by Yihua Tech and entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of this notice in the
This notice serves as a final reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing this final results notice in accordance with sections 751(b) and 777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.216 and 351.221(c)(3).
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
The objective of the survey is to collect information on both trip expenditures and annual durable good expenditures made by marine recreational anglers. The survey will be conducted in two parts. One part will ask anglers about the expenses incurred on their most recent marine recreational fishing trip. The other part of the survey will ask anglers about their purchases of durable goods such as fishing gear, boats, vehicles, and second homes. As specified in the Magnuson-Stevenson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1996 (and reauthorized in 2007), NMFS is required to enumerate the economic impacts of the policies it implements on fishing participants and coastal communities. The expenditure data collected in this survey will be used to estimate the economic contributions and impacts of marine recreational fishing to each coastal state and nationwide. Slight revisions will be made to the existing trip expenditure questions to clarify certain types of expenditures, and two questions on the trip expenditure instrument will be dropped.
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meetings of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council's (Council) Snapper Grouper, Mackerel Cobia and Cobia Sub-Panel, and Dolphin Wahoo Advisory Panels (AP).
The Council will hold meetings of its Snapper Grouper AP, Mackerel Cobia and Cobia Subpanel AP and Dolphin Wahoo AP from April 17-21, 2017 in Charleston, SC. See
The Snapper Grouper AP meeting will be held on Monday, April 17, 2017, from 1:30 p.m. until 5 p.m., Tuesday, April 18, 2017, from 9 a.m. until 5 p.m., and Wednesday, April 19, 2017, from 9 a.m. until 12 p.m.
The Mackerel Cobia and Cobia Sub-Panel AP meeting will be held Wednesday, April 19, 2017, from 1:30 p.m. until 5 p.m. and Thursday, April 20, 2017, from 9 a.m. until 5 p.m.
The Dolphin Wahoo AP meeting will be held Friday, April 21, 2017, from 9 a.m. until 2:30 p.m.
Kim Iverson, Public Information Officer, South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, N. Charleston, SC 29405; phone: (843) 571-4366 or toll free (866) SAFMC-10; fax: (843) 769-4520; email
The Snapper Grouper AP will receive an update on the status of amendments to the Snapper Grouper Fishery Management Plan (FMP) recently approved by the Council and submitted for Secretarial review. In addition, the AP members will review and provide recommendations on actions in draft Amendment 43 to the Snapper Grouper Fishery Management Plan (FMP) addressing management measures for red snapper and recreational reporting, Vision Blueprint Regulatory Amendment 26 (Recreational measures), and Vision Blueprint Regulatory Amendment 27 (Commercial measures). The Vision Blueprint amendments are being developed to address management needs identified in the Council's 2016-2020 Vision Blueprint for the snapper grouper fishery.
Other discussion items include a review of the Council's Research Priorities and updates on on-going projects/programs including the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) stock assessment program, socio-economic characterization of the commercial snapper grouper fishery, the Council's Citizen Science Program and the Charter Vessel Reporting Pilot Project. The AP will provide recommendations for Council consideration as appropriate.
The Mackerel Cobia AP and Cobia Sub-Panel will meet jointly. The AP and Cobia Sub-Panel will receive updates and discuss management issues pertaining to cobia including Atlantic cobia recreational fishing seasons, ongoing cobia research, permit requirements for commercial harvest of cobia in the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic (including the east coast of Florida), cobia bag limits for the east coast of Florida, and input on fishery performance. The AP and Sub-Panel will also receive updates and discuss management measures relative to king and Spanish mackerel including limited entry for federal commercial permits for Spanish mackerel and possible gear endorsements and modifications to gill net size for the Spanish mackerel fishery. The AP and Sub-Panel will discuss latent permits in the commercial king mackerel fishery and trip limits for king mackerel on Spanish mackerel gillnet trips. The AP and Sub-Panel will provide recommendations as appropriate.
The Dolphin Wahoo AP will receive a presentation on recent findings from the Dolphinfish Research Program and updates on recent Council actions relative to Amendment 10 to the Dolphin Wahoo Fishery Management Plan. The amendment includes actions to address Optimum Yield for the dolphin fishery, revise the recreational Annual Catch Target for dolphin, establish a commercial Annual Catch Target for dolphin, allow adaptive management of sector annual catch limits for dolphin, revise accountability measures for dolphin, revise the acceptable biological catch control rule for dolphin and wahoo, allow vessels with gear onboard that are not authorized for use in the dolphin fishery to possess dolphin or wahoo, and removes the Operator Card requirement. The AP will also discuss potential items to include in future amendments to the Dolphin Wahoo Fishery Management Plan. The AP will provide recommendations as appropriate.
These meetings are accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the SAFMC office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; intent to prepare an environmental impact statement; scoping process; notification of scoping meetings; requests for comments.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council announces its intent to prepare, in cooperation with NMFS, an environmental impact statement in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act. An environmental impact statement may be necessary to assess potential effects on the human environment of an amendment to manage Atlantic chub mackerel (
Written comments must be received on or before May 31, 2017.
Written comments may be sent by any of the following methods:
• Email to the following address:
• Mail to Dr. Christopher M. Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 North State Street, Suite 201, Dover, Delaware 19901. Mark the outside of the envelope “Chub Mackerel Amendment Scoping Comments”;
• Fax to (302) 674-5399; or
• Verbally or in writing at six public scoping meetings.
More information on this amendment is available at
Dr. Christopher M. Moore, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 North State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901, (telephone 302-674-2331).
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council manages Atlantic mackerel, longfin squid and
A targeted commercial chub mackerel fishery developed in the Mid-Atlantic and Southern New England in recent years, averaging 2.86 million lb of landings over 2013-2015. In August 2016, the Council approved an annual landings limit and a possession limit for chub mackerel as part of the Unmanaged Forage Fish Omnibus Amendment. Rulemaking to implement these measures is currently being developed by NMFS. These measures would be the first regulations for chub mackerel fisheries off the U.S. Atlantic coast, if approved by the Secretary of Commerce. As proposed, these measures are temporary, and would expire three years after implementation. This is because the Council intends to develop alternatives for longer-term management of chub mackerel fisheries by integrating this species into the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish FMP.
The Council initiated an amendment to consider managing Atlantic chub mackerel as a “stock in the fishery” under the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish FMP in December 2016 when they approved their 2017 Implementation Plan. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) lists several required provisions of FMPs for stocks that are in the fishery, including:
• Annual catch limits (ACLs) specified in relation to acceptable biological catch limits recommended by the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee;
• Accountability measures for when the ACLs are exceeded;
• Essential fish habitat designations; and
• Definition of the management unit.
The Council may also consider management measures not explicitly required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act, but which may be necessary to prevent overfishing and promote long-term stability of Atlantic chub mackerel fisheries. These measures could include, but are not limited to:
• Permit requirements;
• Limited access;
• Commercial and/or recreational annual catch targets;
• Commercial quotas;
• Recreational harvest limits;
• Possession limits;
• Commercial and/or recreational minimum fish size restrictions;
• Gear restrictions;
• Reporting requirements; and
• Commercial and/or recreational fishing seasons.
This amendment will affect targeted commercial chub mackerel fisheries
The Council seeks comments on the scope of alternatives to be considered in this amendment, as well as general comments or concerns relating to Council management of Atlantic chub mackerel. In addition to the public comment period provided for in this announcement, the Council will also hold multiple public scoping hearings on this amendment. The dates and locations of these hearings are listed below. The public will have the opportunity to provide additional comments during these hearings. After the scoping process is completed, the Council will begin development of alternatives for chub mackerel management measures, and may prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) to analyze the impacts of the range of alternatives. If NMFS determines that the management alternatives under consideration are not expected to have significant impacts on the human environment, the Council and NMFS may prepare an environmental assessment (EA) in place of an EIS. This determination will depend on the scope of issues raised and the alternatives developed. Information obtained during the scoping process will be used to develop either an EIS or an EA as appropriate. If an EIS is developed to support this action, the Council will hold future public hearings to receive comment on the draft amendment and on the analysis of its impacts presented in the Draft EIS.
Six scoping meetings to facilitate public comment will be held on the following dates and locations:
1. Thursday, May 4, 2017. 7:00-9:00 p.m. Kingsborough Community College, Room V-219. 2001 Oriental Boulevard, Brooklyn, NY 11235. Telephone: 718-368-5000.
2. Monday, May 15, 2017. 6:00-7:30 p.m. Virginia Marine Resources Commission 4th Floor Meeting Room. 2600 Washington Avenue, Newport News, VA 23607. Telephone: 757-247-2200.
3. Tuesday, May 16, 2017. 6:30-8:00 p.m. Princess Royale Oceanfront Resort & Conference Center. 9100 Coastal Highway, Ocean City, Maryland 21842. Telephone: 410-524-7777.
4. Tuesday, May 23, 2017. 6:30-8:00 p.m. Congress Hall Hotel. 200 Congress Place, Cape May, NJ 08204. Telephone: 888-944-1816.
5. Wednesday, May 24, 2017. 6:30-8:00 p.m. 215 South Ferry Road, Narragansett, RI 02882. Telephone: 401-874-6222.
6. Wednesday, May 25, 2017. 6:00-7:30 p.m. Webinar. Audio and visual access available at
The scoping hearings are accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to M. Jan Saunders (302-674-2331, ext. 18) at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce.
Notice of open meeting.
Notice is hereby given of a meeting of the U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS®) Advisory Committee (Committee) in Washington, DC.
The meeting will be held on Wednesday, April 19, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and Thursday, April 20, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. These times and the agenda topics described below are subject to change. Refer to the Web page listed below for the most up-to-date meeting agenda.
On Wednesday, April 19, 2017, the meeting will be held in the Conference Room, 11th Floor, Consortium for Ocean Leadership, 1201 New York Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20005. On Thursday, April 20, 2017, the meeting will be held in the Conference Room, 4th Floor, Consortium for Ocean Leadership, 1201 New York Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20005.
Carl Gouldman, Designated Federal Official, U.S. IOOS Advisory Committee, U.S. IOOS Program, 1315 East-West Highway, Second Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20910; Phone (240) 533-9456; Fax (301) 713-3281; Email
The Committee was established by the NOAA Administrator as directed by Section 12304 of the Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation System Act, part of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-11). The Committee advises the NOAA Administrator and the Interagency Ocean Observation Committee (IOOC) on matters related to the responsibilities and authorities set forth in section 12302 of the Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation System Act of 2009 and other appropriate matters as the Under Secretary refers to the Committee for review and advice. The Committee will provide advice on:
(a) Administration, operation, management, and maintenance of the System;
(b) Expansion and periodic modernization and upgrade of technology components of the System;
(c) Identification of end-user communities, their needs for information provided by the System, and the System's effectiveness in dissemination information to end-user communities and to the general public; and
(d) Any other purpose identified by the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere or the Interagency Ocean Observation Committee.
The meeting will be open to public participation with a 15-minute public comment period on April 19, 2017, from 4:35 p.m. to 4:50 p.m. and on April 20, 2017, from 2:30 p.m. to 2:45 p.m. (check agenda on Web site to confirm time.) The Committee expects that public statements presented at its meetings will not be repetitive of previously submitted verbal or written statements. In general, each individual or group making a verbal presentation will be limited to a total time of three (3) minutes. The Designated Federal Official should receive written comments by April 18, 2017, to provide sufficient time for Committee review. Written comments received after April 18, 2017, will be distributed to the Committee, but may not be reviewed prior to the meeting date. Seats will be available on a first-come, first-served basis.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of SEDAR 50 Assessment Webinars 1 and 2.
The SEDAR 50 assessment of the Atlantic stock of Blueline Tilefish will consist of a series of workshops and webinars: Stock ID Work Group Meeting; Data Workshop; Assessment Workshop and Webinars; and a Review Workshop.
The SEDAR 50 Assessment Webinars 1 and 2 will be held on Thursday, April 20, 2017, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. and Monday, May 8, 2017, from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. Additional Assessment Webinars, Assessment Workshop, and Review Workshop dates and times will publish in a subsequent issue in the
The meetings will be held via webinar. The webinar is open to members of the public. Those interested in participating should contact Julia Byrd at SEDAR (see
Julia Byrd, SEDAR Coordinator, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405; phone: (843) 571-4366; email:
The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions, have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a three-step process including: (1) Data Workshop; (2) Assessment Process utilizing a workshop and/or webinars; and (3) Review Workshop. The product of the Data Workshop is a data report which compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses. The product of the Assessment Process is a stock assessment report which describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. The assessment is independently peer reviewed at the Review Workshop. The product of the Review Workshop is a summary documenting panel opinions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the stock assessment and input data. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Participants include: Data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs); international experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and federal agencies.
The items of discussion at the Assessment webinars are as follows:
Participants will discuss any remaining data issues and provide modeling advice to prepare for the Assessment Workshop.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the SAFMC office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Proposed collection; comment request.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 invites public comments about the proposed extension of an existing information collection: Trademark and Trial Appeal Board (TTAB) Actions.
Written comments must be submitted on or before May 22, 2017.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Requests for additional information should be directed to LaToya Brown,
This collection of information is required by the Trademark Act of 1946, Sections 13, 14, and 20, 15 U.S.C. 1063, 1064, and 1070, respectively. Under the Trademark Act, any individual or entity that adopts a trademark or service mark to identify its goods or services may apply to federally register its mark. Section 14 of the Trademark Act allows individuals and entities to file a petition to cancel a registration of a mark, while Section 13 allows individuals and entities who believe that they would be damaged by the registration of a mark to file an opposition, or an extension of time to file an opposition, to the registration of a mark. Section 20 of the Trademark Act allows individuals and entities to file an appeal from any final decision of the Trademark Examining Attorney assigned to review an application for registration of a mark.
The USPTO administers the Trademark Act pursuant to 37 CFR part 2, which contains the various rules that govern the filing of petitions to cancel the registration of a mark, notices of opposition to the registration of a mark, extensions of time to file an opposition, appeals, and other submissions filed in connection with inter partes and ex parte proceedings. These petitions, notices, extensions, and additional papers are filed with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), an administrative tribunal empowered to determine the right to register and subsequently determine the validity of a trademark.
The information in this collection must be submitted electronically through the Electronic System for Trademark Trials and Appeals (ESTTA). There are no paper forms associated with this collection. If applicants or entities wish to submit the petitions, notices, extensions, and additional papers in inter partes and ex parte cases, they must use the forms provided through ESTTA. This collection contains nine electronic forms.
The additional submissions filed in inter partes and ex parte proceedings must be filed electronically. Submissions filed in paper form are permitted only when ESTTA is unavailable due to technical problems, or when extraordinary circumstances are present.
The information in this collection is a matter of public record, and is used by the public for a variety of private business purposes related to establishing and enforcing trademark rights. This information is important to the public, as both common law trademark owners and federal trademark registrants must actively protect their own rights.
The method of collection is by electronic submission through ESTTA when a party files a petition to cancel a trademark registration, an opposition to the registration of a trademark, a request to extend the time to file an opposition, a notice of appeal, or additional papers for inter partes and ex parte proceedings with the USPTO. Submissions filed in paper form via mail or hand delivery are permitted only when ESTTA is unavailable due to technical problems, or when extraordinary circumstances are present. Certain submissions in paper must also be accompanied by a Petition to the Director. That petition is being added to collection 0651-0054 (Substantive Submissions).
Therefore, the USPTO estimates that the total annual (non-hour) cost burden for this collection, in the form of filing fees, is $5,744,000.00 per year.
Comments are invited on:
(a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;
(c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will submit
The USPTO database of official tribal insignias provides evidence of what a federally or state-recognized Native American tribe considers to be its official insignia. The database thereby assists trademark examining attorneys in their examination of applications for trademark registration by serving as a reference for determining the registrability of a mark that may falsely suggest a connection to the official insignia of a Native American tribe. The entry of an official insignia into the database does not confer any rights to the tribe that submitted the insignia, and entry is not the legal equivalent of registering the insignia as a trademark under 15 U.S.C. 1051
This information collection is used by the USPTO to enter an official insignia submitted by a federally or state-recognized Native American tribe into the database. There are no forms associated with this collection.
Once submitted, the request will be publicly available in electronic format through
Further information can be obtained by:
•
•
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent on or before April 21, 2017 to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB Desk Officer, via email to
U.S. Air Force Academy Board of Visitors, DOD.
Meeting notice.
In accordance with 10 U.S.C. Section 9355, the U.S. Air Force Academy (USAFA) Board of Visitors (BoV) will hold a meeting at Polaris Hall, U.S. Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs, CO on Thursday, 6 April and Friday, 7 April, 2017. The meeting for 6 April is for BoV members only. The meeting on 7 April will begin at 0900 and conclude at 1345. The purpose of this meeting is to review morale and discipline, social climate, strategic communication, infrastructure, and other matters relating to the Academy. Specific topics for this meeting include a Superintendent's Update; Capital Projects and Construction Update; Status of Discipline; Graduate Assessment Update. Public attendance at this USAFA BoV meeting shall be accommodated on a first-come, first-served basis up to the reasonable and safe capacity of the meeting room. In addition, any member of the public wishing to provide input to the USAFA BoV should submit a written statement in accordance with 41 CFR Section 102-3.140(c) and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and the procedures described in this paragraph. Written statements must address the following details: The issue, discussion, and a recommended course of action. Supporting documentation may also be included as needed to establish the appropriate historical context and provide any necessary background information. Written statements can be submitted to the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) at the Air Force address detailed below at any time. However, if a written statement is not received at least 10 calendar days before the first day of the meeting which is the subject of this notice, then it may not be provided to or considered by the BoV until its next open meeting. The DFO will review all timely submissions with the BoV Chairman and ensure they are provided to members of the BoV before the meeting that is the subject of this notice. If after review of timely submitted written comments and the BoV Chairman and DFO deem appropriate, they may choose to invite the submitter of the written comments to orally present the issue during an open portion of the BoV meeting that is the subject of this notice. Members of the BoV may also petition the Chairman to allow specific personnel to make oral presentations before the BoV. In accordance with 41 CFR Section 102-3.140(d), any oral presentations before the BoV shall be in accordance with agency guidelines provided pursuant to a written invitation and this paragraph. Direct questioning of BoV members or meeting participants by the public is not permitted except with the approval of the DFO and Chairman. For the benefit of the public, rosters that list the names of BoV members and any releasable materials presented during the open portions of this BoV meeting shall be made available upon request.
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, (703) 697-9107 or Kathy Valadez, (703) 697-9217; DSCA/SA&E-RAN.
The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 16-41 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Kuwait has requested a possible total sale of seven hundred and fifty (750) JDAM Tail Kits (two hundred and fifty (250) for 500-pound bombs, two hundred and fifty (250) kits for 1,000-pound bombs, and two hundred and fifty (250) kits for 2,000-pound bombs). Sale also includes two (2) 500-pounds and two (2) 2,000-pounds JDAM Load Build Trainers spares, support equipment, repair and return, and other associated logistical support. The estimated cost is $37 million.
This proposed sale contributes to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by improving the security of a Major Non-NATO Ally which continues to be an important force for political stability and economic progress in the Middle East. Kuwait plays a large role in U.S. efforts to advance stability in the Middle East, providing basing, access, and transit for U.S. forces in the region.
This proposed sale improves Kuwait's capability to deter regional threats and strengthens its homeland defense. Kuwait will be able to absorb this additional equipment and support into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support does not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The proposed sale does not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Kuwait.
The sole-source contractor is the original equipment manufacturer, Boeing, Chicago, Illinois. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
There is no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) is a guidance tail kit that converts unguided free-fall bombs into accurate, adverse weather “smart” munitions. With the addition of a new tail section that contains an inertial navigational system and a global positioning system guidance control unit, JDAM improves the accuracy of unguided, general-purpose bombs in any weather condition. JDAM can be launched from very low to very high altitudes in a dive, toss and loft, or in straight and level flight with an on-axis or off-axis delivery. JDAM enables multiple weapons to be directed against single or multiple targets on a single pass. The JDAM All Up Round and all of its components are UNCLASSIFIED; technical data for JDAM is classified up to SECRET.
2. If a technologically advanced adversary obtains knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures or equivalent systems that might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
3. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification. The benefits to be derived from this sale, as outlined in the Policy Justification, outweigh the potential damage that could result if the sensitive technology were revealed to unauthorized persons.
4. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal are authorized for release and export to the Government of Kuwait.
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, (703) 697-9107 or Kathy Valadez, (703) 697-9217; DSCA/SA&E-RAN.
The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 17-02 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of the United Kingdom (UK) requested a possible sale of 1,000 AGM-114-R1/R2 Hellfire II Semi-Active Laser (SAL) Missiles with logistics support services and other related program support. The estimated cost is $150 million.
This proposed sale directly contributes to the foreign policy and national security policies of the United States by enhancing the close air support capability of the UK in support of NATO and other coalition operations. Commonality between close air support capabilities greatly increases interoperability between our two countries' military and peacekeeping forces and allows for greater burden sharing.
The proposed sale improves the UK's capability to meet current and future threats by providing close air support to counter enemy attacks on coalition ground forces in the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility (AOR) and other areas, as needed. The UK already has Hellfire missiles in its inventory and will have no difficulty absorbing these additional missiles.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
There is no principal contractor for this sale as the missiles are coming from U.S. stock.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to the UK.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. AGM-114-R1/R2 Hellfire. The AGM-114-R1/R2 Hellfire II Semi-Active Laser (SAL) Missiles are rail-launched guided missiles developed and produced by Lockheed Martin. The guidance system employs a SAL seeker. The SAL missile homes in on the laser energy reflected off a target that has been illuminated by a laser designator. The laser can be on either the launch platform or another platform that can be separated from it by several kilometers. The target sets are armor, bunkers, caves, enclosures, boats, and enemy personnel. The weapon system hardware, as an “All Up Round,” is UNCLASSIFIED. The highest level of classified information to be disclosed regarding the AGM-114-R1/R2 Hellfire II missile software is SECRET. The highest level of classified information that could be disclosed by a proposed sale or by testing of the end item is SECRET and the highest level that must be disclosed for production, maintenance, or training is CONFIDENTIAL.
2. If a technologically advanced adversary obtained knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures or equivalent systems which might reduce system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
3. A determination has been made that the United Kingdom can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the AGM-114-R1/R2 Hellfire II missiles as the U.S. Government. Transfer of these missiles to the UK is necessary in the furtherance of U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives.
4. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the United Kingdom.
Office of the Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff, U.S. Strategic Command Strategic Advisory Group, Department of Defense.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting.
The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the U.S. Strategic Command Strategic Advisory Group will take place.
Day 1—Closed to the public Tuesday, April 18, 2017, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. and Day 2—Closed to the public Wednesday, April 19, 2017, from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
Dougherty Conference Center, Building 432, 906 SAC Boulevard, Offutt AFB, Nebraska 68113.
Mr. John Trefz, Jr., Designated Federal Officer, (402) 294-4102 (Voice), (402) 294-3128 (Facsimile),
This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.140. This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C. Appendix), the Government in Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b), and 41 CFR 102-3.150.
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 22, 2017.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Samuel Pierre, 202-245-6488.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education (OCTAE), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before April 21, 2017.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact John LeMaster, 202-245-6218.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Through this proposal, the Department is submitting a revised NRS ICR to include additional data collection elements consistent with the WIOA performance accountability requirements for the AEFLA program. These new requirements will become effective July 1, 2017. Thus, for purposes of the AEFLA program, States will be required to complete and submit annually to OCTAE the WIOA Annual Statewide Performance Report Template (in the Joint Performance ICR) and the aggregate data tables in the revised NRS ICR under OMB Control No. 1830-0027.
This revised NRS ICR contains 17 tables, two of which are required only for States that offer distance education; one optional table; two financial reports; one narrative report; and one data quality checklist. These tables and report forms are included in the document titled “Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA) Reporting Tables.” States include in the tables all participants in programs (1) that meet the purposes of AEFLA, and (2) for which expenditures are reported on the Federal Financial Report. In June 2016, OMB approved the data collection required by AEFLA (OMB 1830-0027) by approving non-substantive changes that conformed to the performance accountability requirements in WIOA section 116. OCTAE is requesting an extension of this approval, with proposed minor changes in order to obtain a more accurate reporting of participants served in the various AEFLA activities, services, and programs that support the purposes of AEFLA. These minor enhancements will increase the efficiency of the data collection process and ensure the quality of the data that States report.
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), Department of Education. (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 22, 2017.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Jim Doyle, 202-245-6630.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also
Take notice that on February 28, 2017, Venture Global Plaquemines LNG, LLC (Plaquemines LNG) and Venture Global Gator Express, LLC (Gator Express Pipeline), 2200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Suite 600 West, Washington, DC 20037, filed an application pursuant to sections 3 and 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Parts 157 and 284 of the Commission's Regulations requesting authority to construct a liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminal and pipeline facilities located in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana. Together the proposals are referred to as the Plaquemines LNG and Gator Express Pipeline Project or Project. Specifically, Plaquemines LNG and Gator Express Pipeline request Commission authorization to construct and operate a new LNG export terminal and associated facilities along the west bank of the Mississippi River in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana (Terminal) and to construct and operate two new 42-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline laterals that will connect the Terminal to the pipeline facilities of Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company and Texas Eastern Transmission. The two parallel and adjacent laterals (11.7 and 15.1 miles long) would be operated at an MAOP of 1,200 pounds per square inch and will be designed to provide firm transportation capacity of approximately 1,970,000 Dt/d to the Terminal. Total cost of the pipeline portion of the project is estimated to be approximately 284 million dollars.
The filing may be viewed on the web at
Any questions concerning this application should be directed to Fory Musser, Senior Vice President, Development, Venture Global LNG, Inc., 2200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Suite 600 West, Washington, DC 20037, telephone: (202) 759-6738, facsimile: (202) 331-5054 or email:
On July 2, 2015 the Commission granted Plaquemines LNG's request to utilize the Pre-Filing Process and assigned Docket No. PF15-27-000 to staff activities involved in the Project. Now, as of the filing of the March 1 application, the Pre-Filing Process for this project has ended. From this time forward, this proceeding will be conducted in Docket No. CP17-66-000 and CP17-67-000 as noted in the caption of this Notice.
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding, or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 5 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric reliability filings.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives notice that members of the Commission's staff may attend the following meetings related to the transmission planning activities of Tucson Electric Power Company, UNS Electric, Inc., Public Service Company of New Mexico, Arizona Public Service Company, El Paso Electric Company, Black Hills Power, Inc., Black Hills Colorado Electric Utility Company, LP, Cheyenne Light, Fuel, & Power Company, NV Energy, Inc.; and Xcel Energy Services, Inc. on behalf of Public Service Company of Colorado:
The March 15, 2017 Planning Management Committee Meeting will be held at:
The April 19, 2017 Planning Management Committee Meeting will be held at:
The above-referenced meetings will be available via web conference and teleconference.
The above-referenced meetings are open to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at
The discussions at the meetings described above may address matters at issue in the following proceeding:
For more information contact Nicole Cramer, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (202) 502-6775 or
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.
Notice of information collection and request for comments.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on FERC-521 (Payments for Benefits from Headwater Improvements) and will be submitting FERC-521 to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review of the information collection requirements.
Comments on the collection of information are due May 22, 2017.
You may submit comments identified by Docket No. IC17-4-000 by either of the following methods:
•
•
Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
When the Commission completes a study of a river basin, it determines headwater benefits charges that will be apportioned among the various downstream beneficiaries. A headwater benefits charge and the cost incurred by the Commission to complete an evaluation are paid by downstream hydropower project owners. In essence, the owners of non-federal hydropower projects that directly benefit from a headwater improvement must pay an equitable portion of the annual charges for interest, maintenance, and depreciation of the headwater project to the U.S. Treasury. The regulations provide for apportionment of these costs between the headwater project and downstream projects based on downstream energy gains and propose equitable apportionment methodology that can be applied to all river basins in which headwater improvements are built. The Commission requires owners of non-federal hydropower projects to file data for determining annual charges as outlined in 18 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 11.
The estimates for cost per response are derived using the 2017 FERC average salary plus benefits of $158,754/year (or $76.50/hour). Commission staff finds that the work done for this information collection is typically done by wage categories similar to those at FERC.
The total estimated annual cost burden to each respondent is $3,060 [40 hours * $76.50/hour = $3,060].
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Deadline for filing comments, interventions, and protests is April 13, 2017. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests and comments using the Commission's eFiling system at
k.
l. This filing may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o.
On March 9, 2017, the Town of Carbondale, Colorado, filed a notice of intent to construct a qualifying conduit hydropower facility, pursuant to section 30 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), as amended by section 4 of the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013 (HREA). The proposed Town of Carbondale Nettle Creek WTP Hydro Project would have an installed capacity of 28 kilowatts (kW), and would be located along an existing raw water pipeline adjacent to the applicant's water treatment plant. The project would be located near the Town of Carbondale in Pitkin County, Colorado.
A qualifying conduit hydropower facility is one that is determined or deemed to meet all of the criteria shown in the table below.
Deadline for filing motions to intervene is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice.
Anyone may submit comments or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210 and 385.214. Any motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified deadline date for the particular proceeding.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene and comments using the Commission's eFiling system at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notification of public meeting and public comment.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency hereby provides notice that the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) Homeland Security Subcommittee (HSS) will host a public teleconference. The meeting will be held on Tuesday, March 28, 2017 from 11:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. All times noted are Eastern Time and are approximate. The primary discussions will focus on finalizing the draft report on the effective and efficient tools, strategies and methods to characterize and assess exposure and decontamination following a biological contamination incident. There will be a public comment period at 11:15 a.m. For information on registering to participate on the call or to provide public comment, please see the
The BOSC HSS meeting will be held on Tuesday, March 28, 2017 from 11:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. All times noted are Eastern Time and are approximate.
Questions or correspondence concerning the meeting should be directed to Tom Tracy, Designated Federal Officer, Environmental Protection Agency, by mail at 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., (MC 8104 R), Washington, DC 20460; by telephone at 202-564-6518; fax at 202-565-2911; or via email at
The Charter of the BOSC states that the advisory committee shall provide independent advice to the Administrator on technical and management aspects of the ORD's research program. Additional information about the BOSC is available at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), “National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Consumer Products (40 CFR part 59, subpart C) (Renewal), OMB Control No. 2060-0348, EPA ICR No. 1764.07,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). Before doing so, the EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through June 30, 2017. An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Comments must be submitted on or before May 22, 2017.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0563 online using
The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Dr. Tina Ndoh, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Minerals and Manufacturing Group (D243-04), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: 919-541-2750; fax number: 919-541-5450; email address:
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) 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; (ii) 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; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) 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,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA has granted emergency exemptions under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) for use of pesticides as listed in this notice. The exemptions were granted during the period October 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016 to control unforeseen pest outbreaks.
Michael L. Goodis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed at the end of the emergency exemption.
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0009, is available at
EPA has granted emergency exemptions to the following State and Federal agencies. The emergency exemptions may take the following form: Crisis, public health, quarantine, or specific.
Under FIFRA section 18 (7 U.S.C. 136p), EPA can authorize the use of a pesticide when emergency conditions exist. Authorizations (commonly called emergency exemptions) are granted to State and Federal agencies and are of four types:
1. A “specific exemption” authorizes use of a pesticide against specific pests on a limited acreage in a particular State. Most emergency exemptions are specific exemptions.
2. “Quarantine” and “public health” exemptions are emergency exemptions issued for quarantine or public health purposes. These are rarely requested.
3. A “crisis exemption” is initiated by a State or Federal agency (and is confirmed by EPA) when there is insufficient time to request and obtain EPA permission for use of a pesticide in an emergency.
EPA may deny an emergency exemption: If the State or Federal agency cannot demonstrate that an emergency exists, if the use poses unacceptable risks to the environment, or if EPA cannot reach a conclusion that the proposed pesticide use is likely to result in “a reasonable certainty of no harm” to human health, including exposure of residues of the pesticide to infants and children.
If the emergency use of the pesticide on a food or feed commodity would result in pesticide chemical residues, EPA establishes a time-limited tolerance meeting the “reasonable certainty of no harm standard” of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
In this document: EPA identifies the State or Federal agency granted the exemption, the type of exemption, the pesticide authorized and the pests, the crop or use for which authorized, number of acres (if applicable), and the duration of the exemption. EPA also gives the
EPA authorized the use of sulfoxaflor on a maximum of 115,000 acres of sorghum (grain and forage) to control sugarcane aphid. A time-limited tolerance in connection with this action has been established in 40 CFR 180.668(b); Effective May 1, 2017 to October 31, 2017.
7 U.S.C. 136
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office announces two public teleconferences of the SAB Chemical Assessment Advisory Committee Augmented for the Review of the Draft Hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX) Assessment (CAAC-RDX Panel) to peer review EPA's draft Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)
The public teleconferences will be held on Thursday April 13, 2017, and Monday April 17, 2017. The teleconferences will be held from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) on both days.
Any member of the public wishing further information concerning the teleconferences may contact Dr. Diana Wong, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), SAB Staff Office, by telephone at (202) 564-2049; or at
The SAB CAAC—RDX Panel held a public meeting on December 12-14, 2016. The purpose of that meeting was to develop responses to the peer review charge on the agency's draft IRIS
Availability of Meeting Materials: Additional background on this SAB activity, the teleconference agenda, draft report, and other materials for the teleconferences will be posted on the SAB Web site at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces EPA's order for the cancellations, voluntarily requested by the registrants and accepted by the Agency, of the products listed in Table 1 of Unit II., pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). This cancellation order follows an August 20, 2014
The cancellations are effective March 22, 2017.
Michael Yanchulis, Information Technology and Resources Management Division (7502P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 347-0237; email address:
This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0014, is available at
This notice announces the cancellation, as requested by registrants, of products registered under FIFRA section 3 (7 U.S.C. 136a). These registrations are listed in sequence by registration number in Table 1 of this unit. The following registration numbers that were listed in the
Table 2 of this unit includes the names and addresses of record for all registrants of the products in Table 1 of this unit, in sequence by EPA company number. This number corresponds to the first part of the EPA registration numbers of the products listed in Table 1 of this unit.
During the public comment period provided, EPA received no comments in response to the August 20, 2014
Pursuant to FIFRA section 6(f) (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)), EPA hereby approves the requested cancellations of the registrations identified in Table 1 of Unit II. Accordingly, the Agency hereby orders that the product registrations identified in Table 1 of Unit II. are canceled. The effective date of the cancellations that are the subject of this notice is March 22, 2017. Any distribution, sale, or use of existing stocks of the products identified in Table 1 of Unit II. in a manner inconsistent with any of the provisions for disposition of existing stocks set
Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)(1)) provides that a registrant of a pesticide product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations be canceled or amended to terminate one or more uses. FIFRA further provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice of receipt of any such request in the
Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products which are currently in the United States and which were packaged, labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the cancellation action. The existing stocks provisions for the products subject to this order are as follows.
The registrants may continue to sell and distribute existing stocks of products listed in Table 1 of Unit II. until March 22, 2018, which is 1-year after the publication of the Cancellation Order in the
7 U.S.C. 136
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces EPA's order for the cancellations, voluntarily requested by the registrants and accepted by the Agency, of the products listed in Table 1 of Unit II., pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). This cancellation order follows a July 12, 2016
The cancellations are effective March 22, 2017.
Michael Yanchulis, Information Technology and Resources Management Division (7502P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 347-0237; email address:
This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0321, is available at
In the July 12, 2016 notice, EPA indicated that it would issue an order implementing the cancellations, unless the Agency received substantive comments within the 180-day comment period that would merit its further review of these requests, or unless the registrants withdrew their requests. The Agency did not receive any comments on this notice. The registration numbers below were listed in the July 12, 2016 notice and already have been canceled by other FR notices so are not listed in this notice. The products are listed by their cancellation FR notice: (1)
This notice announces the cancellation, as requested by registrant, of products registered under FIFRA section 3 (7 U.S.C. 136a). These registrations are listed in sequence by registration number in Table 1 of this unit.
Table 2 of this unit includes the names and addresses of record for all registrants of the products in Table 1 of this unit, in sequence by EPA company number. This number corresponds to the first part of the EPA registration numbers of the products listed in Table 1 of this unit.
During the public comment period provided, EPA received no comments in response to the July 12, 2016
Pursuant to FIFRA section 6(f) (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)), EPA hereby approves the requested cancellations of the registrations identified in Table 1 of Unit II. Accordingly, the Agency hereby orders that the product registrations identified in Table 1 of Unit II. are canceled. The effective date of the cancellations that are the subject of this notice is March 22, 2017. Any distribution, sale, or use of existing stocks of the products identified in Table 1 of Unit II. in a manner inconsistent with any of the provisions for disposition of existing stocks set forth in Unit VI. will be a violation of FIFRA.
Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)(1)) provides that a registrant of a pesticide product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations be canceled or amended to terminate one or more uses. FIFRA further provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice of receipt of any such request in the
Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products which are currently in the United States and which were packaged, labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the cancellation action. The existing stocks provisions for the products subject to this order are as follows.
The registrants may continue to sell and distribute existing stocks of products listed in Table 1 of Unit II. until January 15, 2016 or the date of publication of this FR notice, whichever is later. Thereafter, the registrants are prohibited from selling or distributing products listed in Table 1, except for export in accordance with FIFRA section 17 (7 U.S.C. 136o), or proper disposal. Persons other than the registrants may sell, distribute, or use existing stocks of products listed in Table 1 of Unit II. until existing stocks are exhausted, provided that such sale,
7 U.S.C. 136
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of public advisory committee meeting.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given that the National Advisory Committee and the Governmental Advisory Committee will hold a public meeting on Tuesday, March 28 and Wednesday, March 29, 2017 in Washington, DC. The meeting is open to the public. Due to unforeseen administrative circumstances, EPA is announcing this meeting with less than 15 calendar days notice.
The National and Governmental Advisory Committees will hold an open meeting on Tuesday, March 28, 2017 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., and Wednesday, March 29, 2017 from 9:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the U.S. EPA, Conference Room 2138, located in the William Jefferson Clinton South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20004. Telephone: 202-564-2294. The meeting is open to the public, with limited seating on a first-come, first-served basis.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office announces a public teleconference of the Chartered SAB to discuss the draft
The teleconference will be held on Thursday, March 30, 2017, from 1:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. (Eastern Time).
Any member of the public wishing to obtain information concerning the public teleconference may contact Mr. Thomas Carpenter, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office (1400R), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; by telephone/voice mail at (202) 564-4885 or at
The SAB was established pursuant to the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act (ERDDAA), codified at 42 U.S.C. 4365, to provide independent scientific and technical advice to the Administrator on the scientific and technical basis for Agency positions and regulations. The SAB is a Federal Advisory Committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C., App. 2. The SAB will comply with the provisions of FACA and all appropriate SAB Staff Office procedural policies. Pursuant to FACA and EPA policy, notice is hereby given that the SAB will hold a public meeting to discuss and deliberate on the topics below.
The Chartered SAB will conduct a quality review of the Lake Erie Phosphorus Objective Review Panel draft report before it is transmitted to the EPA Administrator. The SAB quality review process ensures that all draft reports developed by SAB panels, committees or workgroups are reviewed and approved by the Chartered SAB before being finalized and transmitted to the EPA Administrator. These reviews are conducted in a public meeting as required by FACA.
EPA Region 5 has asked the SAB to provide advice on further modeling, monitoring, and analyses needed to support implementation and evaluation of the nutrient reduction goals as part of an ongoing, adaptive management approach. Background on the Lake Erie Nutrient Targets and Adaptive Management activity is available on the SAB Web site at:
Pursuant to FACA and EPA policy, notice is hereby given that the Chartered SAB will hold a public teleconference to discuss the
Federal advisory committees and panels, including scientific advisory committees, provide independent advice to the EPA. Members of the public can submit comments for a federal advisory committee to consider as it develops advice for the EPA. Interested members of the public may submit relevant written or oral information on the topic of this advisory activity, and/or the group conducting the activity, for the SAB to consider during the advisory process. Input from the public to the SAB will have the most impact if it provides specific scientific or technical information or analysis for SAB to consider or if it relates to the clarity or accuracy of the technical information. Members of the public wishing to provide comment should follow the instructions below to submit comments.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs is inviting nominations from a diverse range of qualified candidates to be considered for appointment to the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC). The PPDC is chartered to provide advice and recommendations to the EPA Administrator on a broad range of issues concerning pesticide regulatory development and reform initiatives, evolving public policy and program implementation issues, and science issues associated with evaluating and reducing risks from pesticide use. To maintain the representation outlined by the charter, nominees will be selected to represent: Environmental/public interest and animal rights groups; farm worker organizations; pesticide industry and trade associations; pesticide user, grower, and commodity groups; federal/state/local and tribal governments; academia; and public health organizations. Vacancies are expected to be filled by July 2017. Sources in addition to this
Nominations should be submitted no later than April 21, 2017.
Submit nominations electronically with the subject line “PPDC Membership 2017” to
Dea Zimmerman, Designated Federal Officer for the PPDC, telephone number: (312) 353-6344; email address:
This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of particular interest to persons who work in agricultural settings or persons who are concerned about implementation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA); and the amendments to both of these major pesticide laws by the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996; and the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to: Agricultural workers and farmers; pesticide industry and trade associations; environmental, consumer, and farmworker groups; pesticide users and growers; animal rights groups; pest consultants; State, local and Tribal governments; academia; public health organizations; and the public. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0042, is available at
The PPDC is a federal advisory committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Public Law 92-463. EPA established the PPDC in September 1995 to provide advice and recommendations to the EPA Administrator on issues associated with pesticide regulatory development and reform initiatives, evolving public policy and program implementation
The PPDC usually meets face-to-face twice a year, generally in the spring and the fall. Additionally, members may be asked serve on work groups to develop recommendations to address specific policy issues. The average workload for members is approximately 4 to 6 hours per month. PPDC members may receive travel and per diem allowances where appropriate and according to applicable federal travel regulations.
The EPA values and welcomes diversity. In an effort to obtain nominations of diverse candidates, the agency encourages nominations of women and men of all racial and ethnic groups. All nominations will be fully considered, but applicants need to be aware of the specific representation sought as outlined in the Summary above. Any interested person or organization may nominate qualified persons to be considered for appointment to this advisory committee. Individuals may self-nominate. Nominations may be submitted in electronic format (preferred) or mailed to Dea Zimmerman at the address listed under
To be considered, all nominations should include:
• Current contact information for the nominee, including the nominee's name, organization (and position within that organization), current business address, email address, and daytime telephone number;
• Brief Statement describing the nominee's interest and availability in serving on the PPDC;
• Résumé and a short biography (no more than 2 paragraphs) describing the professional and educational qualifications of the nominee, including a list of relevant activities, or any current or previous experience on advisory committees; and
• Letter(s) of recommendation from a third party supporting the nomination. The letter should describe how the nominee's experience and knowledge will bring value to the work of the PPDC.
Other sources, in addition to this
7 U.S.C. 136
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments should be submitted on or before May 22, 2017. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) as Receiver for Evergreen State Bank, Stoughton, Wisconsin (the “Receiver”) intends to terminate its receivership for said institution. The FDIC was appointed receiver of Evergreen State Bank on January 28, 2011. The liquidation of the receivership assets has been completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to proven creditors.
Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this Notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this Notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.
No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.
Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this Notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this Notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.
No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Notice and request for comment.
In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the FDIC may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. On November 25, 2016, (81 FR 85223), the FDIC requested comment for 60 days on a proposal to revise the information collection described below. The comment period for the November 25, 2016 notice ended on January 24, 2017 and no comments were received. The FDIC hereby gives notice that it has sent the collection of information revision to OMB for review.
Comments must be received by April 21, 2017.
You may submit written comments, which should refer to “Annual Stress Test Reporting Template and Documentation for Covered Institutions with Total Consolidated Assets of $50 Billion or More” by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Additionally, commenters may send a copy of their comments to the OMB desk officer for the agencies by mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by fax to (202) 395-6974; or by email to
You can request additional information from Manny Cabeza, Counsel, (202) 898-3767, Legal Division, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW., MB-3016, Washington, DC 20429. In addition, copies of the templates referenced in this notice can be found on the FDIC's Web site (
The FDIC is requesting comment on the following changes to the information collection:
On October 15, 2012, the FDIC published in the
Consistent with past practice, the FDIC intends to use the data collected to assess the reasonableness of the stress test results of covered banks and to provide forward-looking information to the FDIC regarding a covered institution's capital adequacy. The FDIC also may use the results of the stress tests to determine whether additional analytical techniques and exercises could be appropriate to identify, measure, and monitor risks at the covered bank. The stress test results are expected to support ongoing improvement in a covered bank's stress testing practices with respect to its internal assessments of capital adequacy and overall capital planning.
The FDIC recognizes that many covered banks with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more are required to submit reports using the Board's Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (“CCAR”) reporting form, FR Y-14A. The FDIC also recognizes the Board has modified the FR Y-14A, and the FDIC will keep its reporting requirements as similar as possible with the Board's FR Y-14A in order to minimize burden on affected institutions. Therefore, the FDIC is revising its reporting requirements to remain consistent with the Board's FR Y-14A for covered banks with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more. Because these revisions primarily involve removal of items not reported by FDIC-supervised institutions, there is no change in burden associated with the revisions.
The proposed revisions to the DFAST-14A reporting templates consist of clarifying instructions, adding and removing schedules, adding, deleting, and modifying existing data items, and altering the as-of dates. These proposed changes would increase consistency between the DFAST-14A with the FR Y-14A and CALL Report. The revised reporting templates can be viewed at
The proposed revision includes multiple line items changes intended to promote consistency with the FR Y-14A and ensure the collection of accurate information.
Covered institutions would be required to estimate their supplementary leverage ratio for the planning horizon beginning on January 1, 2018. The FDIC proposes adding two items to the Summary Schedule: Supplementary Leverage Ratio Exposure (SLR Exposure) and Supplementary Leverage Ratio (the SLR). The SLR would be a derived field.
In addition, to collect more precise information regarding deferred tax assets (DTAs), the FDIC proposes modifying one existing item on the Capital—DFAST worksheet of the Summary schedule as-of December 31, 2016. The FDIC proposes changing existing item 112 on the Capital—DFAST worksheet of the Summary schedule, “Deferred tax assets arising from temporary differences that could not be realized through net operating loss carrybacks, net of DTLs, but before related valuation allowances”, to “Deferred tax assets arising from temporary differences, net of DTLs.” A covered institution in a net deferred tax liability (DTL) position would report this item as a negative number. This modification would provide more specific information about the components of the “DTAs arising from temporary differences that could not be realized through net operating loss carrybacks, net of related valuation allowances and net of DTLs” subject to the common equity tier 1 capital deduction threshold.
The proposed revisions would also remove certain items that pertained to the capital regulations in place before the adoption of the Basel III final rule.
The FDIC proposes to remove the Retail Balances and Loss Worksheet.
The FDIC proposes to remove the Retail Repurchase Worksheet.
The FDIC proposes to remove the High-Level OTTI Methodology and Assumptions for AFS and HTM Securities by Portfolio Worksheet.
The FDIC proposes to remove the Projected OTTI for AFS Securities and HTM Securities Worksheet.
The FDIC proposes to remove the Actual AFS and HTM Fair Market Value Sources by Portfolio Worksheet.
The FDIC proposes to remove the Trading Worksheet.
The FDIC proposes to remove the Counterparty Credit Risk Worksheet.
The FDIC proposes to remove the PPNR Metrics Worksheet.
The FDIC proposes to remove the Regulatory Capital Instruments Schedule.
The FDIC proposes to remove the Regulatory Capital Transitions Schedule.
The FDIC proposes to remove the Operational Risk Schedule.
The FDIC estimates that the proposed revisions will not affect the burden estimates of this information collection. The vast majority of the deleted schedules are applicable only to institutions with total assets greater than $250 billion or with foreign exposure greater than $10 billion. The FDIC does not supervise any state nonmember banks or state savings associations that meet that definition. Accordingly, in the case of the FDIC, the majority of the deleted schedules were not being used and the burden will remain as follows:
The FDIC recognizes that the Board requires bank holding companies to prepare the templates for the FR Y-14A. The FDIC believes that the systems covered institutions use to prepare the FR Y-14A reporting templates will also be used to prepare the reporting templates described in this notice.
Comments continue to be invited on:
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the FDIC, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the FDIC's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreements to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within twelve days of the date this notice appears in the
By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
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 April 14, 2017.
1.
2.
1.
1.
1.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in 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 April 17, 2017.
1.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Home Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 1461
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 application also will 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 HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1467a(e)). 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 10(c)(4)(B) of the HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1467a(c)(4)(B)). 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 April 14, 2017.
1.
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension to a previously approved information collection requirement concerning contract financing. A notice was published in the
Submit comments on or before April 21, 2017.
Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for GSA, Room 10236, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503. Additionally submit a copy to GSA by any of the following methods:
•
•
Ms. Camara Francis, Procurement Analyst, Acquisition Policy Division, at 202-501-1448 or email
The Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act (FASA) of 1994, Public Law 103-355, provided authorities that streamlined the acquisition process and minimize burdensome Government-unique requirements. Sections 2001 and 2051 of FASA substantially changed the statutory authorities for Government financing of contracts. Sections 2001(f) and 2051(e) provide specific authority for Government financing of purchases of commercial items; here, contract financing is permitted with certain limitations. Likewise, sections 2001(b) and 2051(b) substantially revised the authority for Government financing of purchases of non-commercial items, by permitting contract financing on the basis of certain classes of measures of performance.
To implement these changes, DOD, NASA, and GSA amended the FAR by revising Subparts 32.0, 32.1, and 32.5; by adding new Subparts 32.2 and 32.10; and by adding new clauses to 52.232.
The coverage enables the Government to provide financing to assist in the performance of contracts for commercial items and provide financing for non-commercial items based on contractor performance.
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 2 hours per request for commercial financing and 2 hours per request for performance-based financing, including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.
The annual reporting burden for commercial financing is estimated as follows:
The annual reporting burden for performance-based financing is estimated as follows:
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), HHS.
Notice of public meeting cancellation.
In accordance with section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, this notice announces the cancellation of a meeting of the National Advisory Council for Healthcare Research and Quality.
The meeting would have been held on Friday, March 24, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. to 2:45 p.m.
The meeting would have been held at the Hubert H. Humphrey Building, Room 800, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20201.
Jaime Zimmerman, Designated Management Official, at the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop 06E37A, Rockville, Maryland, 20857, (301) 427-1456. For press-related information, please contact Alison Hunt at (301) 427-1244 or
The National Advisory Council for Healthcare Research and Quality is authorized by Section 941 of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. 299c. In accordance with its statutory mandate, the Council is to advise the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services and the Director of AHRQ on matters related to AHRQ's conduct of its mission including providing guidance on (A) priorities for health care research, (B) the field of health care research
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 the donor registration form in support of the project titled “Acquisition of Freshly Drawn Whole Blood/Blood Products for Reference Diagnostic and Research Use.”
Written comments must be received on or before May 22, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2017-0027 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
Acquisition of Freshly-Drawn Whole Blood/Blood Products for Reference Diagnostic and Research Use—Existing Information Collection in Use Without an OMB Control Number—National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The CDC seeks a three-year OMB approval to collect information in support of fresh blood/blood products for laboratory programs.
The CDC regularly requires freshly drawn whole blood, serum, plasma, mononuclear white cell and platelet concentrates for research purposes, for reagents, and as “normal” control materials. To enhance the safety of CDC personnel handling these materials, the blood/blood products, or the donors thereof, must be screened for evidence of possible infections by specific testing. At the same time, donor confidentiality must be assured and adequate counseling must be available, in case any specimens or donors test positive for certain transmissible infections.
The donor registration form referenced by this request is a brief, 11-question form that establishes the availability of volunteer donors to participate in the donor program to fill this need for fresh blood/blood products for CDC. The registration form captures donors' availability to donate, interest in various types of donations, smoking history, exercise background, alcohol consumption, measles vaccination history, cholesterol test history, and medications background.
Donors required to maintain the CDC donor pool are recruited by contract program managers often by referral of current donors, directed outreach for new donors by email, occasional posting of notices in areas frequented by CDC personnel, or at local universities for possible student populations.
All donor information is collected and protected by medical professionals with donor/patient confidentiality protected. Information from this form is only used to determine donor eligibility for blood product requests to be used by CDC laboratory programs. Approximately 25 volunteer donors are enrolled annually.
There is no cost to respondents other than the time to participate. Authorizing legislation comes from Section 301 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 241).
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Request for scientific peer reviewers.
The CDC is soliciting nominations, including self-nominations, for scientific peer reviewers of proposed additions of conditions to the List of World Trade Center (WTC)-Related Health Conditions (List).
Title I of the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010, Public Law 111-347 (Jan. 2, 2011), amended by Public Law 114-113 (Dec. 18, 2015), added Title XXXIII to the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act), establishing the WTC Health Program within HHS (42 U.S.C. 300mm to 300mm-61). When the Administrator proposes to add a condition to the List, he must publish the proposed rule in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553). Additionally, as required by the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Reauthorization Act in section 3312(a)(6)(F), prior to issuing a final rule to add a health condition to the List, the Administrator must provide for an independent peer review of the scientific and technical evidence that would be the basis for issuing such final rule.
• Dates:
• Addresses:
• For Further Information Contact:
• Supplementary Information:
Nominations must be submitted (postmarked or electronically received) by February 1, 2019.
You may submit a nomination identified by NIOSH Docket 294, by any of the following methods.
• Electronic nominations, including attachments to
•
Paul Middendorf, Ph.D., Deputy Associate Director for Science, 1600 Clifton Rd. NE., MS: E-20, Atlanta, GA 30329; telephone (404)498-2500 (this is not a toll-free number); email
• Name
• Occupation
• Employer
• Contact information including mailing address, email, and phone number
• Listing of scientific credentials including academic degrees and specialized training
• Area of competencies (
• Area of specialty (
• Other materials to support the nominee's ability to perform scientific peer review
• For third-party nominations, affirmation from the nominee that they are aware of and agree to the nomination
A
The James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Reauthorization Act in section 3312(a)(6)(F) requires the Administrator to provide for an independent peer review of the scientific and technical evidence that would be the basis for issuing a final rule to add a health condition to the List prior to issuing the final rule. To assist in accomplishing independent peer review in a timely manner, the Administrator has determined that he will develop a standing pool of persons with the scientific, technical, and medical background to potentially serve in this role to provide their individual input to the Administrator based on the health condition in the proposed rule under consideration. The peer reviewers will not meet as a group, provide consensus advice or recommendations to the Administrator, or produce a collective work product(s). Therefore, the Administrator is requesting nominations of persons to serve as scientific peer reviewers.
All persons who have the necessary minimum qualifications will be included in the standing pool of potential peer reviewers. These persons will be included in the standing pool of potential peer reviewers for 3 years unless they request in writing to be removed. After 3 years persons may be nominated again and will be required to update their information.
The Administrator will select peer reviewers for any proposed rule by matching the nature of the proposed
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), announces the availability of the Draft Environmental Assessment (Draft EA) for the CDC Chamblee Campus 2025 Master Plan for public review and comment. This notice also announces the date, location and time for the public meeting. The Draft EA analyzes the potential impacts associated with the implementation of the CDC Chamblee Campus 2025 Master Plan (Master Plan) for HHS/CDC's Chamblee Campus located at 4770 Buford Highway, Chamblee, Georgia. This announcement follows the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508); and, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) General Administration Manual Part 30 Environmental Procedures, dated February 25, 2000.
A public meeting will be held on Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 2400 Century Center, Century Pkwy. NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30345. The public meeting will consist of an Open House from 6:00 p.m. EST to 8:00 p.m. EST. The meeting will be an open house where attendees can learn more about the Master Plan and Draft EA, ask questions, and submit comments.
Written comments must be received on or before May 22, 2017.
Requests for information on the Draft EA or for a paper/electronic copy should be directed to: Angela Wagner, Portfolio Manager, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-K96, Atlanta, Georgia 30329. Telephone: (770) 488-8170 or email:
The Draft EA will be available on the
You may submit comments identified by Docket No. CDC-2017-0019, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Written comments on the Draft EA will also be accepted during the public meeting scheduled for April 19, 2017, at 2400 Century Center, Century Pkwy. NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30345. Please be advised that the meeting is being held in a location considered a Federal government building; therefore, Federal security measures are applicable. In planning your arrival time, please take into account the need to park and clear security. Visitors must present government issued photo identification (
Angela Wagner, Portfolio Manager, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-K96, Atlanta, Georgia 30329, Telephone: (770) 488-8170 or Email:
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), has prepared a Draft Environmental Assessment (Draft EA) to assess the potential impacts associated with the implementation of the CDC Chamblee Campus 2025 Master Plan (Master Plan) for HHS/CDC's Chamblee Campus located at 4770 Buford Highway, Chamblee, Georgia. An update to the previous Master Plan was prepared to guide the future development of the Chamblee Campus for the planning horizon of 2017 to 2025, corresponding to the growing research needs in support of HHS/CDC's mission, and the specific requirements of its component organizations.
HHS/CDC analyzed two alternatives in the Draft EA: The Proposed Action and the No Build Alternative. The Proposed Action assessed in the Draft EA is the implementation of the CDC Chamblee Campus 2025 Master Plan (Master Plan). The Master Plan provides a framework for future growth on the Chamblee Campus in order to ensure that the campus can support HHS/CDC's mission and to guide strategic decisions about the allocation of Federal resources. The Master Plan identifies a number of potential improvements to be completed through the 2025 timeframe, and establishes design and planning guidelines. Improvements proposed under the Master Plan include new laboratory construction, new office building construction, parking expansion, off-campus office consolidation and additional infrastructure upgrades.
The No Build Alternative represents continued operation of the existing facilities at the Chamblee Campus without any new construction or major building additions over the planning period from 2017 to 2025. Under the No Build Alternative, two existing buildings and three trailers on the campus would be demolished. The employee population at the Chamblee Campus is projected to increase by approximately 367 new occupants under the No Build Alternative due to potential background growth of existing Campus programs.
The Draft EA evaluates the potential environmental impacts that may result from the Proposed Action (referred to as the Build Alternative) and the No Build Alternative on the natural and built environment. Potential impacts of each alternative are evaluated on the following resource categories: Socioeconomics; land use; zoning; public policy; community facilities; transportation; air quality; noise; cultural resources; urban design and visual resources; natural resources; utilities; waste; and greenhouse gases and sustainability. The Draft EA identifies measures to mitigate potential adverse impacts.
Chamblee Public Library, 4115 Clairmont Road, Chamblee GA 30341, Telephone: (770) 936-1380.
Doraville Public Library, 3748 Central Ave, Doraville, GA 30340, Telephone: (770) 936-3852.
Brookhaven Branch Public Library, 1242 N. Druid Hills Rd NE., Atlanta, GA 30319, Telephone: (404) 848-7140.
Chamblee City Hall, 5468 Peachtree Road, Chamblee, GA 30341, Telephone: (770) 986-5010.
Paper and electronic copies can also be requested as instructed in the
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public conference.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) is sponsoring a 2-day public conference entitled “FDA CDER Small Business and Industry Assistance (SBIA) Regulatory Education for Industry (REdI) Generic Drugs Forum.” The goal of this public conference is to provide direct, relevant, and helpful information on the key aspects of the generic drug development process. Our primary audience is that of small manufacturers within the generic drug industry. However, anyone involved in the pharmaceutical industry may attend.
The public conference will be held April 4-5, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. See the
The public conference will be held in the Pinnacle Ballroom located on the 2nd floor of DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel, 8727 Colesville Rd., Silver Spring, MD 20910.
Brenda Stodart, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6707, email:
FDA is announcing a public conference entitled “FDA CDER Small Business and Industry Assistance Regulatory Education for Industry Generic Drugs Forum.” This public conference is intended to increase the generic drug industry's awareness of applicable FDA regulations.
This 2-day, FDA-led forum offers the opportunity to interact with FDA subject matter experts from across CDER involved in the Generic Drug Review Program. It will provide up-to-date information on program progress and current initiatives and present a high-level regulatory overview of the complete ANDA review pathway.
If you need special accommodations due to disability, please contact
If you have never attended a Connect Pro event before, test your connection at
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with 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). The ICR is for extending the use of the approved information collection assigned OMB control number 0955-0009 which expires on May 31, 2017. Prior to submitting the 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 May 22, 2017.
Submit your comments to
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the document identifier 0955-0009-60D for reference.
The total annual burden hours estimated for this ICR are summarized in the table below.
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.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
As stipulated by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) is hereby giving notice that a webinar meeting of the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Advisory Committee (CFSAC) will take place and will be open to the general public to listen in via a toll free number.
The CFSAC webinar will be held on Thursday, June 29, 2017, from 12 p.m. until 5 p.m. (EST) and on Friday, June 30, 2017 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
This meeting will be broadcasted to the public as a webinar. A webinar is a virtual meeting. Registration is not required for the webinar.
Gustavo Seinos, MPH, Designated Federal Officer, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Advisory Committee, Department of Health and Human Services, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Room 728F.6, Washington, DC 20201. Please direct all inquiries to
The CFSAC is authorized under 42 U.S.C.217a, Section 222 of the Public Health Service Act, as amended. The purpose of the CFSAC is to provide advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), through the Assistant Secretary for Health (ASH), on issues related to myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS). The issues can include factors affecting access and care for persons with ME/CFS; the science and definition of ME/CFS; and broader public health, clinical, research, and educational issues related to ME/CFS.
The agenda for this meeting, call-in information and location will be posted on the CFSAC Web site
A half hour of public comment via telephone will be scheduled for the first half day of the webinar and an entire hour for the second day of the webinar. Individuals will have five minutes to present their comments. Priority will be given to individuals who have not provided public comment within the previous year. We are unable to place international calls for public comments. To request a time slot for public comment, please send an email to
Individuals who would like for their testimony to be provided to the Committee members should submit a copy of the testimony prior to the meeting. It is preferred, but not required, that the submitted testimony be prepared in digital format and typed using a 12-pitch font. Copies of the written comment must not exceed 5 single-space pages, and it is preferred, but not required that the document be prepared in the MS Word format. Please note that PDF files, handwritten notes, charts, and photographs cannot be accepted. Materials submitted should not include sensitive personal information, such as social security number, birthdates, driver's license number, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. If you wish to remain anonymous the document must specify this.
The Committee welcomes input on any topic related to ME/CFS.
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.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel, March 28, 2017, 08:00 a.m. to March 29, 2017, 01:00 p.m., Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814 which was published in the
The meeting notice is amended to change the meeting dates to May 1-2, 2017. The location and time will remain the same. The meeting is closed to the public.
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.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(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.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of final determination.
This document provides notice that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) has issued a final determination concerning the country of origin of certain gearmotors known as the R47DRE90M4 gearmotors. Based upon the facts presented, CBP has concluded that the country of origin of the R47DRE90M4 gearmotor is the United States for purposes of U.S. Government procurement.
The final determination was issued on March 16, 2017. A copy of the final determination is attached. Any party-at-interest, as defined in 19 CFR 177.22(d), may seek judicial review of this final determination within April 21, 2017.
Antonio J. Rivera, Valuation and Special Programs Branch, Regulations and Rulings, Office of Trade, at (202) 325-0226.
Notice is hereby given that on March 16, 2017, pursuant to subpart B of Part 177, U.S. Customs and Border Protection Regulations (19 CFR part 177, subpart B), CBP issued a final determination concerning the country of origin of a certain gearmotor known as the R47DRE90M4 gearmotor, which may be offered to the U.S. Government under an undesignated government procurement contract. This final determination, HQ H282391, was issued under procedures set forth at 19 CFR part 177, subpart B, which implements Title III of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2511-18). In the final determination, CBP concluded that imported components that are used to manufacture the R47DRE90M4 gearmotor are substantially transformed as a result of the assembly operations performed in the United States. Therefore, for purposes of U.S. Government procurement, the United States is the country of origin of the R47DRE90M4 gearmotor.
Section 177.29, CBP Regulations (19 CFR 177.29), provides that a notice of final determination shall be published in the
This is in response to your letter, dated July 18, 2016, requesting a final determination on behalf of SEW-Eurodrive, Inc. (“SEW USA”), pursuant to subpart B of Part 177, Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) Regulations (19 CFR 177.21
This final determination concerns the country of origin of the R47DRE90M4 gearmotor (“R47DRE90M4”). We note that SEW USA is a party-at-interest within the meaning of 19 CFR 177.22(d)(1) and is entitled to request this final determination.
SEW-Eurodrive is a group of worldwide companies that provide drive solutions for various applications in the automotive, building materials, and metal processing industry, among others. SEW-Eurodrive Gmbh & Co. KG (“SEW Germany”) is the parent company of SEW USA and other SEW-Eurodrive manufacturing plants around the world. SEW USA produces drive solution products, such as gearmotors, in the United States, incorporating SEW-Eurodrive-produced parts acquired from SEW Germany and other parts acquired from third-party vendors.
Gearmotors, such as the R47DRE90M4, are mainly comprised of two subassemblies: A gear box and a motor. Because SEW-Eurodrive applies a modular design to its products, certain components are interchangeable and customizable as necessary to meet specifications. As a result, SEW-Eurodrive gearmotors have over 2.1 million configurations, with the average gearmotor consisting of approximately 100 to 120 individual unique components, such as gears, shafts, housings, stators, rotors, and end-shields.
SEW USA seeks to sell the R47DRE90M4 to the U.S. Government. According to SEW USA, because the configurations may vary, it provides the following representative illustration of the R47DRE90M4 production process.
SEW USA uses over 100 separate parts to assemble the R47DRE90M4. According to SEW USA, many of these parts are acquired from SEW Germany (“SEW Parts”). These parts include gears, housings, stators, rotors, shafts, and end shields that are produced at SEW-Eurodrive manufacturing plants in Brazil, China, France, Germany, and the United States, among other designated and non-designated countries. SEW USA states while the majority of the SEW Parts are produced in countries designated and approved pursuant to the TAA, SEW-Eurodrive's “current system of inventory distribution to assembly centers makes it impossible to determine with specificity the country of origin for all component parts.” For this reason, many of these SEW Parts are shipped to SEW Germany as inventory and then redistributed according to need.
Additionally, SEW USA acquires other parts from third-party vendors (“Other Parts”). These parts include screws, nuts, bolts, shims, and rings. SEW USA considers the SEW Parts “essential” because they are the parts that SEW-Eurodrive must produce themselves, while the Other Parts are ubiquitous and can be purchased on the open market.
For the gear box subassembly, SEW USA procures the following materials: One pinion; three gears (three types); two pinion shafts (two types); three output shafts (three types); six keys (six types); three oil seals (three types); at least six deep groove ball bearings (six types); eight circlips (eight types); two space tubes (two types); two breather valves (two types); one gear housing; one supporting disc; one eye bolt; one sealing compound; one cylindrical roller bearing; five screw plugs (one type); one gearcase cover; six hex head screws (one type); one gasket; two closing caps (two types); and, at least seven shims (seven types).
For the motor subassembly, SEW USA procures the following materials: One rotor; one snap ring; five retaining rings (five types); four keys (four types); seven flanges (seven types); seven screw plugs (six types); two deep groove ball bearings (two types); eight machine screws (two types); one stator; four hex head screws (one type); four oil seals (four types); four fan guards (four types); two fans (two types); two aluminum fans (two types); one high inertia flywheel; one equalizing ring; one B-side bearing end shield; 20 hexagon nuts (five types); 28 studs (seven types); one oil flinger; one nameplate; two grooved pins (one type); one gasket for lower part; two terminal boxes for lower part (two types); ten screws (four types); one terminal block; three terminal clips (two types); one lock washer; one gasket for cover; one terminal box cover; one identification; one gasket; one drain hole plug; one protection canopy; four distance supports (one type); four pan head screws (one type); synthetic grease (quantity as needed); two bed plate kits (two types); and, one earth/ground terminal kit.
Once SEW USA receives the materials for the R47DRE90M assembly, the parts are placed into stock locations at the facility in the United States. From there, the parts needed to build the motor subassembly are gathered and taken to the assembly cell. SEW USA then assembles the motor subassembly in accordance with the following standard:
(1) the A-side end shield is heated;
(2) the rotor is cleared and inspected;
(3) two bearings are pressed onto the rotor shaft, and secured with hardware;
(4) an oil drain is screwed into the A-side end shield;
(5) the rotor is pressed into the A-side end shield;
(6) the stator is placed on top of the rotor and into the end shield;
(7) the B-side end shield is added along with the mounting hardware;
(8) the two end shields and the stator are bolted together;
(9) an oil seal is installed around the shaft and into the B-side end shield;
(10) a fan is attached to the rotor shaft extension on the B-side and secured with hardware;
(11) a fan cover is placed over the fan and secured to the stator;
(12) a terminal box is assembled and attached to the stator with hardware;
(13) an oil seal is placed in the A-side end shield;
(14) an oil flinger is placed on the A-side shaft extension; and,
(15) a pinion gear is placed onto the shaft with hardware to hold it in place.
The completed motor subassembly is visually inspected, and then it is moved to the next assembly location in SEW USA's facility, along with the remaining parts needed to build the gear box subassembly. SEW USA then assembles the gear box subassembly in accordance with the following standard:
(1) the pinion shaft has a bearing pressed onto it and hardware is then used to ensure accurate placement;
(2) a spacer is added and then a key;
(3) the shaft is placed into the housing along with the gear wheel that mates to the motor pinion;
(4) another bearing is added and the whole input assembly is pressed together in the gear housing;
(5) the output oil seal is prepared for further assembly;
(6) the output shaft has a bearing pressed onto it;
(7) a bearing is pressed into the housing and the output gear wheel is placed on top of it, with hardware holding both parts in place;
(8) the output shaft is slid into the wheel, bearing, and housing and is then pressed into place;
(9) hardware and shims are added to both the pinion and output shafts to ensure proper placement within the housing;
(10) the seals are assembled into the housing;
(11) the oil plugs are added to the housing; and,
(12) the inspection cover is placed onto the housing with an eye for moving the unit.
The completed gear box subassembly is then mated together with the motor subassembly to form the R47DRE90M4 gearmotor. The gearmotor is tested to ensure that it runs in the proper manner, and then oil is added per customer specifications and in accordance with the mounting position. Afterwards, the unit is hung and painted. Once dried, the unit is packed with any additional accompanying parts, and shipped to the customer.
According to SEW USA, the entire assembly requires approximately two hours. SEW USA states that this includes several quality checks throughout the process, and that each major action, such as the motor assembly or unit testing, must be signed off to ensure uniform quality of the product. SEW USA indicates that the process requires several skilled workers, who have previous experience or training in mechanics or gearing assembly. Particularly, the workers must have experience and expertise in assembly processes, which require operating presses, proper heating techniques for various tolerance fits, and use of assembly tooling. SEW USA notes the workers are trained until they reach the required proficiency in the operations, and this training process can take several weeks to a few months depending on the complexity of the assembly unit and experience of the worker.
What is the country of origin of the R47DRE90M4 for the purpose of U.S. government procurement?
Pursuant to subpart B of Part 177, 19 CFR 177.21
Under the rule of origin set forth under 19 U.S.C. 2518(4)(B):
An article is a product of a country or instrumentality only if (i) it is wholly the growth, product, or manufacture of that country or instrumentality, or (ii) in the case of an article which consists in whole or in part of materials from another country or instrumentality, it has been substantially transformed into a new and different article of commerce with a name, character, or use distinct from that of the article or articles from which it was so transformed.
In rendering advisory rulings and final determinations for purposes of U.S. government procurement, CBP applies the provisions of subpart B of Part 177 consistent with the Federal Acquisition Regulations.
. . . an article that is mined, produced, or manufactured in the United States or that is substantially transformed in the United States into a new and different article of commerce with a name, character, or use distinct from that of the article or articles from which it was transformed.
48 CFR § 25.003.
In determining whether the combining of parts or materials constitutes a substantial transformation, the determinative issue is the extent of operations performed and whether the parts lose their identity and become an integral part of the new article.
In order to determine whether a substantial transformation occurs when components of various origin are assembled into completed products, CBP considers the totality of the circumstances and makes such determinations on a case-by-case basis. The country of origin of the item's components, extent of the processing that occurs within a country, and whether such processing renders a product with a new name, character, and use are primary considerations in such cases. Additionally, factors such as the resources expended on product design and development, extent and nature of post-assembly inspection and testing procedures, and the degree of skill required during the actual manufacturing process may be relevant when determining whether a substantial transformation has occurred. No one factor is determinative.
In a number of rulings (
SEW USA contends that the various components, imported into the United States for assembly of the R47DRE90M4, are substantially transformed during the processing which occurs in the United States. SEW USA notes that the assembly process is complex, requiring skilled workers, and that the various components cannot function until assembled into the completed gearmotor. In support, SEW USA cites to HRL 563236, dated July 6, 2005; HRL 557208, dated July 24, 1993; HRL 734979, dated September 3, 1993; HRL 73046, dated May 10, 1991; HRL 734560, dated July 20, 1992; HRL 559067, dated September 19, 2995; and, New York Ruling (“NY”) 872132, dated April 9, 1992.
While the cases cited by SEW USA consider whether imported parts were substantially transformed due to assembly operations in the United States, the assembled products in these cited cases were telephones, except for NY 872132 (holding that Japanese gear boxes were substantially transformed in the United States when assembled with electronic motors to create a gearmotor). Similar to NY 872132, we note the following rulings, which we find are more analogous to the situation in this case.
In HRL 559703, dated August 23, 1996, numerous parts were sourced from vendors located in the United States and/or other countries. These parts were then assembled into various
In HRL H022169, dated May 2, 2008, a glider (consisting of a frame, finished cab, axels, and wheels) was imported into the United States and assembled with approximately 87 different component parts (including the essential parts: A motor, controller, and charger of Canadian origin; a gear box and axel of U.S. origin; and brakes of Indian origin) into an electric mini-truck. The process consisted of eight assembly work stations involving attachment and installation operations, as well as quality control and testing of the product. It was held that the imported glider and other foreign components were substantially transformed into an electric mini-truck by the assembly operations that took place in the United States.
In this case, we find that the imported parts are substantially transformed as a result of the assembly operations in the United States. We note that building the R47DRE90M4 in the United States consists of assembling together 131 unique parts, and at least a total of 200 parts. Similarly to HRL 559703 and HRL H022169, production of the R47DRE90M4 requires importing numerous parts of various origins, which are used to first assemble the gear box and motor subassemblies, and then to assemble the complete gearmotor, through a complex operation with specialized skill and expertise. As noted in HRL H075667 and HRL 734292, the complex operation in this case involves at least 27 steps that take approximately two hours. We note that SEW USA's workers are hired with previous experience in mechanical fields, and undergo additional training by SEW USA, which may endure several weeks to a few months, in order to reach the proficiency in the assembly operations that is required by the company. Under the described assembly process, the foreign components lose their individual identities and become an integral part of a new article, the R47DRE90M4, possessing a new name, character and use. Based upon the information before us, we find that the components that are used to manufacture the R47DRE90M4 are substantially transformed as a result of the assembly operations performed in the United States, and that the country of origin of the R47DRE90M4 for government procurement purposes is the United States.
The components that are used to manufacture the R47DRE90M4 are substantially transformed as a result of the assembly operations performed in the United States. Therefore, the country of origin of the R47DRE90M4 for government procurement purposes is the United States.
Notice of this final determination will be given in the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will submit the information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission will describe the nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents, the estimated burden (
Comments must be submitted on or before April 21, 2017.
Submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the Desk Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and sent via electronic mail to
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection should be made to Director, Records Management Division, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472-3100, or email address
This proposed information collection previously published in the
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of applications for permit.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) prohibits activities with listed species unless Federal authorization is acquired that allows such activities.
We must receive comments or requests for documents on or before April 21, 2017.
•
•
When submitting comments, please indicate the name of the applicant and the PRT# you are commenting on. We will post all comments on
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
Send your request for copies of applications or comments and materials concerning any of the applications to the contact listed under
Please make your requests or comments as specific as possible. Please confine your comments to issues for which we seek comments in this notice, and explain the basis for your comments. Include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial data you include.
The comments and recommendations that will be most useful and likely to influence agency decisions are: (1) Those supported by quantitative information or studies; and (2) Those that include citations to, and analyses of, the applicable laws and regulations. We will not consider or include in our administrative record comments we receive after the close of the comment period (see DATES) or comments delivered to an address other than those listed above (see
Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the street address listed under
To help us carry out our conservation responsibilities for affected species, and in consideration of section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
The applicant requests a permit to import saliva samples obtained noninvasively from wild Bornean orangutans (
The applicant requests a permit to import a shoulder mount and skin of a cape mountain zebra (
The applicant requests a permit to import biological samples from wild giant Galapagos tortoise (
The applicant requests a permit to renew his application for red lechwe (
The applicant requests a permit to import one female captive-bred amur leopard (
The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for the Great green macaw (
The applicant requests a permit to collect skin, scute, and blood samples from hawksbill sea turtles (
The following applicants each request a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok (
The public is invited to comment on the following applications for approval to conduct certain activities with bird species covered under the Wild Bird Conservation Act of 1992 (16 U.S.C. 4901-4916). This notice is provided pursuant to section 112(4) of the Wild Bird Conservation Act of 1992 (50 CFR 15.26(c)).
The applicant wishes to establish a cooperative breeding program for Papuan hornbill (
The applicant wishes to be an active participant in this program along with the Dallas World Aquarium, Dallas, Texas, and John Bornemann, Dover, Florida.
If approved, the program will be overseen by the Zoological Association of America, Punta Gorda, Florida.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this notice by one of the methods listed in
If you submit a comment via
We will post all hardcopy comments on
Wild Bird Conservation Act of 1992 (16 U.S.C. 4901-4916); Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531).
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of intent.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Pocatello Field Office, Pocatello, Idaho, intends to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to analyze the potential impacts of approving the proposed Caldwell Canyon mine and reclamation plan (MRP). The EIS will also consider
This notice initiates the public scoping process for the EIS. Comments on issues may be submitted in writing until April 21, 2017. The date(s) and location(s) of any scoping meetings will be announced at least 15 days in advance through local media, newspapers, and the BLM Web site at:
You may submit comments related to the Caldwell Canyon Mine Project by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Documents pertinent to this proposal may be examined at the Pocatello Field Office.
David Alderman, BLM Pocatello Field Office, telephone (208) 478-6369; address 4350 Cliffs Drive, Pocatello, Idaho 83204;
P4 Production, LLC (P4), a subsidiary of Monsanto Company, has developed and submitted a mine and reclamation plan (MRP) for the Caldwell Canyon Phosphate Mine. The proposed mine is located along Schmid Ridge, approximately 13 air miles northeast of Soda Springs, Idaho. The BLM will serve as the lead agency for conducting the necessary environmental analysis. The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, Idaho Department of Lands, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will be cooperating agencies. Although a small amount of U.S. Forest Service (USFS) surface land is within the proposed project area, the USFS will not participate as a cooperating agency. The affected USFS lands are located on BLM-administered phosphate leases owned by Agrium, Inc. (Agrium) and managed as part of the Dry Valley Mine. Dry Valley Mine has been mined and fully reclaimed per the existing MRP for that project.
The proposed action includes a haul road across the reclaimed surface of the Dry Valley Mine and the partial filling in of the open Panel D pit with waste rock from Caldwell Canyon. A modification of the Dry Valley MRP to allow construction of the haul road and backfilling of the Dry Valley D Pit is necessary and will be evaluated as part of this EIS. No USFS special use permits or other decisions are needed to permit the project. The USFS will be routinely apprised regarding the progress of the environmental analysis and will be consulted regarding project aspects affecting USFS lands.
Operations at Caldwell Canyon would consist of open pit mining on the Federal Phosphate Leases IDI-02, IDI-014080, and IDI-13738. The mine would also include State of Idaho Mineral Lease E07959. P4 is requesting modifications to phosphate lease boundaries for each of these leases. All of the proposed lease modifications contain part of the proposed mine pit and are necessary to maximize ore recovery. Issuing these lease modifications is a discretionary decision that will be analyzed in the EIS. New mining operations at the Caldwell Canyon Mine would occur on Federal phosphate leases and public lands administered by the BLM, on National Forest System lands administered by the USFS, on a State of Idaho phosphate lease and state lands administered by Idaho Department of Lands (IDL), and on private lands. The public lands lie in the BLM Pocatello Field Office. The leases grant exclusive rights to the leaseholder to mine and otherwise dispose of the phosphate resource at the sites. Through development of this EIS, the BLM will analyze environmental impacts of the proposed mining and reclamation operations and reasonable alternatives to the proposed action. Appropriate mitigation measures will also be formulated by the BLM in conjunction with the proponent.
The BLM Idaho State Director, or delegated official, will make a decision regarding approval of the MRP and appropriate mitigation measures, the proposed Federal phosphate lease modifications and other appropriate land use authorizations for activities that take place off leased lands. Decisions will be based on BLM's authority, the EIS analysis, and any recommendations the cooperating agencies may have related to their jurisdiction, expertise, or permitting actions.
The proposed action has been reviewed for consistency with the 2012 Pocatello Field Office Resource Management Plan and, at this time, the project is generally consistent with the management direction in the Resource Management Plan. It is unlikely that any amendments to the Resource Management Plan will be needed.
The IDL will make an independent decision on approving a mine plan for state lease EO7959. IDL is a cooperating agency for the EIS and will consider the BLM's EIS in its decision making.
The Army Corps of Engineers may also make decisions related to permits under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
The MRP for Caldwell Canyon includes development of two open mine pits: North Pit and South Pit. Mining operations would be conducted over an estimated 40-year period using a pit panel mining method. Mining would be initiated in the mid-point of the South Pit and proceed southward. Approximately six million tons of initial overburden materials would be hauled to the inactive Dry Valley Mine Panel D and placed as backfill. All other overburden generated from each new panel would be used to backfill a previously mined panel. Once mining reaches the south end of the South Pit, mining would resume at the mid-point of the South Pit and proceed northward in the same fashion.
Ore would be transported via a two mile-long haul road linking the mine pit areas to an ore stockpile located off-lease at the East Caldwell Area. The haul road is mostly on lease or on private land but a small section is off lease on BLM land and will require a right of way. The ore stockpile would be located adjacent to an ore loadout facility, which would be used to load ore into a train for rail transport by existing rail line to P4's processing plant at Soda Springs. The proposed stockpile and ore loadout site was previously used by Agrium during active mining operations at the Dry Valley Mine. Selected materials generated from development of the initial pit panel would be used for the construction of haul roads. Once P4 has hauled the initial overburden to the Dry Valley Pit
Hauling overburden from the Caldwell Canyon South Pit to the open pit at Dry Valley Mine would require construction of an additional two-mile long haul road from the ore stockpile area to the Dry Valley Pit (Panel D Pit) across reclaimed areas of the Dry Valley Mine. Construction, operation, maintenance, grading, and reclamation of this haul road would be the responsibility of P4 and are addressed in the MRP for Caldwell Canyon. Agrium, as the Dry Valley mine owner, is ultimately responsible for the final reclamation at Dry Valley. Agrium would place the final cover/growth media on the partially backfilled Panel D pit and haul road and revegetate the reclaimed surface.
Mining below the water table would occur at the south and north ends of the Caldwell Canyon South Pit; mining in these areas is expected to occur during years 6-8 and 14-16 of production, respectively. In these locations, P4 would install ground water interception wells to draw down the water table to an elevation below the planned pit bottom. This would reduce the amount of ground water flowing into the pit. The water would be stored in water management ponds until water quality meets infiltration criteria at which point it would be infiltrated into the ground water. The sequestered water would not be allowed to leave the mine site other than by infiltration or evaporation. With the exception of one culverted haul road crossing, P4's MRP proposes to avoid Caldwell Creek, which is a small non-connected/non-fish bearing stream that runs between the north and south pits.
All overburden and waste material would be backfilled into mine pit panels and reclaimed using an earthen cap to reduce infiltration of precipitation, groundwater and surface water, and to support establishment of vegetation to meet post-closure land use goals. The proposed cap is a capillary break design consisting of 1.5 feet of topsoil and 2.5 feet of alluvium and colluvium over two feet of cherty material taken from overburden at the site.
Mining operations at Caldwell Canyon would disturb approximately 1,530 acres. Some mine facilities (ore stockpile, tipple, water management infrastructure, offices, shop and storage facilities) would be located in the East Caldwell Area in Dry Valley. Additional facilities located at the Caldwell Canyon mine site include service and haul roads, water pipelines, water management ponds, sediment control ponds, infiltration galleries, growth media stockpiles, and other facilities.
P4 and Agrium would obtain governmental agency approvals necessary to allow placement of overburden into the Dry Valley Pit in accordance with a proposed Dry Valley Mine Plan Modification. The mine plan modification would be analyzed as part of this EIS.
The EIS will analyze the Proposed Action (approving the MRP and lease modifications) and the No Action Alternative. Other mining alternatives may be considered that could resolve important issues or provide mitigation of potential impacts.
The tentative EIS project schedule is as follows:
• Begin public scoping period and meetings: Early 2017.
• Estimated date for draft EIS and associated comment period: Fall 2017.
• Final EIS publication: Spring 2018.
• Record of Decision: Spring 2018.
The purpose of the public scoping process is to identify relevant issues that will influence the scope of the environmental analysis, including alternatives, and guide the process for developing the EIS. The BLM has identified some preliminary issues associated with the Caldwell Canyon Mine Project:
• Potential impacts to groundwater and surface water quantity and quality;
• Impacts to vegetation including rare species and species important to Native Americans;
• Impacts to soil and mineral resources;
• Impacts to air quality from vehicle emissions and fugitive dust;
• Potential reductions of wildlife and their habitats, including the Greater Sage-Grouse;
• Potential reductions in livestock grazing;
• Impacts to wetlands and riparian habitat;
• Impacts to recreation including hunting and camping;
• Socio-economic effects such as increased employment and the continued operation of an elemental phosphorous plant and support businesses;
• Impacts to Native American rights, treaties, and land uses;
• Impacts to visual resources from the development of the mine; and
• Impacts to resources from the cumulative effects of the multiple mines in southeast Idaho.
The BLM will continue to refine these issues during the scoping process.
The BLM will use and coordinate the NEPA scoping process to help fulfill the public involvement requirements under the National Historic Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. 306108) as provided in 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3). The information about historic and cultural resources within the area potentially affected by the proposed action will assist the BLM in identifying and evaluating impacts to such resources.
The BLM will consult with Indian tribes on a government-to-government basis in accordance with Executive Order 13175 and other policies. Tribal concerns, including impacts on Indian trust assets and treaty rights and potential impacts to cultural resources, will be given due consideration.
Federal, State, and local agencies, along with Tribes and other stakeholders that may be interested in or affected by the proposed Caldwell Canyon Mine are invited to participate in the scoping process. Agencies with regulatory authority or special expertise, if eligible, may request or be requested by the BLM to participate in the development of the environmental analysis as a cooperating agency.
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.
40 CFR 1501.7.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
Notice of intent to initiate public scoping and prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
We, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), are notifying the public that we intend to prepare a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) to evaluate the impacts of alternatives relating to the San Juan Coal Company's proposed mining plan modification for the Deep Lease Extension (DLE). The EIS will analyze the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the Company's DLE mining plan modification, Federal Coal Lease NM-99144, at the existing San Juan Mine. The EIS will also analyze the effects of coal combustion at the Public Service Company of New Mexico's San Juan Generating Station (SJGS or the Generating Station). OSMRE is soliciting public comments on the proposed Project, scope of the EIS, and the significant issues that should be analyzed in the EIS.
• Monday, April 10th from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. at the Indian Pueblo Cultural Center at 2401 12th St. NW., Albuquerque, New Mexico.
• Tuesday, April 11th from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. at the Ute Community Center at 785 Sunset Road, Towaoc, Colorado.
• Wednesday, April 12th, from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. at the Shiprock High School approximately a half-mile west on US-64 from US-491 in Shiprock, New Mexico.
• Thursday, April 13th, from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. at the Farmington City Civic Center at 200 West Arrington St., Farmington, New Mexico.
• Friday, April 14th, from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. at the Durango Community Recreation Center at 2700 Main Avenue, Durango, Colorado.
At the scoping meetings, the public is encouraged to submit resource information, and identify topics to be considered in the development of the EIS. Written and oral comments will be accepted at each meeting.
You may submit written comments by one of the following methods:
•
We request that you send comments only by one of the methods described above.
For further information about the Project and/or to have your name added to the mailing list, contact: Gretchen Pinkham, OSMRE Project Manager, at 303-293-5088 or by email at
As established by the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) of 1977, as amended (30 U.S.C. 1201-1328), and the Cooperative agreement between the State of NM and the DOI Secretary in accordance with Section 523(c) of SMCRA, and 30 U.S.C. 1273(c), the Company's Permit Application Package (PAP) must be reviewed and approved before the Company may conduct underground mining and reclamation operations to develop the DLE Federal Coal Lease NM-99144. The NM Mining and Minerals Division (NM MMD) is the regulatory authority responsible for reviewing and approving PAPs, and OSMRE is responsible for the oversight of the NM MMD coal program. OSMRE is also responsible for making recommendations to the Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management (ASLM) regarding decisions on proposed mining plan modifications for federally leased coal (30 CFR 476.13). The NM MMD approved the PAP for the DLE on October 22, 1999. OSMRE submitted a mining plan decision document to the ASLM which was approved by the ASLM on January 17, 2008, which included a Finding of No Significant Impact signed by OSMRE in 2007 and the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) 1998 decision record on the amendment to the 1988 Farmington Resource Management Plan to include the Federal Coal Lease NM-99144 for the San Juan Mine's DLE.
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, 42 United States Code (U.S.C.) 4231-4347; the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA, 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 1500 through 1508; and the Department of the Interior's (DOI) NEPA regulations, 43 CFR part 46, we, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), are notifying the public that we intend to prepare a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) to evaluate the impacts of alternatives relating to the San Juan Coal Company's proposed mining plan modification for the Deep Lease Extension (DLE). Preparation of the EIS will be completed pursuant to the court-approved Voluntary Remand, as approved by the United States District Court for the District of NM on August 31, 2016, in the case entitled
The above-referenced court order stipulates that the Secretary's approval of the 2008 mining plan modification for the DLE would be vacated if OSMRE does not complete the EIS process and issue a decision by August 31, 2019, absent a court order for good cause shown. As a result, OSMRE has identified a need to re-evaluate its previous mining plan modification recommendation for this area based, in part, on (1) the PAP submitted to OSMRE and NM MMD, and (2) new information regarding potentially affected resources available since the 2008 MPDD approval.
The underground operations at San Juan Mine use longwall mining methods consisting of one longwall miner and continuous miner in the development portion of the Mine. Underground mining occurs within multiple state and federal lease areas at the San Juan Mine; these are generally referred to as the Deep Lease and DLE Areas. Since authorization in 2008, the Company has mined approximately 18 million tons of coal in the DLE. The mine currently employs approximately 360 people. The approved NM MMD permit area would not increase from its present approximate size of 17,726 acres. A total of approximately 15,404 acres of federally owned coal remains within the current San Juan Mine permit area, approximately 4,484 acres of which is within the DLE. The 2008 mining plan modification would not increase any acres of federal surface lands or any acres of federal coal to the approved permit area, but would authorize the recovery of approximately 36.6 million tons of federal coal from 4,484 acres of federal coal from the DLE. The remaining coal reserves in the DLE and other approved mining areas will allow the mine to continue operating at the anticipated mining rates until approximately 2033. The post-mining land use remains grazing and wildlife habitat.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM); U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and NM MMD will cooperate with OSMRE in the preparation of the EIS. Additional Cooperating Agencies may be identified during the scooping process.
OSMRE will also consult the New Mexico State Historic Preservation Officer in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended (54 U.S.C. 300101-307108), as provided for in 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3) concurrently with the NEPA process, including the public involvement requirements. Native American tribal consultations will be conducted in accordance with DOI policy. Federal, Tribal, State and local agencies, along with other stakeholders that may be interested in or affected by OSMRE's decision on the Project, are invited to participate in the scoping process and, if eligible, may request or be requested by OSMRE to participate as a cooperating agency.
As part of its consideration of impacts of the Project on threatened and endangered species, OSMRE will consult the USFWS pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
In addition to compliance with NEPA, NHPA Section 106, and ESA Section 7, all federal actions will be in compliance with applicable requirements of the SMCRA; the CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1251-1387; the Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q; the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990, as amended, 25 U.S.C. 3001-3013; and Executive Orders relating to Environmental Justice, Sacred Sites, and Tribal Consultation, and other applicable laws and regulations.
The Company's mining plan modification provides for continued development of the DLE, Federal Coal Lease NM-99144, within the San Juan Mine permit area. Due to the retirement of coal fired Units 2 and 3 at the Generating Station, the annual production rate of the DLE would be reduced from the current annual production rate of 4-6 million tons to an annual production rate of 2-3 million tons for approximately 10-15 years beginning in 2017. The Generating Station, located approximately 4 miles northeast of Waterflow and 15 miles west of Farmington, NM, is operated by Public Service Company of New Mexico on its own behalf and on behalf of eight other owners. The Generating Station currently operates four coal-fired units which generate 1800 megawatts and provide power to Arizona, NM, Utah, and California. However, Units 2 and 3 will be retired by December 31, 2017. The Generating Station's Units 1 and 4 would remain operational, generating approximately 910 megawatts burning approximately 3 million tons of coal per year. Federal Coal Lease NM-99144 encompasses 4,483.88 acres and includes:
Upon completion of the EIS and issuance of the Record of Decision, OSMRE will submit a mining plan decision document to the ASLM to recommend approval, disapproval, or approval with conditions of the proposed mining plan modification for the continuation or cessation of the San Juan Mine to mine the DLE within Federal Coal Lease NM-99144 within the three year period required under the Voluntary Remand. The ASLM will decide whether the mining plan modification is approved, disapproved, or approved with conditions.
The analysis in the EIS will address direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives. Since the NOI must be published prior to the scoping process, in compliance with 40 CFR 1501.7, OSMRE may need to modify the Proposed Action and Alternatives from those presented in this NOI based on issues raised during scoping. The scoping process provides, among other things, the opportunity for interested parties to identify issues and propose alternative actions. As explained in the DOI regulations for implementing NEPA, the input received during scoping efforts is important to help define the issues for consideration. However, suggestions obtained during scoping are not binding but are only important options for the lead agency to consider (43 CFR 46.235(b)).
Alternatives for the Project that are currently under consideration include:
(a) Proposed Action Alternative—The DLE as proposed and approved in the PAP and the 2008 Mining Plan Decision Document.
(b) Alternate Mining Technique, room and pillar and retreat mining—An alternative mining technique alternative would utilize room and pillar and retreat mining methods instead of the current longwall mining technique
(c) No Action Alternative—as described above, the court-approved Voluntary Remand will vacate the 2008 mining plan modification for the DLE if the EIS and Mining Plan Decision Document are not complete within three years, by August 31, 2019. Therefore, in this instance, the No Action Alternative is to continue with the present course of action (mining) until that action is changed (through vacatur of the mining plan approval). Implementation of the no action alternative would result in the discontinuation of mining activities at San Juan Mine and the final closure and reclamation activities at the Mine. As a consequence of Mine shutdown, the Generating Station would likely cease operations after any stockpiled coal is used. Considering mining activities in the DLE have been ongoing since 2008 and will continue throughout the NEPA process, the baseline conditions for the No Action Alternative will reflect the conditions present in August 2019, when the ASLM has made a decision on the mining plan modification based on OSMRE's recommendation in the mine plan decision document.
(d) Any environmentally preferable alternatives that may be identified in accordance with 40 CFR part 1500 and 43 CFR part 46.
The purpose of the public scoping process is to determine relevant issues that could influence the scope of the environmental analysis, including alternatives, and guide the process for developing the EIS and related compliance efforts. The final range of reasonable alternatives to be considered will be determined based, in part, on the issues raised during the scoping process.
At present, OSMRE has identified the following preliminary issues and potential impacts:
• Federally listed threatened and endangered species, including but not limited to the Razorback sucker (
• Air quality and climate change;
• Surface and ground water resources (including potential wetlands and floodplains);
• Environmental Justice considerations;
• Cultural and historic resources;
• Biological resources (including wildlife, fish, and vegetation);
• Visual resources;
• Public health and safety;
• Land use and recreational resources;
• Transportation and access;
• Socioeconomics; and
• Noise and vibration.
In accordance with the CEQ's regulations for implementing NEPA and the DOI's NEPA regulations, OSMRE solicits public comments on the scope of the EIS and significant issues that should be addressed in the EIS.
Written comments, including email comments, should be sent to OSMRE at the addresses given in the
If you would like to be placed on the mailing list to receive future information, please contact the person listed under
See
Persons needing reasonable accommodations in order to attend and participate in the public scoping meetings should contact the person listed under the
OSMRE will make comments, including name of respondent, address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information, available for public review during normal business hours. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, those who submit anonymous comments may not have standing to appeal the subsequent decision.
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—will be publicly available. 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.
All submissions from organizations or businesses and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses will be available for public review to the extent consistent with applicable law.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Correction of notice.
Correction is made to the March 23, 2017 deadline for filing pre-hearing briefs and statements in the
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on January 24, 2017, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on behalf of Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. of Sunnyvale, California and ATI Technologies ULC of Canada. The complaint was amended on March 2, 2017. The complaint, as amended, alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain graphics systems, components thereof, and consumer products containing the same by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,633,506 (“the '506 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 7,796,133 (“the '133 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 8,760,454 (“the '454 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 9,582,846 (“the `846 patent”). The amended complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists or is in the process of being established as required by the applicable Federal statute.
The complainants request that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.
The amended complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at
The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-2560.
The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2016).
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain graphics systems, components thereof, and consumer products containing the same by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1-9 of the '506 patent; claims 1-13 and 40 of the '133 patent; claims 2-5, 6-10, and 11 of the '454 patent; and claims 1-8 of the '846 patent, and whether an industry in the United States exists or is in the process of being established as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainants are:
(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:
(c) The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and
(3) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
Responses to the amended complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the amended complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the amended complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the amended complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the amended complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the amended complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at
The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of Ivoclar Vivadent AG, Ivoclar Vivadent, Inc., and Ardent Inc. on March 17, 2017. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain dental ceramics, products thereof, and methods of making the same. The complaint names as respondents GC Corporation of Japan and GC America, Inc. of Alsip, IL. The complainants request that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order, cease and desist orders and impose a bond upon respondents' alleged infringing articles during the 60-day Presidential review period pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j).
Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five (5) pages in length, inclusive of attachments, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.
Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to § 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3206”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
By order of the Commission.
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Criminal Justice Information Services Division (CJIS), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until May 22, 2017.
All comments, suggestions, or questions regarding additional information, to include obtaining a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions, should be directed to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division, National Instant Criminal Background Check System Section, Module A-3, 1000 Custer Hollow Road, Clarksburg, West Virginia 26306, or 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:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) proposal titled, “Unemployment Insurance Benefits Operations Self-Assessment Report of Responses,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for use in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995. Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before April 21, 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-ETA, 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 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email at
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR seeks PRA authority for the Unemployment Insurance Benefits Operations Self-Assessment Report of Responses information collection. The report of responses to the state self-assessment will support periodic reviews conducted by ETA Regional and National Office staff for purposes of oversight and monitoring as well as providing technical assistance. This will enable the ETA to assess a state's activities and its administrative compliance with Federal law. The information gathered from the self-assessments will enable ETA Regional Office staff to work with the state to identify areas where performance improvements are needed. The results will be used to inform ETA technical assistance efforts nationally and with individual states. The results will also enable a more robust and effective collection and dissemination of state best practices. Social Security Act section 303(a)(6) authorizes this information collection.
This proposed 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 if the collection of information 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 Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Coal Mine Operator Response to Schedule for Submission of Additional Evidence and Operator Response to Notice of Claim” 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 April 21, 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-OWCP, 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-
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Coal Mine Operator Response to Schedule for Submission of Additional Evidence (Form CM-2970) and Operator Response to Notice of Claim (Form CM-2970a) information collection. The OWCP, Division of Coal Mine Workers' Compensation (DCMWC) administers the Black Lung Benefits Act (30 U.S.C. 901 et seq.), which provides benefits to coal miners totally disabled due to pneumoconiosis and their surviving dependents. When the DCMWC makes a preliminary analysis of a claimant's eligibility for benefits, and if a coal mine operator has been identified as potentially liable for payment of those benefits, the responsible operator is notified of the preliminary analysis. Regulations codified at 20 CFR part 725 require that a coal mine operator be identified and notified of potential liability as early in the adjudication process as possible. Forms CM-2790 and CM-2970a are used for claims filed after January 19, 2001, and indicate that the coal mine operator will submit additional evidence or respond to the notice of claim. Black Lung Benefits Act section 426 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 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,
Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
Request for public comments.
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 collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This program helps to assure 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 Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) is soliciting comments on the information collection for Escape and Evacuation Plans.
All comments must be received on or before May 22, 2017.
Comments concerning the information collection requirements of this notice may be sent by any of the methods listed below.
•
•
•
Sheila McConnell, Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA, at
Section 103(h) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine
Title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations (30 CFR) 57.11053 requires the development of an escape and evacuation plan specifically addressing the unique conditions of each underground metal and nonmetal mine. Section 57.11053 also requires that revisions be made as mining progresses. The plan must be available to representatives of MSHA and conspicuously posted at locations convenient to all persons on the surface and underground. The mine operator and MSHA are required to jointly review the plan at least once every six months.
The following information is required with each escape and evacuation plan submission:
(1) Mine maps or diagrams showing directions of principal air flow, location of escape routes, and locations of existing telephones, primary fans, primary fan controls, fire doors, ventilation doors, and refuge chambers;
(2) Procedures to show how the miners will be notified of an emergency;
(3) An escape plan for each working area in the mine, including instructions showing how each working area should be evacuated;
(4) A firefighting plan;
(5) Surface procedures to be followed in an emergency, including the notification of proper authorities and the preparation of rescue equipment and other equipment which may be used in rescue and recovery operations; and
(6) A statement of the availability of emergency communication and transportation facilities, emergency power, and ventilation, and the location of rescue personnel and equipment.
MSHA is soliciting comments concerning the proposed information collection related to Escape and Evacuation Plans. MSHA is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information has practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of MSHA's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Suggest methods to 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,
The information collection request will be available on
The public may also examine publicly available documents at USDOL-Mine Safety and Health Administration, 201 12th South, Suite 4E401, Arlington, VA 22202-5452. Sign in at the receptionist's desk on the 4th floor via the East elevator.
Questions about the information collection requirements may be directed to the person listed in the
This request for collection of information contains provisions for Escape and Evacuation Plans. MSHA has updated the data with respect to the number of respondents, responses, burden hours, and burden costs supporting this information collection request.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and 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.
Legal Services Corporation.
Solicitation for proposals for the provision of civil legal services.
The Legal Services Corporation (LSC) is a federally established and funded organization that funds civil legal aid organizations across the country and in the U.S. territories. Its mission is to expand access to justice by funding high-quality legal representation for low-income people in civil matters.
In anticipation of a congressional appropriation to LSC for Fiscal Year 2018, LSC hereby announces the availability of funds for grants to be made in calendar year 2018 and is soliciting grant proposals from interested parties who are qualified to provide effective, efficient, and high-quality civil legal services to eligible clients in the service area(s) of the states and territories identified below. The availability and the exact amount of congressionally appropriated funds, as well as the date, terms, and conditions of funds available for grants for calendar year 2018, have not been determined.
See
Legal Services Corporation—Notice of Funds Availability, 3333 K Street NW., Third Floor, Washington, DC 20007-3522.
The Office of Program Performance by email at
Applicants must file a Notice of Intent to Compete (NIC) to participate in the LSC grants process. Applicants must file the NIC by May 5, 2017, 5:00 p.m. E.D.T. The Request for Proposals (RFP), which contains the NIC and grant proposal guidelines, proposal content requirements, service area descriptions, and selection criteria, will be available on or around the week of April 10, 2017. In addition to submitting the grant proposal, applicants for competitive grant awards must also respond to the LSC Fiscal Grantee Funding Application (FGFA). The FGFA will also be available on or around the week of April 10, 2017. The RFP and the FGFA may be accessed at
LSC is seeking proposals from: (1) Non-profit organizations that have as a purpose the provision of legal assistance to eligible clients; (2) private attorneys; (3) groups of private attorneys or law firms; (4) state or local governments; and (5) sub-state regional planning and coordination agencies that are composed of sub-state areas and whose governing boards are controlled by locally elected officials.
The service areas for which LSC is requesting grant proposals are listed below. Service area descriptions are available at
Office of Government Information Services (OGIS), National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App) and the second United States Open Government National Action Plan (NAP) released on December 5, 2013, NARA announces an upcoming Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Advisory Committee meeting.
The meeting will be April 20, 2017, from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. EDT. You must register for the meeting by April 18, 2017, at 5 p.m. EDT.
Amy Bennett, Designated Federal Officer for this committee, by mail at National Archives and Records Administration; Office of Government Information Services; 8601 Adelphi Road—OGIS; College Park, MD 20740-6001, by telephone at (202) 741-5770, or by email at
This program will be live-streamed on the US National Archives' YouTube channel,
National Science Foundation.
Notice and request for comments.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is announcing plans to request clearance of this collection. In accordance with the requirement of Section 3506(2)(A) of the Paperwork reduction Act of 1955, we are providing opportunity for public comment on this action. After obtaining and considering public comment, NSF will prepare the submission requesting that OMB approve clearance of this collection with changes for no longer than three (3) years.
Written comments on this notice must be received by May 22, 2017 to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.
The document will be available on the NSF's Office of Polar Programs' home page site and on the US Antarctic Programs Web page (
NSF Form 1700, Medical Clearance Process for Deployment to the Polar Regions furnishes information to the NSF regarding the physical, dental, and mental health status for all individuals (except DoD-uniformed service personnel) who anticipate deploying to Antarctica under the auspices of the United States Antarctic Program or to certain regions of the Arctic sponsored by the NSF/GEO/Office of Polar Programs. The information is used to determine whether an individual is physically and mentally suited to endure the extreme hardships imposed by the Arctic and Antarctic continents, while also performing specific duties as specified by their employers.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Exemption and combined license amendment; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is granting an exemption to allow a departure from the certification information of Tier 1 of the generic design control document (DCD) and is issuing License Amendment Nos. 69 and 68 to Combined Licenses (COLs), NPF-91 and NPF-92. The COLs were issued to Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., and Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, MEAG Power SPVM, LLC, MEAG Power SPVJ, LLC, MEAG Power SPVP, LLC, Authority of Georgia, and the City of Dalton, Georgia (the licensee); for construction and operation of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) Units 3 and 4, located in Burke County, Georgia.
The granting of the exemption allows the changes to Tier 1 information asked for in the amendment. Because the acceptability of the exemption was determined in part by the acceptability of the amendment, the exemption and amendment are being issued concurrently.
The exemption and amendment were issued on February 9, 2017.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2008-0252 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
•
•
Paul Kallan, Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2809; email:
The NRC is granting exemptions from paragraph B of section III, “Scope and Contents,” of appendix D, “Design Certification Rule for the AP1000,” to part 52 of title 10 of the
Part of the justification for granting the exemptions was provided by the review of the amendments. Because the exemption is necessary in order to issue the requested license amendment, the NRC granted the exemptions and issued the amendments concurrently, rather than in sequence. This included issuing a combined safety evaluation containing the NRC staff's review of both the exemption request and the license amendment. The exemptions met all applicable regulatory criteria set forth in 10 CFR 50.12, 10 CFR 52.7, and Section VIII.A.4 of appendix D to 10 CFR part 52. The license amendments were found to be acceptable as well. The combined safety evaluation is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16363A436.
Identical exemption documents (except for referenced unit numbers and license numbers) were issued to the licensee for VEGP Units 3 and 4 (COLs NPF-91 and NPF-92). The exemption documents for VEGP Units 3 and 4 can be found in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML16363A422 and ML16363A424, respectively. The exemption is reproduced (with the exception of abbreviated titles and additional citations) in Section II of this document. The amendment documents for COLs NPF-91 and NPF-92 are available in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML16363A409 and ML16363A420, respectively. A summary of the amendment documents is provided in Section III of this document.
Reproduced below is the exemption document issued to Vogtle Units 3 and Unit 4. It makes reference to the combined safety evaluation that provides the reasoning for the findings made by the NRC (and listed under Item 1) in order to grant the exemption:
1. In a letter dated September 9, 2016, the licensee requested from the Commission an exemption from the provisions of 10 CFR part 52, appendix D, Section III.B, as part of license amendment request 16-022, “IDS Fuse Isolation Panel Additions (LAR-16-022).”
For the reasons set forth in Section 3.1 of the NRC staff's Safety Evaluation, which can be found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16363A436, the Commission finds that:
A. The exemption is authorized by law;
B. the exemption presents no undue risk to public health and safety;
C. the exemption is consistent with the common defense and security;
D. special circumstances are present in that the application of the rule in this circumstance is not necessary to serve the underlying purpose of the rule;
E. the special circumstances outweigh any decrease in safety that may result from the reduction in standardization caused by the exemption; and
F. the exemption will not result in a significant decrease in the level of safety otherwise provided by the design.
2. Accordingly, the licensee is granted an exemption from the certified DCD Tier 1 information, with corresponding changes to Appendix C of the COLs as described in the licensee's request dated September 9, 2016. This exemption is related to, and necessary for, the granting of License Amendment Nos. 69/68, which is being issued concurrently with this exemption.
3. As explained in Section 5.0, “Environmental Consideration,” of the NRC staff's Safety Evaluation (ADAMS Accession No. ML16363A436), these exemptions meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment needs to be prepared in connection with the issuance of the exemption.
4. These exemptions are effective as of the date of its issuance.
By letter dated September 9, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16253A204), the licensee requested that the NRC amend the COLs for VEGP, Units 3 and 4, COLs NPF-91 and NPF-92. The proposed amendment is described in Section I of this document.
The Commission has determined that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to the facility COL, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the
The Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments.
Using the reasons set forth in the combined safety evaluation, the staff granted the exemptions and issued the amendments that the licensee requested on September 9, 2016. The exemptions and amendments were issued on February 9, 2017, as part of a combined package to the licensee (ADAMS accession no. ML16363A398).
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Weeks of March 20, 27, April 3, 10, 17, 24, 2017.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and Closed.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of March 27, 2017.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of April 10, 2017.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of April 17, 2017.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Denise McGovern at 301-415-0681 or via email at
The start time for the Briefing on the Annual Threat Environment (Closed Ex. 1) previously scheduled for March 24, 2017, at 10:00 a.m. is now scheduled to start at 11:05 a.m.
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
Members of the public may request to receive this information electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969), or email
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Exemption and combined license amendment; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is granting an exemption to allow a departure from the certification information of Tier 1 of the generic design control document (DCD) and is issuing License Amendment No. 59 to Combined Licenses (COL), NPF-93 and NPF-94. The COLs were issued to South Carolina Electric & Gas Company on behalf of itself and the South Carolina Public Service Authority (both hereafter called the licensee); for construction and operation of the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) Units 2 and 3, located in Fairfield County, South Carolina.
The granting of the exemption allows the changes to Tier 1 information asked for in the amendment. Because the acceptability of the exemption was determined in part by the acceptability of the amendment, the exemption and amendment are being issued concurrently.
The exemption and amendment were issued on February 6, 2017.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2008-0252 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Paul Kallan, Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2809; email:
The NRC is granting an exemption from paragraph B of section III, “Scope and Contents,” of appendix D, “Design Certification Rule for the AP1000,” to part 52 of title 10 of the
Part of the justification for granting the exemption was provided by the review of the amendment. Because the exemption is necessary in order to issue the requested license amendment, the NRC granted the exemption and issued the amendment concurrently, rather than in sequence. This included issuing a combined safety evaluation containing the NRC staff's review of both the exemption request and the license amendment. The exemption met all applicable regulatory criteria set forth in 10 CFR 50.12, 10 CFR 52.7, and Section VIII.A.4 of appendix D to 10 CFR part 52. The license amendment was found to be acceptable as well. The combined safety evaluation is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16362A322.
Identical exemption documents (except for referenced unit numbers and license numbers) were issued to the licensee for VCSNS Units 2 and 3 (COLs NPF-93 and NPF-94). The exemption documents for VCSNS Units 2 and 3 can be found in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML16362A299 and ML16362A302, respectively. The exemption is reproduced (with the exception of abbreviated titles and additional citations) in Section II of this document. The amendment documents for COLs NPF-93 and NPF-94 are available in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML16356A488 and ML16362A297, respectively. A summary of the amendment documents is provided in Section III of this document.
Reproduced below is the exemption document issued to VCSNS Units 2 and Unit 3. It makes reference to the combined safety evaluation that provides the reasoning for the findings made by the NRC (and listed under Item 1) in order to grant the exemption:
1. In a letter dated February 27, 2014, the licensee requested from the Commission an exemption from the provisions of 10 CFR part 52, appendix D, Section III.B, as part of license amendment request 13-09, “Annex and Radwaste Building Changes (LAR 13-09).”
For the reasons set forth in Section 3.1, “Evaluation of Exemption,” of the NRC staff's Safety Evaluation, which can be found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16362A322, the Commission finds that:
A. The exemption is authorized by law;
B. the exemption presents no undue risk to public health and safety;
C. the exemption is consistent with the common defense and security;
D. special circumstances are present in that the application of the rule in this circumstance is not necessary to serve the underlying purpose of the rule;
E. the special circumstances outweigh any decrease in safety that may result from the reduction in standardization caused by the exemption; and
F. the exemption will not result in a significant decrease in the level of safety otherwise provided by the design.
2. Accordingly, the licensee is granted an exemption from the certified DCD Tier 1 information, with corresponding changes to Appendix C of the Facility Combined Licenses as described in the licensee's request dated February 27, 2014, and supplemented by letters dated July 9 and September 25, 2014, August 20 and December 17, 2015, and June 1 and November 17, 2016. This exemption is related to, and necessary for, the granting of License Amendment No. 59, which is being issued concurrently with this exemption.
3. As explained in Section 5.0, “Environmental Consideration,” of the NRC staff's Safety Evaluation (ADAMS Accession No. ML16362A322), this exemption meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment needs to be prepared in connection with the issuance of the exemption.
4. This exemption is effective as of the date of its issuance.
By letter dated February 27, 2014, and supplemented by letters dated July 9 and September 25, 2014, August 20 and December 17, 2015 and June 1 and November 17, 2016, the licensee requested that the NRC amend the COLs for VCSNS, Units 2 and 3, COLs NPF-93 and NPF-94. The proposed amendment is described in Section I of this document.
The Commission has determined for these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the
The Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments.
Using the reasons set forth in the combined safety evaluation, the staff
The exemption and amendment were issued on February 6, 2017, as part of a combined package to the licensee (ADAMS Accession No. ML16356A462).
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day of March 2017.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering an amendment of License SUA-1597, to expand operations to the Jane Dough Unit at Uranerz Energy Corporation (Uranerz) Nichols Ranch
The EA and FONSI referenced in this document is available on March 22, 2017.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0199 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:
•
•
•
Ashley Waldron, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-7317; email:
The NRC is considering issuance of an amendment of License SUA-1597 issued to Uranerz, for operation of the Jane Dough Unit, located in Wyoming, Johnson and Campbell Counties. Therefore, as required by part 51 of title 10 of the
The proposed action would allow Uranerz to construct, operate, perform aquifer restoration, and decommissioning activities at the Jane Dough Unit. The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application dated May 8, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14164A274), as supplemented by letter dated April 13, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15118A122).
The proposed action allows Uranerz to recover uranium within the proposed Jane Dough Unit. The licensee would process the recovered uranium into yellowcake at the existing central processing plant currently located on the Nichols Ranch Unit. Yellowcake is the uranium oxide product of the ISR milling process that is used to produce various products, including fuel for commercially-operated nuclear power reactors.
The NRC staff has assessed the potential environmental impacts from the construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning of the proposed Jane Dough Unit. The NRC staff assessed the impacts of the proposed action on land use; historical and cultural resources; visual and scenic resources; climatology, meteorology and air quality; geology, minerals, and soils; water resources; ecological resources; socioeconomics; noise; traffic and transportation; public and occupational health and safety; and waste management. All impacts were determined to be SMALL. The NRC staff concluded that license amendment for the Nichols Ranch ISR project license authorizing the construction and operation of the Jane Dough Unit would not significantly affect the quality of the human health, safety, and environment. Approval of the proposed action would not result in an increased radiological risk to public health or the environment.
As an alternative to the proposed action, the NRC staff considered denial of the proposed action (
In accordance with its stated policy, on December 20, 2016, the NRC staff consulted with the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. The state official concurred with the EA and FONSI on January 25, 2017.
The NRC received an application from Uranerz to amend its NRC source materials license SUA-1597. This application requests authorization for Uranerz to construct and operate ISR activities at the Jane Dough unit in Campbell County and Johnson County, Wyoming. The NRC staff is conducting an environmental review in accordance with part 51 of title 10 of the
Under the NRC's environmental protection regulations in 10 CFR part 51, an EA was prepared.
In May 2009, the NRC staff issued NUREG-1910, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
This EA incorporates by reference relevant portions from the Nichols Ranch Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) and GEIS, and uses site-specific information from Uranerz license application and independent sources to fulfill the requirements in 10 CFR 51.20(b)(8).
The final EA was prepared by the NRC and its contractor, the Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses, in compliance with NEPA (as amended), and the NRC's regulations for implementing NEPA (10 CFR part 51).
The proposed Jane Dough Unit would be located in Johnson and Campbell Counties, Wyoming, and would encompass approximately 1489 hectares (3,680 acres).
In this final EA, the NRC staff has assessed the potential environmental impacts from the construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning of the proposed Jane Dough Unit. The NRC staff assessed the impacts of the proposed action on land use; historical and cultural resources; visual and scenic resources; climatology, meteorology and air quality; geology, minerals, and soils; water resources; ecological resources; socioeconomics; noise; traffic and transportation; public and occupational health and safety; and waste management.
In doing so, the NRC staff evaluated site-specific data and information from the Jane Dough Unit to determine if Uranerz proposed activities and the site characteristics were consistent with those evaluated in the Nichols Ranch SEIS. The NRC then determined which relevant sections of, and impact conclusions in, the SEIS could be incorporated by reference. The NRC staff also determined if additional data or analysis was needed to assess the potential environmental impacts for a specific environmental resource area. The NRC documented its assessments and conclusions in the final EA.
In addition to the action proposed by the licensee, the NRC staff addressed the no-action alternative which serves as a baseline for comparison of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action.
After weighing the impacts of the proposed license amendment and comparing to the No-Action Alternative, the NRC staff, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.91(d), sets forth its NEPA recommendation regarding the proposed action (granting the request for an NRC license amendment for the proposed Jane Dough Unit). Unless safety issues mandate otherwise, the NRC staff recommendation related to the environmental aspects of the proposed action is that an NRC license amendment be issued.
The final EA for the proposed Jane Dough Unit is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17047A666.
Based on its review of the proposed action, and in accordance with the requirements in 10 CFR part 51, the NRC staff has determined that license amendment for the Nichols Ranch ISR project license authorizing the construction and operation of the Jane Dough Unit would not significantly affect the quality of the human health, safety, and environment. In its license amendment request, Uranerz has proposed the addition of two production units on the Jane Dough Unit, which is contiguous with the Nichols Ranch Unit. No significant changes in Uranerz's authorized operations for the Nichols Ranch ISR Project were requested. Approval of the proposed action would not result in an increased radiological risk to public health or the environment. The NRC staff has determined that pursuant to 10 CFR 51.31, preparation of an EIS is not required for the proposed action and, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, a FONSI is appropriate.
On the basis of the EA, the NRC concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined not to prepare an EIS for the proposed action.
For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License amendment application; opportunity to comment, request a hearing, and petition for leave to intervene.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuance of an amendment and exemption to Combined Licenses (NPF-91 and NPF-92), issued to Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC), and Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, MEAG Power SPVM, LLC, MEAG Power SPVJ, LLC, MEAG Power SPVP, LLC, Authority of Georgia, and the City of Dalton, Georgia (together “the licensees”), for construction and operation of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 3 and 4, located in Burke County, Georgia.
Submit comments by April 21, 2017. Requests for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene must be filed by May 22, 2017.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Paul Kallan, Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2809, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2008-0252 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2008-0252 in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
The NRC is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92, issued to SNC and Georgia Power Company for operation of the VEGP Units 3 and 4, located in Burke County, Georgia.
The proposed changes would revise the Combined Licenses concerning the design details of the Protection and Safety Monitoring System (PMS) including the reactor trip system (RTS) and the engineered safety feature actuation system (ESFAS), the passive core cooling system (PXS), the steam generator blowdown system, and the spent fuel pool cooling system (SFS). In addition, revisions are proposed to combined license, Appendix A, Technical Specifications. This proposed change requires a departure from Tier 1 information in the Westinghouse AP1000 Design Control Document (DCD), therefore the licensee also requested an exemption from the requirements of the Generic DCD Tier 1 in accordance with § 52.63(b)(1) of title 10 of the
Before any issuance of the proposed license amendment, the NRC will need to make the findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and NRC's regulations.
The NRC has made a proposed determination that the license amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the NRC's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to add IRWST [in-containment refueling water storage tank] lower narrow range level instruments addresses the accuracy required to initiate IRWST containment recirculation following a design basis accident in order to mitigate the consequences of the accident. The proposed change to add the new defense-in-depth refueling cavity and SFS isolation of Low IRWST wide range level addresses a seismic or other event resulting in a pipe rupture in the nonsafety-related, nonseismic SFS when connected to the IRWST that could potentially result in a loss of IRWST inventory. Isolation of the SFS from IRWST to mitigate the consequences of a design basis accident continues to be implemented by the existing containment isolation function, and does not rely on the new defense-in-depth refueling cavity and SFS isolation on Low IRWST wide range level. The addition of RTS and ESFAS P-9 interlocks and blocks does not affect the availability of the actuated equipment to perform their design functions to mitigate the consequences of an accident. The proposed changes do not involve any accident initiating component/system failure or event, thus the probabilities of the accidents previously evaluated are not affected.
The affected equipment does not adversely affect or interact with safety-related equipment or a radioactive material barrier, and this activity does not involve the containment of radioactive material. Thus, the proposed changes would not adversely affect any safety-related accident mitigating function. The radioactive material source terms and release paths used in the safety analyses are unchanged, thus the radiological releases in the UFSAR accident analyses are not affected.
These proposed changes to the PMS design do not have an adverse effect on any of the design functions of the affected actuated systems. The proposed changes do not affect the support, design, or operation of mechanical and fluid systems required to mitigate the consequences of an accident. There is no change to plant systems or the response of systems to postulated accident conditions. There is no change to the predicted radioactive releases due to postulated accident conditions. The plant response to previously evaluated accidents or external events is not adversely affected, nor do the proposed changes create any new accident precursors.
Therefore, the requested amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to add IRWST lower narrow range level instruments include requirements similar in function and qualification to many safety-related instruments already performing the affected safety functions as described in the current licensing basis to enable the RTS and ESFAS to perform required design functions, and are consistent with other Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) information. The proposed change to add the new defense-in-depth refueling cavity and SFS isolation on Low IRWST wide range level addresses a seismic or other event resulting in a postulated pipe rupture in the nonsafety-
The proposed changes revise the PMS design. The proposed changes do not adversely affect the design requirements for the PMS, or the design requirements of associated actuated systems. The proposed changes do not adversely affect the design function, support design, or operation of mechanical and fluid systems.
The proposed changes to the PMS do not result in a new failure mechanism or introduce any new accident precursors. No design function described in the UFSAR is adversely affected by the proposed changes.
Therefore, the requested amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit or acceptance criterion is challenged or exceeded by the proposed changes, and no margin of safety is reduced. The proposed change to add the new defense-in-depth refueling cavity and SFS isolation on Low IRWST wide range level addresses a seismic or other event resulting in a postulated pipe rupture in the nonsafety-related, nonseismic SFS when connected to the IRWST, maintaining the required IRWST inventory and preserving the original margin of safety assumed for the PXS and SFS.
Therefore, the requested amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the license amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
The NRC is seeking public comments on this proposed determination that the license amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day notice period if the Commission concludes the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, the Commission will publish a notice of issuance in the
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at
As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements for standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner must provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to the specific sources and documents on which the petitioner intends to rely to support its position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions must be limited to matters within the scope of the proceeding. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene. Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.
Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document.
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective,
A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission by May 22, 2017. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section, except that under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or federally recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located within its boundaries. Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 46562, August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC's Web site at
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public Web site at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
For further details with respect to this action, see the application for license amendment dated February 17, 2017.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Withdrawal.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is withdrawing a notice that was published in the
The withdrawal is effective March 22, 2017.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0072 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:
•
•
•
Sujata Goetz, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-8004; email:
On March 15, 2017, the NRC published FR Doc. 2017-05120, regarding a license amendment application for Fermi, Unit 2. This publication was made in error, as an identical notice was published on March 13, 2017 (82 FR 13512); that document stated that comments on the license amendment application should be submitted by April 12, 2017, and a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene to be filed by May 12, 2017.
The NRC's March 15, 2017, notice is hereby withdrawn, because it duplicates the notice published on March 13, 2017. Comments should be submitted by April 12, 2017, and a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene should be filed by May 12, 2017.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Exemption and combined license amendment; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is granting an exemption to allow a departure from the certification information of Tier 1 of the generic design control document (DCD) and is issuing License Amendment No. 58 to Combined Licenses (COL), NPF-93 and NPF-94. The COLs were issued to South Carolina Electric & Gas Company on behalf of itself and the South Carolina Public Service Authority (both hereafter called the licensee); for construction and operation of the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) Units 2 and 3, located in Fairfield County, South Carolina.
The granting of the exemption allows the changes to Tier 1 information asked for in the amendment. Because the acceptability of the exemption was determined in part by the acceptability of the amendment, the exemption and amendment are being issued concurrently.
The exemption and amendment were issued January 27, 2017.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2008-0441 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:
•
•
•
Paul Kallan, Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2809; email:
The NRC is granting an exemption from paragraph B of section III, “Scope and Contents,” of Appendix D, “Design Certification Rule for the AP1000,” to part 52 of title 10 of the
Part of the justification for granting the exemption was provided by the review of the amendment. Because the exemption is necessary in order to issue the requested license amendment, the NRC granted the exemption and issued the amendment concurrently, rather than in sequence. This included issuing a combined safety evaluation containing the NRC staff's review of both the exemption request and the license amendment. The exemption met all applicable regulatory criteria set forth in 10 CFR 50.12, 10 CFR 52.7, and Section VIII.A.4 of appendix D to 10 CFR part 52. The license amendment was found to be acceptable as well. The combined safety evaluation is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16356A159.
Identical exemption documents (except for referenced unit numbers and license numbers) were issued to the licensee for VCSNS Units 2 and 3 (COLs NPF-93 and NPF-94). The exemption documents for VCSNS Units 2 and 3 can be found in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML16356A124 and ML16356A132, respectively. The exemption is reproduced (with the exception of abbreviated titles and additional citations) in Section II of this document. The amendment documents for COLs NPF-93 and NPF-94 are available in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML16350A185 and ML16350A197, respectively. A summary of the amendment documents is provided in Section III of this document.
Reproduced below is the exemption document issued to VCSNS Units 2 and Unit 3. It makes reference to the combined safety evaluation that provides the reasoning for the findings made by the NRC (and listed under Item 1) in order to grant the exemption:
1. In a letter dated September 8, 2016, the licensee requested from the Commission an exemption from the provisions of 10 CFR part 52, appendix D, Section III.B, as part of license amendment request 16-13, “Fire Pump Head and Diesel Fuel Day Tank Changes (LAR 16-13).”
For the reasons set forth in Section 3.1, “Evaluation of Exemption,” of the NRC staff's Safety Evaluation, which can be found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16356A159, the Commission finds that:
A. The exemption is authorized by law;
B. the exemption presents no undue risk to public health and safety;
C. the exemption is consistent with the common defense and security;
D. special circumstances are present in that the application of the rule in this circumstance is not necessary to serve the underlying purpose of the rule;
E. the special circumstances outweigh any decrease in safety that may result from the reduction in standardization caused by the exemption; and
F. the exemption will not result in a significant decrease in the level of safety otherwise provided by the design.
2. Accordingly, the licensee is granted an exemption from the certified DCD Tier 1 information, with corresponding changes to Appendix C of the Facility Combined Licenses as described in the licensee's request dated September 8, 2016. This exemption is related to, and necessary for, the granting of License Amendment No. 58, which is being issued concurrently with this exemption.
3. As explained in Section 5.0, “Environmental Consideration,” of the NRC staff's Safety Evaluation (ADAMS Accession No. ML16356A159), this exemption meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment needs to be prepared in connection with the issuance of the exemption.
4. This exemption is effective as of the date of its issuance.
By letter dated September 8, 2016, the licensee requested that the NRC amend the COLs for VCSNS, Units 2 and 3, COLs NPF-93 and NPF-94. The proposed amendment is described in Section I of this
The Commission has determined for these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the
The Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments.
Using the reasons set forth in the combined safety evaluation, the staff granted the exemption and issued the amendment that the licensee requested
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Exemption and combined license amendment; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is granting an exemption to allow a departure from the certification information of Tier 1 of the generic design control document (DCD) and is issuing License Amendment No. 67 to Combined Licenses (COLs), NPF-91 and NPF-92. The COLs were issued to Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., and Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, MEAG Power SPVM, LLC, MEAG Power SPVJ, LLC, MEAG Power SPVP, LLC, Authority of Georgia, and the City of Dalton, Georgia (the licensee); for construction and operation of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) Units 3 and 4, located in Burke County, Georgia.
The granting of the exemption allows the changes to Tier 1 information asked for in the amendment. Because the acceptability of the exemption was determined in part by the acceptability of the amendment, the exemption and amendment are being issued concurrently.
The exemption and amendment were issued on January 30, 2017.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2008-0252 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Chandu Patel, Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3025; email:
The NRC is granting an exemption from Paragraph B of Section III, “Scope and Contents,” of appendix D, “Design Certification Rule for the AP1000,” to part 52 of title 10 of the
Part of the justification for granting the exemption was provided by the review of the amendment. Because the exemption is necessary in order to issue the requested license amendment, the NRC granted the exemption and issued the amendment concurrently, rather than in sequence. This included issuing a combined safety evaluation containing the NRC staff's review of both the exemption request and the license amendment. The exemption met all applicable regulatory criteria set forth in §§ 50.12, 52.7, and Section VIII.A.4 of appendix D to 10 CFR part 52. The license amendment was found to be acceptable as well. The combined safety evaluation is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16343A760.
Identical exemption documents (except for referenced unit numbers and license numbers) were issued to the licensee for VEGP Units 3 and 4 (COLs NPF-91 and NPF-92). The exemption documents for VEGP Units 3 and 4 can be found in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML16343A775 and ML16343A789, respectively. The exemption is reproduced (with the exception of abbreviated titles and additional citations) in Section II of this document. The amendment documents for COLs NPF-91 and NPF-92 are available in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML16343A773 and ML16343A786, respectively. A summary of the amendment documents is provided in Section III of this document.
Reproduced below is the exemption document issued to VEGP Units 3 and Unit 4. It makes reference to the combined safety evaluation that provides the reasoning for the findings made by the NRC (and listed under Item 1) in order to grant the exemption:
1. In a letter dated August 23, 2016, as supplemented by letter dated December 7, 2016, the licensee requested from the Commission an exemption to allow departures from Tier 1 information in the certified DCD incorporated by reference in 10 CFR part 52, appendix D, as part of license
For the reasons set forth in Section 3.1 of the NRC staff's Safety Evaluation, which can be found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16343A760, the Commission finds that:
A. The exemption is authorized by law;
B. the exemption presents no undue risk to public health and safety;
C. the exemption is consistent with the common defense and security;
D. special circumstances are present in that the application of the rule in this circumstance is not necessary to serve the underlying purpose of the rule;
E. the special circumstances outweigh any decrease in safety that may result from the reduction in standardization caused by the exemption; and
F. the exemption will not result in a significant decrease in the level of safety otherwise provided by the design.
2. Accordingly, the licensee is granted an exemption from the certified DCD Tier 1 information related to the in-containment refueling water storage tank vents and overflow weirs, the rod drive motor-generator sets field control relays, and the rod drive power supply control cabinets, as described in the licensee's request dated August 23, 2016, as supplemented by letter dated December 7, 2016. This exemption is related to, and necessary for the granting of License Amendment No. 67, which is being issued concurrently with this exemption.
3. As explained in Section 5.0 of the NRC staff's Safety Evaluation (ADAMS Accession No. ML16343A760), this exemption meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment needs to be prepared in connection with the issuance of the exemption.
4. This exemption is effective as of the date of its issuance.
By letter dated August 23, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16236A266), as supplemented by letter dated December 7, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16342C564), the licensee requested that the NRC amend the COLs for VEGP, Units 3 and 4, COLs NPF-91 and NPF-92. The proposed amendment is described in Section I of this document.
The Commission has determined for these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility COL, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the
The Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments.
Using the reasons set forth in the combined safety evaluation, the staff granted the exemption and issued the amendment that the licensee requested on August 23, 2016, as supplemented by letter dated December 7, 2016. The exemption and amendment were issued on January 30, 2017, as part of a combined package to the licensee (ADAMS Accession No. ML16343A657).
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing recent Postal Service filings for the Commission's consideration concerning negotiated service agreements. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the market dominant or the competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the market dominant or the competitive product list.
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern market dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3010, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.
1.
2.
3.
This notice will be published in the
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on March 15, 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 March 15, 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 March 15, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange seeks to amend its rules related to complex orders. The text of the proposed rule change is provided below.
(a)-(c) No change.
(d) Process for Complex Order RFR Auction: Prior to routing to the COB or once on PAR, eligible complex orders may be subject to an automated request for responses (“RFR”) auction process.
(i) For purposes of paragraph (d):
(1) “COA” is the automated complex order RFR auction process.
(2) A “COA-eligible order” means a complex order that, as determined by the Exchange on a class-by-class basis, is eligible for a COA considering the order's size, complex order type (as defined in paragraphs (a) and (b) above) and complex order origin types (as defined in subparagraph (c)(i) above). Complex orders processed through a COA may be executed without consideration to prices of the same complex orders that might be available on other exchanges.
(ii) Initiation of a COA:
(A) The System will send an RFR message to all Trading Permit Holders who have elected to receive RFR messages on receipt of (1) a COA-eligible order with two
(B) No change.
(iii)-(ix) No change.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
On February 25, 2016, the Exchange submitted immediately effective filing SR-CBOE-2016-014, which amended Exchange rules related to the initiation of a complex order auction (“COA”).
Under Rule 8.18, CBOE offers Market-Makers that are obligated to provide and maintain continuous electronic quotes in an option class the Quote Risk Monitor Mechanism (“QRM”), which is functionality to help Market-Makers manage their quotes and related risk. Market-Makers with appointments in classes that trade on the System must, among other things, provide and maintain continuous electronic quotes in a specified percentage of series in each class for a specified percentage of time.
A Market-Maker's risk in a class is not limited to the risk in a single series of that class. Rather, a Market-Maker is generally actively quoting in multiple classes, and each class may comprise hundreds or thousands of individual series. The System automatically executes orders against a Market-Maker's quotes in accordance with the Exchange's priority and allocation rules.
Specifically, if a Market-Maker elects to use QRM, the System will cancel a Market-Maker's quotes in all series in an appointed class if certain parameters the Market-Maker establishes are triggered. Market-Makers may set the following QRM parameters (Market-Makers may set none, some or all of these parameters):
• A maximum number of contracts for that class (the “contract limit”) and a specified rolling time period in seconds within which such contract limit is to be measured (the “measurement interval”);
• a maximum cumulative percentage (which is the sum of the percentages of the original quoted size of each side of each series that trade) (the “cumulative percentage limit”) that the Market-Maker is willing to trade within a specified measurement interval; or
• a maximum number of series for which either side of the quote is fully traded (the “number of series fully traded”) within a specified measurement interval.
If the Exchange determines the Market-Maker has traded more than the contract limit or cumulative percentage limit, or has traded at least the number of series fully traded, of a class during the specified measurement interval, the System will cancel all of the Market-Maker's electronic quotes in that class (and any other cases with the same underlying security) until the Market-Maker refreshes those quotes (a “QRM Incident”). A Market-Maker, or TPH organization with which the Market-Maker is associated, may also specify a
The purpose of the QRM functionality is to allow Market-Makers to provide liquidity across most series in their appointed classes without being at risk of executing the full cumulative size of all their quotes before being given adequate opportunity to adjust their quotes. For example, if a Market-Maker can enter quotes with a size of 25 contracts in 100 series of class ABC, its potential exposure is 2,500 contracts in ABC. To mitigate the risk of having all 2,500 contracts in ABC execute without the opportunity to evaluate its positions, the Market-Maker may elect to use QRM. If the Market-Maker elects to use the contract limit functionality and sets the contract limit at 100 and the measurement interval at five seconds for ABC, the System will automatically cancel the Market-Maker's quotes in all series of ABC if 100 or more contracts in series of ABC execute during any five-second period.
To assure that all quotations are firm for their full size, the System performs the parameter calculations after an execution against a Market-Maker's quote occurs. For example, using the same parameters in class ABC as above, if a Market-Maker has executed a total of 95 contracts in ABC within the previous three seconds, a quote in a series of ABC with a size of 25 contracts continues to be firm for all 25 contracts. An incoming order in that series could execute all 25 contracts of that quote, and, following the execution, the total size parameter would add 25 contracts to the previous total of 95 for a total of 120 contracts executed in ABC. Because the total size executed within the previous five seconds now exceeds the 100 contract limit for ABC, the System would, following the execution, immediately cancel all of the Market-Maker's quotes in series of ABC. The Market-Maker would then enter new quotes for series in ABC. Thus, QRM limits the amount by which a Market-Maker's executions in a class may exceed its contract limit to the largest size of its quote in a single series of the class (or 25 in this example).
SR-CBOE-2016-014 indicated that the Exchange would announce the implementation date of that rule change in a Regulatory Circular to be published no later than 90 days following the effective date of that filing and that the implementation date would be no later than 180 days following the effective date of that filing. The Exchange was unable to make the necessary system changes in time to meet the deadlines set forth in SR-CBOE-2016-014. Thus, the Exchange proposes to revise the implementation date of SR-CBOE-2016-014. In conjunction with revising the implementation date of SR-CBOE-2016-014, the Exchange is proposing to revise the relevant rule text of Rule 6.53C to modify the manner in which the rule text describes complex orders that will initiate a COA.
The purpose of the rule filings in this series (SR-CBOE-2014-017, SR-CBOE-2015-081, and SR-CBOE-2016-014), including the instant filing, is to limit a potential source of unintended Market-Maker risk related to how the System calculates risk parameters under Rule 8.18 when complex orders leg into the market.
For example, if market participants enter into the System individual orders to buy 25 contracts for the Jan 30 call, Jan 35 call, Jan 40 call and Jan 45 call in class ABC, the System processes each order as it is received and calculates the Market-Makers parameters in class ABC following the execution of each 25-contract call. However, if a market participant enters into the System a complex order to buy all four of these strikes in class ABC 25 times, which complex order executes against bids and offers for the individual series (
As this example demonstrates, legging of complex orders into the regular market presents higher risk to Market-Makers than executing their quotes against individual orders entered in multiple series of a class in the regular market, because it may result in Market-Makers exceeding their risk parameters by a greater number of contracts. This risk is directly proportional to the number of legs associated with a complex order. Market-Makers have expressed concerns to the Exchange regarding this risk.
In order to alleviate this potential risk to Market-Makers, the Exchange, in SR-CBOE-2015-081, amended Rule 6.53C(d) to, among other things, provide that a COA will be initiated when a complex order with three or more legs is designated as immediate or cancel (“IOC”) and meets the class, marketability, and size parameters of
The Exchange is proposing to further fine tune the rule text by amending Rule 6.53C(d)(ii)(A)(1) and (2).
Making current subparagraph (ii)(A)(2)(A) inapplicable to complex orders that are priced better than the derived net market and making subparagraph (ii)(A)(1) applicable to all such orders (
Additionally, prior to SR-CBOE-2014-017, the rule text essentially provided that any COA-eligible order will COA (as long as a member requested that a particular order COA), and as previously noted, what determines COA-eligibility has included the origin code parameter since 2008.
The Exchange also notes that adding the words “or more” to current subparagraph (ii)(A)(1) to provide that a COA-eligible order “with two legs or more” will COA is consistent with the Exchange Act because it is no different than not identifying the number of legs at all, which is how the rule text read from COA's inception in 2005 until the
The purpose of proposed subparagraph (2) of Rule 6.53C(d)(ii)(A) is simply to allow certain orders with three legs that will not COA under subparagraph (1) to COA pursuant to subparagraph (2). Proposed Rule 6.53C(d)(ii)(A)(2) provides that a COA will be initiated upon receipt of a complex order with three or more legs that meets the class, size, and complex order type parameters of subparagraph (d)(i)(2) and is marketable against the derived net market. In short, if an order with three or more legs does not COA pursuant to Rule 6.53C(d)(ii)(A)(1)—because it is not COA-eligible—it may still COA pursuant to Rule 6.53C(d)(ii)(A)(2), as long as the order meets the class, size, complex order type parameters of subparagraph (d)(i)(2) and is marketable against the derived net market.
The Exchange notes that the flaw with SR-CBOE-2016-014 lies in current rule 6.53C(d)(ii)(A)(2)(B), which provides that a COA will be initiated when a complex order with three or more legs:
This provision would prevent the Exchange from initiating a COA for an order that does not have the IOC contingency—even though the order has three or more legs, the order is marketable against the derived net market, and the order meets the class the class and size parameters of subparagraph (d)(i)(2). As previously noted, the purpose of the rule filings in this series (SR-CBOE-2014-017, SR-CBOE-2015-081, and SR-CBOE-2016-014), including the instant filing, is to limit a potential source of unintended Market-Maker risk related to how the System calculates risk parameters under Rule 8.18 when complex orders leg into the market. Complex orders with three or more legs that are not designated as IOC may still cause the risk to Market-Makers; thus, it is prudent for the Exchange to include the order type parameter in proposed Rule 6.53C(d)(ii)(A)(2) instead of singling out IOCs. The Exchange believes the reason SR-CBOE-2016-014 specifically identified IOCs in Rule 6.53C(d)(ii)(A)(2)(B) is because IOC's are not currently COA-eligible so all IOC orders with two or more legs do not currently initiate a COA and identifying IOCs in the rule text provided further notice to market participants that orders designated as IOC may COA. However, the Exchange believes it's unnecessary to identify IOCs in the rule text in this manner—although the Exchange notes that the rule text will continue to state that IOCs that are not marketable against the derived net market in accordance with subparagraph (ii)(A)(2) will be cancelled, which serves as notice to market participants that IOCs will initiate a COA in certain circumstances, especially considering that upon filing this proposal the Exchange will also be publishing a circular that identifies IOCs as a contingency that may initiate a COA in certain circumstances.
The Exchange also notes that SR-CBOE-2016-014 proposed to treat all market participants the same when the Exchange received an order with three or more legs that met the class, size, complex order type parameters of subparagraph (d)(i)(2) and was better than the same side of the derived net market. Proposed subparagraph (2) of Rule 6.53C(d)(ii)(A) will continue to treat all market participants the same when the Exchange receives an order with three or more legs that meets the class, size, and complex order type parameters of subparagraph (d)(i)(2)—except the Exchange will only utilize subparagraph (2) when the incoming order is marketable against the derived net market—instead of when the orders is priced better than the same side of the derived net market as SR-CBOE-2016-014 proposed. Ultimately, the Exchange believes this proposal represents much simpler rule text than what was proposed in SR-CBOE-2016-014.
In sum, if a complex order with two or more legs is COA-eligible and priced better than the same side of the derived net market, the order will initiate a COA. If a complex order with three more legs is not otherwise COA-eligible it will still initiate a COA if it is marketable against the derived net market and it meets the class, size, and order type parameters. To illustrate, assuming all of the non-price specific requirements are met, a complex order with two or more legs under subparagraph (d)(ii)(A)(1) will initiate a COA if the derived net market is 1-1.20 and the complex order is to buy at $1.01 or higher or to sell at 1.19 or lower.
As previously noted, the Exchange was unable to implement the amendments made by SR-CBOE-2016-014 in the timeframe set forth in SR-CBOE-2016-014. Thus, the Exchange will announce the implementation date of amendments made in SR-CBOE-2016-014, as modified by this proposed rule change, in a Regulatory Circular to be published no later than 90 days following the effective date of this filing. The implementation date will be no later than 180 days following the effective date of this filing.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the purpose of SR-CBOE-2014-017, SR-CBOE-2015-081, and SR-CBOE-2016-14, which was to alleviate a potential risk to Market-Makers that arises through the use of QRM. Complex orders with three or more legs that are designated that meet the class, size, and order type (including IOCs) parameters of subparagraph (d)(i)(2) and that are marketable against the derived net market (which the Exchange has identified as potentially causing risk to Market-Makers) will initiate a COA, which helps promote just and equitable principles of trade by relieving risk to Market-Makers allowing them to more efficiently and effectively provide important liquidity. Orders that are designated as IOC and meet the class and size parameters of subparagraph (d)(i)(2), but that are not marketable against the derived net market, will be cancelled, which allows order entry firms to use their own sophisticated technology to manage their orders helping to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market. SR-CBOE-2016-014 removed the Exchange's flexibility to determine that price at which an order may initiate a COA, and this proposal makes no changes in that regard. Although the Exchange prefers flexibility, the Exchange does not foresee the need to retain flexibility in this regard and hardcoding the parameter may help avoid confusion with regards to the price at which a complex order may initiate a COA, which also helps to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market.
The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change to initiate a COA upon receipt of complex orders with three or more legs that meet the class, size, and order type (including IOCs) parameters of subparagraph (d)(i)(2) and that are marketable against the derived net market is consistent with the requirement that Market-Makers' quotes be firm under Rule 602 of Regulation NMS.
The Exchange also notes making subparagraph (ii)(A)(2)(A) inapplicable to complex orders that are priced better than the derived net market and making subparagraph (ii)(A)(1) applicable to all such orders is consistent with the Act because it essentially reverts rule text regarding COA-eligible orders back to how the rule text read prior to SR-CBOE-2014-017. Prior to SR-CBOE-2014-017, the rule text essentially provided that any COA-eligible order will COA.
The Exchange also notes that adding the words “or more” to current subparagraph (ii)(A)(1) to provide that a COA-eligible order “with two legs or more” will COA is consistent with the Exchange Act because it is no different than not identifying the number of legs at all, which is how the rule text read from COA's inception in 2005
CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket or intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition because all IOC orders will be treated equally by the Exchange. The proposed rule change is intended to reduce risk to Market-Makers that are quoting in the regular market. CBOE believes that the proposed rule change will promote competition by encouraging Market-Makers to increase the size of and to more aggressively price their quotes, which will increase liquidity on the Exchange. To the extent that the rule change makes CBOE a more attractive marketplace, market participants are free to become Trading Permit Holders on CBOE and other exchanges are free to amend their rules in a similar manner. Furthermore, the Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket competition because the rule change does not materially affect the outcome or purpose of SR-CBOE-2014-017, SR-CBOE-2015-081, or SR-CBOE-2016-014, which was to alleviate potential risk to Market-Makers using QRM. The Exchange also does not believe that the hardcoding of the price at which a complex order may initiate a COA, as described in SR-CBOE-2016-014, will impose a burden on competition. Finally, the Exchange does not believe initiating a COA for a COA-eligible order pursuant to Rule 6.53C(d)(ii)(A)(1) will impose any burden on competition as the Exchange has initiated a COA for such orders since the inception of COA in 2005.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Like most issuers of securities, when an investment company (“fund”)
Rule 482 contains certain requirements regarding the disclosure that funds are required to provide in qualifying advertisements. These requirements are intended to encourage the provision to investors of information that is balanced and informative, particularly in the area of investment performance. For example, a fund is required to include disclosure advising investors to consider the fund's investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses, and other information described in the fund's prospectus, and highlighting the availability of the fund's prospectus and, if applicable, its summary prospectus. In addition, rule 482 advertisements that include performance data of open-end funds or insurance company separate accounts offering variable annuity contracts are required to include certain standardized performance information, information about any sales loads or other nonrecurring fees, and a legend warning that past performance does not guarantee future results. Such funds including performance information in rule 482 advertisements are also required to make available to investors month-end performance figures via Web site disclosure or by a toll-free telephone number, and to disclose the availability of the month-end performance data in the advertisement. The rule also sets forth requirements regarding the prominence of certain disclosures, requirements regarding advertisements that make tax representations, requirements regarding advertisements used prior to the effectiveness of the fund's registration statement, requirements regarding the timeliness of performance data, and certain required disclosures by money market funds.
Rule 482 advertisements must be filed with the Commission or, in the alternative, with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”).
Rule 482 contains requirements that are intended to encourage the provision to investors of information that is balanced and informative, particularly in the area of investment performance. The Commission is concerned that in the absence of such provisions fund investors may be misled by deceptive rule 482 advertisements and may rely on less-than-adequate information when determining in which funds they should invest money. As a result, the Commission believes it is beneficial for funds to provide investors with balanced information in fund advertisements in order to allow investors to make better-informed decisions.
The Commission estimates that 53,907
The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act and is not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules and forms. The provision of information under rule 482 is necessary to obtain the benefits of the safe harbor offered by the rule. The information provided under rule 482 will not be kept confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549; or send an email to:
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Arca Equities Schedule of Fees and Charges for Exchange Services (“Fee Schedule”). 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 Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to adopt the Exchange Traded Fund Liquidity Provider Program pursuant to which the Exchange will adopt an incremental per share credit payable to ETP Holders and Market Makers (collectively, the “ELPs”) that provide displayed liquidity to the NYSE Arca Book in NYSE Arca-listed Tape B Securities (“ELP Program”).
As proposed, the Exchange would provide an incremental credit of $0.0001 per share for providing displayed liquidity that result in an execution to ELPs that meet prescribed quoting standards in NYSE-Arca listed Tape B securities that have a consolidated average daily volume (“CADV”) in the previous month of less than 250,000 shares (“ELP Securities”).
The proposed incremental credit provided under the ELP Program is in addition to the ETP Holder and Market Maker's Tiered or Basic Rate credit(s); provided, however, that such combined credit may not exceed $0.0030 per share. For example, an ELP that qualifies for the ELP credit in a billing month and also qualifies for the Tape B Tier 2 credit of $0.0028 per share will receive a combined credit of $0.0029 for executions that add liquidity to the Book. However, an ELP that qualifies for the same ELP credit in the billing month and also qualifies for the Tape B Tier 1 credit of $0.0030 per share will not receive the ELP credit in that billing month as such combined credit would exceed $0.0030 per share. An ELP that qualifies for the ELP Program credit in a billing month that is also an LMM would not receive the ELP Program credit on the ELP's LMM adding liquidity as that liquidity receives credits of $0.0033 per share, $0.0040 per share, and $0.0045 per share. However, that ELP may receive the ELP Program credit on non-LMM adding liquidity so long as such combined credit does not exceed $0.0030 per share.
In addition to the percentage of time that an ELP must provide a quote at the NBBO in ELP Securities, the Exchange also proposes to adopt an additional requirement that an ELP displays a minimum number of shares of adding volume at or near the NBBO, except that this additional requirement would be applicable beginning May 1, 2017. As proposed, beginning May 1, 2017, in order for the ELP to qualify for the credit proposed herein, the ELP must, in at least 50 ELP Securities:
• Quote at the NBBO for at least an average of 15% of the time for the billing month, and,
• Display at least 2,500 shares that are priced no more than 2% away from the NBBO at least 90% of the time for the billing month (“Quoting and Depth Standard”).
The Exchange would calculate each participating ELP's Quoting Standard and Quoting and Depth Standard, as applicable, beginning each month on a daily basis, up to and including the last trading day of a calendar month, to determine at the end of each month whether the ELP is meeting the requirements of the ELP Program.
As proposed, ELPs may join the ELP Program on a rolling basis on any day of the month and the ELP's obligations would begin on the first day that the ELP is enrolled in the ELP Program. Once an ELP is enrolled in the ELP Program, the ELP is enrolled in all ELP Securities and would be required to meet the Quoting Standard (for March 2017 and April 2017) and the Quoting and Depth Standard (for May 2017 and each month thereafter) in at least 50 ELP Securities for the billing month to be eligible for the proposed incremental credit. If an ELP is enrolled for the ELP Program after the first trading day of the month, the ELP's requirement to qualify for the proposed incremental credit would be measured from the day the ELP is enrolled and if the ELP meets the requirements of the ELP Program, the proposed credit would be applied to those ELP executions that add displayed liquidity from the day the ELP is enrolled. As an example, suppose that an ELP enrolls in the ELP Program on March 15, 2017. The ELP would be required to meet the requirements of the ELP Program for the billing month, from March 15, 2017 through the end of the month, March 31, 2017, and if the ELP quotes an average of at least 15% in at least 50 ELP Securities for that period from March 15, 2017 through March 31, 2017, the ELP will receive the proposed additional ELP credit, subject to the combined credit limit of $0.0030 per share.
Under the proposal, each participating ELP must provide a unique Equity Trading Permit ID (“ETPID”) that the ELP would use for all ELP Securities. Since ETP Holders are often assigned multiple ETPIDs on NYSE Arca, an ELP would be required to use a unique ETPID for all ELP Securities.
As proposed, the ELP Program is a voluntary program. An ETP Holder or Market Maker that wishes to participate in the ELP Program would be required to complete an enrollment form and submit it to the Exchange via electronic mail to participate as an ELP.
With this proposed rule change, the Exchange hopes to provide incentives for increased trading in ELP Securities for market participants. The proposed rule change is intended to provide incentives for quoting and to add competition to the existing group of liquidity providers in ELP Securities. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change will strengthen market quality in ELP Securities. By
The proposed changes are not otherwise intended to address any other issues, and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that ETP Holders would have in complying with the proposed changes.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would encourage increased participation by ELPs in the trading of ETP Securities. The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change would encourage the submission of additional liquidity to a public exchange, thereby promoting price discovery and transparency and enhancing order execution opportunities for all market participants on the Exchange.
The Exchange believes the proposed ELP Program will provide an incentive for ELPs to quote and trade a greater number of securities on the Exchange and will generally allow the Exchange and ELPs to better compete for order flow and thus enhance competition. Further, the ELP program is intended to provide ELPs with an incentive to increase displayed quoting on NYSE Arca and thereby provide liquidity and better quoting that supports the quality of price discovery and promotes market transparency. The Exchange also believes that the proposed incremental credit for ELPs that meet the requirements of the ELP Program is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it would apply uniformly to all ELPs.
The Exchange believes allocating pricing benefits to ELPs that commit to meet the requirements of the ELP Program will provide a better trading environment for investors in ELP Securities, and encourage greater competition between listing venues for ELP Securities. The Exchange also believes that the proposal will promote tighter spreads and deeper liquidity for all market participants by requiring ELPs to meet the requirements of the ELP Program.
As proposed, the ELP Program is designed to enhance the Exchange's competitiveness as a listing venue and to strengthen its market quality for NYSE Arca-listed securities. The Exchange believes that the proposed change would increase competition with its competitors by incenting ETP Holders to volunteer for the ELP Program, which will enhance the quality of quoting in NYSE Arca-listed securities.
The Exchange believes that adopting only the Quoting Standard for March 2017 and April 2017 is reasonable because it may allow a greater number of ELPs to qualify for the proposed credit while also providing ELPs the opportunity to gradually increase their activity in order to qualify for the proposed credit. The Exchange believes that adopting the Quoting Standard for March 2017 and April 2017 is also equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Quoting Standard would apply uniformly to all ELPs that enroll in the ELP Program.
The Exchange believes that adopting the Quoting and Depth Standard beginning May 2017 is also reasonable because the additional requirement would ensure that liquidity displayed on the Exchange by ELPs is available for a greater period of time during the trading day to provide market participants an adequate opportunity to transact against such liquidity. The Exchange believes that adopting the Quoting and Depth Standard beginning May 2017 is also equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the additional criteria would apply uniformly to all ELPs beginning May 2017.
Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement regarding the burden on competition. For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually review, and consider adjusting, its fees and credits to remain competitive with other exchanges. Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes as a whole will contribute to tighter spreads and additional liquidity on the Exchange in NYSE Arca-listed securities, which will, in turn, benefit competition due to the improvements to the overall market quality of the Exchange. For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that this proposal promotes a competitive environment.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.
The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. The Exchange asserts that the proposed rule change does not present any new, unique, or substantive issues and that the proposal is substantially similar to a program in place at Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.
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.
On January 23, 2017, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On January 19, 2017, Investors Exchange LLC (“IEX”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider this proposed rule change. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to modify the NYSE Amex Options Fee Schedule (“Fee Schedule”). The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change effective March 9, 2017. The proposed 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 modify the Fee Schedule to:
(i) Provide Order Flow Providers (each an “OFP”) that achieve certain tiers of the Amex Customer Enhancement (“ACE”) Program the opportunity to receive an additional credit for Customer Complex Orders; and
(ii) establish a surcharge on any Electronic non-Customer Complex Order that executes against a Customer Complex Order.
The ACE Program features five tiers, expressed as a percentage of total industry Customer equity and Exchange Traded Fund option average daily volume (“TCADV”)
The Exchange proposes to offer OFPs that achieve Tier 4 or 5 of the ACE Program a credit of $0.25 per contract, per leg for Electronic executions of
The Exchange also proposes to establish a $0.05 surcharge on any Electronic Non-Customer Complex Order that executes against a Customer Complex Order (the “Surcharge).
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed Credit on Complex Orders is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory, as it provides OFPs with an additional incentive to achieve the highest two tiers of the ACE Program—Tier 4 or 5. The Exchange believes that incentivizing OFPs to route orders to the Exchange would attract more volume and liquidity to the Exchange, which benefits all market participants by providing more trading opportunities and tighter spreads, even to those market participants that do not participate in the ACE Program.
The Exchange believes that the proposed Surcharge is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory, as it applies to all Non-Customer orders. Applying the Surcharge to all market participant orders except Customer orders is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because Customer order flow enhances liquidity on the Exchange for the benefit of all market participants. Specifically, Customer liquidity benefits all market participants by providing more trading opportunities, which attracts Market Makers. An increase in the activity of Specialists and Market Makers in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants.
In addition, the proposed surcharge is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory as it is consistent with fees charged by other options exchanges.
Specifically, MIAX imposes a $0.10 “Per Contract Surcharge for Removing Liquidity Against A Resting Priority Customer Complex Order on the Strategy Book” for all option classes), which may result in an overall per contract fee of $0.60.
Further, the proposed change to capitalize the defined term Electronic, would add clarity and internal consistency to the Fee Schedule by correcting a typographical error.
Finally, the Exchange believes the proposed changes are consistent with the Act because, to the extent the modifications permit the Exchange to continue to attract greater volume and liquidity, the proposed changes would improve the Exchange's overall competitiveness and strengthen its market quality for all market participants.
For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually review, and consider adjusting, its fees and credits to remain competitive with other exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees and credits in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited. For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
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, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Act”)
The proposed rule change consists of amendments to NSCC's Rules & Procedures (“Rules”)
In order to provide transparency in the Rules with respect to the existing Illiquid Charge, and to codify NSCC's existing practices with respect to the charge, NSCC is proposing to amend (i) Rule 1 (Definitions and Descriptions) to add certain defined terms associated with the Illiquid Charge, and (ii) Procedure XV (Clearing Fund Formula and Other Matters) to clarify the circumstances and manner in which NSCC calculates and imposes the Illiquid Charge. The proposed rule change also would make a technical change to Procedure XV to define the “Market Maker Domination Charge,” to create additional clarity and ease of reference in the Rules, as further described below.
In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The clearing agency has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The proposed rule change would provide transparency in the Rules with respect to the existing Illiquid Charge, which NSCC currently may impose on Members,
NSCC uses a risk-based margin methodology to assess Required Deposits from all Members. The Required Deposit is composed of a number of risk-based component charges (as margin), including the Illiquid Charge, which are calculated and assessed daily. The objective of the Required Deposit is to mitigate potential losses to NSCC associated with the liquidation of the Member's portfolio if NSCC ceases to act for a Member (hereinafter referred to as a “default”). NSCC considers a number of risks when evaluating the effectiveness of its margining methodology.
NSCC is presented with certain risks when it clears and settles larger volumes of its Members' Net Unsettled Positions in securities that are generally considered illiquid. In order to add further clarity to its Rules, NSCC is proposing to define “Illiquid Security” in Rule 1 (Definitions) as a security, other than a family-issued security,
Because Illiquid Securities are not traded on or subject to the rules of any exchange, these securities have limited access to a trading venue, lack marketability, and may have low or volatile share prices. Therefore, net sell positions in Illiquid Securities present NSCC with a risk that liquidation of positions in these securities may be difficult or delayed, increasing NSCC's exposure, and this risk is greater when a Member's portfolio contains larger volumes of Illiquid Securities, which could contribute to a prolonged or impaired liquidation. Additionally, net buy positions in Illiquid Securities that have a share price below a penny pose specific risks to NSCC, described below.
In order to address the risks presented by larger volumes of Net Unsettled Positions in Illiquid Securities, NSCC currently calculates and collects the Illiquid Charge. The Illiquid Charge is a component of the Required Deposit and, as described in greater detail below, is calculated to address these risks.
The Illiquid Charge is charged in addition to and separate from a haircut charge that NSCC also currently applies to Illiquid Securities that are traded over-the-counter. The Rules currently permit it to collect a margin charge calculated as a haircut of at least 10 percent of the absolute value of Net Unsettled Positions in classes of securities whose volatility is less amenable to statistical analysis, which include, but are not limited to, Illiquid Securities.
This proposed rule change would amend the Rules to add transparency with respect to the existing Illiquid Charge and, in doing so, would codify NSCC's current practices with respect to the calculation and collection of the this margin charge.
The volume thresholds that must be met in order for the charge to be applied, the methodology for calculating the Illiquid Charge, and the exceptions to and application of the Illiquid Charge are each described below.
Subject to the exceptions to the Illiquid Charge, described later in this filing, NSCC calculates an Illiquid
The Illiquid Charge only applies to a Member's net buy position in Illiquid Securities with a share price below one cent that meets the applicable volume threshold, as described below, such that it is an Illiquid Position.
NSCC assesses the Illiquid Charge on a Member's net buy position if that position meets a volume threshold of greater than 100 million shares for a Member with a rating on NSCC's credit risk matrix (“CRRM rating”)
If the volume threshold is met, the net buy position in Illiquid Securities is an Illiquid Position and is subject to the Illiquid Charge. The Illiquid Charge only applies to net buy Illiquid Positions in Illiquid Securities with a share price below one cent. If a transaction in any security, including an Illiquid Security, with a share price below one cent is entered into NSCC's Continuous Net Settlement system or Balance Order Accounting Operation, NSCC rounds up the price of the security to one cent. Therefore, when a Member holds a buy position in a sub-penny security, NSCC records the position's value at a higher price than the actual per share price of the position. The difference may reduce the Member's Required Deposit, particularly for a large quantity of buy positions in a sub-penny security.
To address this risk, NSCC calculates the Illiquid Charge for net buy Illiquid Positions by multiplying the aggregate quantity of shares in such positions by one cent. NSCC assesses and collects the resulting amounts as the Illiquid Charge component of affected Members' Required Deposit.
The Illiquid Charge only applies to a Member's net sell position in Illiquid Securities if that position meets the applicable volume threshold, as described below, such that it is an Illiquid Position.
When determining if the volume thresholds for net sell positions in Illiquid Securities apply, NSCC first offsets the quantity of shares in a Member's sell position against the number of shares of the same Illiquid Security held by the Member at The Depository Trust Company (“DTC inventory offset”). Consequently, a Member could fall below the applicable volume thresholds after this offset, and therefore, would not be subject to the Illiquid Charge. The DTC inventory offset is not applied to Members with the weakest CRRM rating.
Therefore, subject to the DTC inventory offset, if applicable, NSCC assesses the Illiquid Charge on a Member's net sell position if that position meets a volume threshold that is based on the percentage of the average daily volume (“ADV”)
The volume threshold is 1 million shares for Members with a CRRM rating between 1-4, when the net sell position in Illiquid Securities represents more than or equal to 25 percent of the ADV. The volume threshold is 500,000 shares for Members with a CRRM rating between 5-7, when the net sell position in Illiquid Securities represents more than or equal to 25 percent of the ADV and the Member's ENC is greater than $10 million. The volume threshold is 100,000 shares for Members with a CRRM rating between 5-7, when the net sell position in Illiquid Securities represents more than or equal to 25 percent of the ADV and the Member's ENC is less than or equal to $10 million.
If the volume threshold is met, the net sell position in Illiquid Securities is an Illiquid Position and is subject to the Illiquid Charge. To calculate the Illiquid Charge for net sell Illiquid Positions, NSCC considers (a) the Current Market Price
(A) If the Illiquid Position has a Current Market Price equal to or below $1.00, NSCC calculates the Illiquid Charge as the product of the aggregate quantity of shares in the Illiquid Position and either (i) the highest market price of the Illiquid Security during the preceding 20 trading days (“One Month High Price”)
(B) If the Illiquid Position has a Current Market Price that is greater than $1.00, NSCC calculates the Illiquid Charge as the product of the aggregate quantity of shares in the Illiquid Position and either (i) the One Month High Price or (ii) the Current Market Price of the Illiquid Security rounded up to the next $0.50 increment.
In determining whether to use the One Month High Price or the Current Market Price of the Illiquid Security to calculate the Illiquid Charge, NSCC compares the percentage of the ADV to the share quantity in the Illiquid Position. If the share quantity in the Illiquid Position is less than 100 percent of the ADV and more than or equal to 25 percent, then the calculation uses the lesser of the One Month High Price or the Current Market Price of the Illiquid Securities (rounded up to the next $0.50 increment, if applicable). If the quantity of shares in the Illiquid Position is greater than or equal to 100 percent of the ADV, then the calculation uses the greater of the One Month High Price or the Current Market Price of the Illiquid Security (rounded up to the next $0.50 increment, if applicable).
Furthermore, depending on the result of the calculation described above, the Illiquid Charge would remain subject to a minimum price per share, which shall not be less than $0.01. Therefore, when calculating the Illiquid Charge, the One Month High Price or the Current Market Price of the Illiquid Security is substituted by the minimum price per share if the One Month High Price or the Current Market Price, as applicable, is below the minimum price per share.
In order to avoid duplicate margin charges, NSCC does not apply the Illiquid Charge to Illiquid Positions when a greater Market Maker Domination (“MMD”) charge is also applicable to those positions. The MMD charge applies to a position in a security that is greater than forty percent of the overall unsettled Long Position in that security, if such position is held by the Market Maker in that security.
NSCC assesses and collects an MMD charge as part of a Member's Required Deposit to address the risk presented by a concentrated position in a security when the Member holding the position is the market maker. There may be instances when a Member's Illiquid Position triggers both the Illiquid Charge and the MMD charge. Because these margin components are calculated to address duplicative risk concerns, NSCC imposes only the greater of the two charges when both charges are applicable.
Additionally, in order to improve clarity and create ease of reference in the Rules, NSCC would amend the Rules by defining the term “Market Maker Domination Charge” in Procedure XV, Section I.(A)(1)(d) and using the defined term in Section I.(A)(2)(c).
Additionally, family-issued securities are excluded from the definition of Illiquid Securities and, therefore, are not subject to the Illiquid Charge. Family-issued securities have a different risk profile than other illiquid securities. In particular, these securities expose NSCC to specific wrong-way risk.
In order to improve clarity and because family-issued securities have a different risk profile than other illiquid securities, NSCC would exclude family-issued securities from the definition of “Illiquid Security” in the proposed rule change.
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act, requires, in part, that the Rules be designed to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds that are within the custody or control of the clearing agency.
Rule 17Ad-22(b)(1) under the Act requires, in part, that NSCC establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to limit its exposures to potential losses from defaults by its Members under normal market conditions, so that NSCC's operations would not be disrupted and non-defaulting participants would not be exposed to losses that it cannot anticipate or control.
Rule 17Ad-22(b)(2) under the Act requires NSCC to establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to use margin requirements to limit its credit exposures to participants under normal market conditions.
The proposal is also designed to be consistent with Rules 17Ad-22(e)(4) and (e)(6) under the Act, which were recently adopted by the Commission.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(v) and (vi) under the Act will require, in part, NSCC to establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to cover its credit exposures to its Members by establishing a risk-based margin system that, at a minimum, uses an appropriate method for measuring credit exposure that accounts for relevant product risk factors and portfolio effects across products and is monitored by management on an ongoing basis and regularly reviewed, tested and verified.
NSCC does not believe that the Illiquid Charge imposes any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate.
NSCC has not received any written comments relating to this proposal. NSCC will notify the Commission of any written comments it receives.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
For further information, including a list of the imported objects, contact the Office of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
State Justice Institute (SJI).
Notice of meeting.
The SJI Board of Directors will be meeting on Monday, April 3, 2017 at 1:00 p.m. The meeting will be held at the Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts. The purpose of this meeting is to consider grant applications for the 2nd quarter of FY 2017, and other business. All portions of this meeting are open to the public.
Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts, Conference Room, 6th Floor, 511 Union Street, Nashville, Tennessee 37219.
Jonathan Mattiello, Executive Director, State Justice Institute, 11951 Freedom Drive, Suite 1020, Reston, VA 20190, (571) 313-8843,
Surface Transportation Board.
Notice of Rail Energy Transportation Advisory Committee meeting.
Notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Rail Energy Transportation Advisory Committee (RETAC), pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).
The meeting will be held on Thursday, April 6, 2017, at 9:00 a.m. E.D.T.
The meeting will be held in the Hearing Room on the first floor of the Board's headquarters at 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423.
Jason Wolfe (202) 245-0239;
RETAC was formed in 2007 to provide advice and guidance to the Board, and to serve as a forum for discussion of emerging issues related to the transportation of energy resources by rail, including coal, ethanol, and other biofuels.
The meeting, which is open to the public, will be conducted in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. 2; Federal Advisory Committee Management regulations, 41 CFR 102-3; RETAC's charter; and Board procedures. Further communications about this meeting may be announced through the Board's Web site at
49 U.S.C. 1321, 49 U.S.C. 11101; 49 U.S.C. 11121.
By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Surface Transportation Board.
Notice and Request for Comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Surface Transportation Board (STB or Board) gives notice that it is requesting from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) an extension of approval for the collection of the Waybill Sample.
Comments on this information collection should be submitted by May 22, 2017.
Direct all comments to Chris Oehrle, PRA Officer, Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001, or to
For further information regarding this collection, contact Michael Higgins, Deputy Director, Office of Public Assistance, Governmental Affairs, and Compliance at (202) 245-0284 or at
For each collection, comments are requested concerning: (1) The accuracy of the Board's burden estimates; (2) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; (3) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, when appropriate; and (4) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Board, including whether the collection has practical utility. Submitted comments will be summarized and included in the Board's request for OMB approval.
Under the PRA, a federal agency that conducts or sponsors a collection of information must display a currently valid OMB control number. A collection of information, which is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c), includes agency requirements that persons submit reports, keep records, or provide information to the agency, third parties, or the public. Under 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), federal agencies are required to provide, prior to an agency's submitting a collection to OMB for approval, a 60-day notice and comment period through publication in the
2nd & Main, LLC (2ML), a noncarrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to acquire from Norland North Chicago, LLC (Norland) and operate approximately 540 feet of rail line between a point of connection on its north end to a main track of the Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway Company (now Canadian National Railway Company) and a point of connection on its southwest end to a main track of the Chicago & North Western Railway Company (now Union Pacific Railroad Company), in North Chicago, in Lake County, Ill. (the Line). According to 2ML, there are no milepost designations on the Line.
The verified notice indicates that the transaction will be consummated shortly after April 5, 2017, the effective date of the exemption (30 days after the notice of exemption was filed).
2ML certifies that its projected annual revenues as a result of this transaction will not result in its becoming a Class II or Class I rail carrier and will not exceed $5 million.
2ML states that there are no interchange commitments.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the effectiveness of the exemption. Petitions to stay must be filed no later than March 29, 2017 (at least seven days before the exemption becomes effective).
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 36106, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on Thomas F. McFarland, 208 South LaSalle St., Suite 1666, Chicago, IL 60604-1228.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at “
By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Surface Transportation Board.
Notice Tentatively Approving and Authorizing Finance Transaction.
On March 8, 2017, Cavallo Bus Lines (Cavallo) and White Knight Limousine, Inc. (White Knight)
Comments must be filed by May 8, 2017. Applicants may file a reply by May 22, 2017. If no comments are filed by May 8, 2017, this notice shall be effective on May 9, 2017.
Send an original and 10 copies of any comments referring to Docket No. MCF 21075 to: Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, send one copy of comments to Cavallo's representative: David H. Coburn, Steptoe & Johnson, LLP, 1330 Connecticut Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20036.
Jonathon Binet (202) 245-0368. Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) for the hearing impaired: 1-800-877-8339.
On March 8, 2017, Cavallo Bus Lines (Cavallo) and White Knight Limousine, Inc. (White Knight) (collectively, Applicants) filed an application under 49 U.S.C. 14303 for Cavallo to purchase certain assets (including motorcoaches and contracts) of White Knight used to provide certain motor carrier services. The Board is tentatively approving and authorizing the transaction, and, if no opposing comments are timely filed, this notice will be the final Board action. Persons wishing to oppose the application must follow the rules at 49 CFR 1182.5 and 1182.8.
Applicants assert the following facts. Cavallo, a Delaware limited liability company, is wholly owned by BCPL, LLC, a non-carrier holding company, and is not affiliated with any other companies. Cavallo provides contract and charter service from terminals in Gillespie, Ill.; Indianapolis, Ind.; and Springfield, Mo. (MC-101883). It primarily operates in the Midwest, but offers charter service nationwide. Cavallo currently operates approximately 110 motorcoaches; its contract customers include public and private universities and colleges. It also provides airport transfer service in several Midwest cities. White Knight is a Missouri corporation with no affiliates. It provides motorcoach charter and contract services as well as limousine and car services primarily out of Columbia, Mo., and occasionally out of Springfield, Mo. (MC-289901). It currently operates approximately 37 passenger motor vehicles (19 motorcoaches and 18 cars and limousines). White Knight's contract customers include university athletic departments and a minor league baseball team.
Applicants state that, under the proposed transaction, Cavallo will purchase motorcoaches and contracts associated with White Knight's contract and charter service in Missouri and Kansas. White Knight will sign a non-compete agreement prohibiting it from operating competing service for an agreed period of time and will provide Cavallo a right of first refusal in the event that White Knight decides to sell its other transportation operations.
Under 49 U.S.C. 14303(b), the Board must approve and authorize a transaction that it finds consistent with the public interest, taking into consideration at least: (1) The effect of the proposed transaction on the adequacy of transportation to the public; (2) the total fixed charges that result from the proposed transaction; and (3) the interest of carrier employees affected by the proposed transaction. Applicants submitted information, as required by 49 CFR 1182.2, including information to demonstrate that the proposed transaction is consistent with the public interest under 49 U.S.C. 14303(b), and a statement that the aggregate gross operating revenues of Cavallo and White Knight exceeded $2 million for the preceding 12-month period under 49 U.S.C. 14303(g).
Applicants submit that the proposed transaction will not have an adverse impact on the adequacy of transportation services available to the public. Applicants state that Cavallo, a significantly larger carrier than White Knight, has access to increased capital resources, increased interest cost savings, and reduced operating costs resulting from Cavallo's enhanced volume purchasing power. According to Applicants, the centralization of administrative functions and Cavallo's ability to achieve volume discounts will result in cost savings. Applicants also assert that the transaction will have no adverse impact on competition because at least five other motor passenger carriers operate in the same areas of Kansas and Missouri. Further, Applicants state the transaction will not have a materially adverse impact on employees as “Cavallo intends to offer employment to the small number of employees currently providing the White Knight services at issue, provided that such employees meet certain minimum standards.”
On the basis of the application, the Board finds that the proposed acquisition is consistent with the public interest and should be tentatively approved and authorized. If any opposing comments are timely filed, these findings will be deemed vacated, and, unless a final decision can be made on the record as developed, a procedural schedule will be adopted to reconsider the application.
This action is categorically excluded from environmental review under 49 CFR 1105.6(c).
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
1. The proposed transaction is approved and authorized, subject to the filing of opposing comments.
2. If opposing comments are timely filed, the findings made in this notice will be deemed as having been vacated.
3. Notice of this decision will be published in the
4. This notice will be effective May 9, 2017, unless opposing comments are filed by May 8, 2017.
5. A copy of this notice will be served on: (1) the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; (2) the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, 10th Street & Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20530; and (3) the U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of the General Counsel, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
By the Board, Board Members Begeman, Elliott, and Miller.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of application for exemption; request for comments.
FMCSA announces that the Truck Renting and Leasing Association, Inc. (TRALA) has requested an exemption from the requirement that a motor carrier install and require each of its drivers to use an electronic logging device (ELD) to record the driver's hours-of-service (HOS) no later than December 18, 2017. TRALA requests the exemption for all drivers of property-carrying vehicles rented for 30 days or fewer because the ELD mandate will result in unintended technical and operational consequences that will unfairly and adversely affect short-term rental vehicles. TRALA believes that the exemption, if granted, would not have any adverse impacts on operational safety, as drivers would remain subject to the standard HOS limits and maintain a paper record of duty status (RODS). The term of the requested exemption is 5 years. FMCSA requests public comment on TRALA's application for exemption.
Comments must be received on or before April 21, 2017.
You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Number FMCSA-2016-0428 by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket number for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without change to
For information concerning this notice, contact Mr. Tom Yager, Chief, FMCSA Driver and Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards; Telephone: 614-942-6477. Email:
FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and related materials.
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (FMCSA-2016-0428), indicate the specific section of this document to which the comment applies, and provide a reason for suggestions or recommendations. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so the Agency can contact you if it has questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comments online, go to
FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant exemptions from certain parts of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted, and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of the Agency must be published in the
TRALA is a national trade association of companies whose members engage in commercial truck renting and leasing, vehicle finance leasing, and consumer truck rental. Its membership encompasses major independent firms such as Ryder System, Penske Truck Leasing, U-Haul, Budget, and Enterprise Truck Rental, as well as small and medium-size businesses that generally participate as members of four leasing group systems: Idealease, NationaLease, PACCAR Leasing Company, and Mack Leasing System-Volvo Truck Leasing System. In total, its nearly 500 member companies operate more than 5,000 commercial leasing and rental locations,
“Renting” is a term of art in the vehicle leasing industry, generally meaning a transaction granting the exclusive use of a vehicle for 30 days or less, whereas a lease generally means a transaction granting the exclusive use of a vehicle for more than 30 days. TRALA's petition is on behalf of the drivers of property-carrying commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) rented for 30 days or less.
While TRALA fully supports the FMCSA's final rule to mandate ELDs, it is concerned about unintended technical and operational consequences that will unfairly and adversely affect short-term rental vehicles. The commercial vehicle rental industry provides short-term rental services to a large population of drivers on a daily basis. Most of these drivers will employ an ELD to comply with the new rule. Considering the significant number of different device platforms and subscription options, it is highly unlikely that the driver's device would be able to communicate properly with the rental company's telematics platform. TRALA states that while FMCSA recognized these issues presented by a lack of interoperability among ELD systems, and required certain technical specifications in the final rule, the Agency stopped short of requiring full interoperability among ELDs.
According to TRALA, many commenters to the proposed ELD rule raised these same interoperability concerns. However, the rule requires only that ELDs be able to transfer data electronically via either a “telematics” approach capable of wireless web service, or a “local” method capable of Bluetooth and USB 2.0 transfer. Furthermore, the Agency decided “not to require full interoperability between all ELDs,” reasoning that “[a]lthough full interoperability would have some benefits, it would also be complicated and costly.” In essence, according to TRALA, in the final rule the Agency left it to the ELD manufacturers to address many concerns regarding non-interoperability of the various software systems on the market.
TRALA elaborates on their two primary issues of concern relating to the exemption request: (1) Data transfer and, (2) data liability.
Regarding the data transfer concerns, TRALA describes two potential problems. First, a customer that is required to use an ELD may rent a truck that has one operating system, while the customer may use another operating system for its drivers; data cannot be transferred from the rental vehicle to the customer's system unless both ELDs are on the same platform. In addition, upon request by an authorized safety official, a driver must produce and transfer the driver's HOS records from an ELD in accordance with 49 CFR 395.24(d). This would include the driver's duty status for the current 24-hour period and the prior seven days. However, if the driver is operating a rental vehicle with an ELD that is not compatible with the driver's normal ELD system, the data will not transfer to the new vehicle's ELD system. That scenario would be considered an “ELD malfunction” and the driver would be required to reconstruct the RODS for the current 24-hour period and the previous seven consecutive days on graph grid paper logs. TRALA's exemption application requests that drivers of short-term rental vehicles be allowed to avoid the uncertainties of attempting compliance with the HOS rules using non-compatible ELD systems, and instead use paper RODS during the rental period.
Additionally, regarding data transfer concerns, due to significant use commercial vehicles are more prone to break-downs than non-commercial vehicles. TRALA advises that when commercial vehicles break-down, they are often replaced temporarily by short-term rental vehicles until the original truck can be repaired. These repairs can take days, if not several weeks, to complete. More often than not, replacement vehicles come from a third-party rental company, which increases the likelihood that the replacement truck will have a different ELD operating system than the vehicle it is replacing, thus impeding data transfer.
TRALA's second primary issue involves data liability concerns. TRALA states that it has been suggested that rental companies should be able to collect and report ELD data to customers, allowing customers to access the data seamlessly. However, the final rule does not require ELDs to be capable of reading and combining exported data from other providers. Furthermore, lessors do not have the ability to combine data from different devices into one report. TRALA states that requiring lessors to bear the burden of safeguarding the data for each renter would expose the rental company to tremendous risk with respect to data security and protection. All parties involved in the business transaction would probably reject rental companies' assumption of these risks on behalf of their customers.
TRALA also briefly mentions two potential solutions related to their exemption request. One potential solution is the use of a “memory stick” to transfer data between different telematics platforms. However, the ELD rule does not require that devices be capable of moving driver HOS data from one device to another using this method.
Secondly, some drivers of short-term rental vehicles will be exempt from the ELD requirements under the short-haul provisions in 49 CFR 395.1(e)(1) or 49 CFR 395.1(e)(2). To the extent that drivers of short-term rental vehicles exceed the mileage or daily on-duty time limits of these short-haul exemptions, or do not return to their normal work reporting locations at the end of the duty period more than 8 times in any 30-day period, they will be subject to the ELD requirements when compliance becomes mandatory as of December 18, 2017. Thus, although the short-haul exemption is helpful for a small group of drivers, TRALA asserts that it does not address the underlying challenges that it raises in its exemption application.
TRALA states that granting this exemption will result in a level of safety that is equal to or greater than the level of safety achieved by complying with the ELD rule. The exemption is requested for property-carrying CMVs rented for 30 days or less. Short-term rentals that require HOS reporting represent an extremely small percentage of trucks on the road; however, the requirements of the ELD rule would impose significant burden on the industry and its customers. By allowing drivers of short-term rentals to continue to operate with paper RODS, TRALA's members and their customers would be able to comply with all Federal and State HOS regulations while continuing to operate efficiently and safely. TRALA further adds that an exemption from the ELD requirements for short-term rental vehicles will actually improve motor carrier safety enforcement by allowing enforcement officials to follow current requirements as opposed to a more complicated process required by the ELD rule.
A copy of TRALA's application for exemption is available for review in the docket for this notice.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of application for exemption renewal; request for comments.
FMCSA announces that Daimler Trucks North America (Daimler) has requested an exemption renewal for one commercial motor vehicle (CMV) driver, Martin Zeilinger, from the Federal requirement to hold a commercial driver's license (CDL) issued by one of the States. This project engineer holds a valid German commercial license and wants to test-drive Daimler vehicles on U.S. roads to better understand product requirements for these systems in “real world” environments, and verify results. Daimler believes the requirements for a German commercial license ensure that holders of the license will likely achieve a level of safety equal to or greater than that of drivers who hold a U.S. State-issued CDL.
Comments must be received on or before April 21, 2017.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-2012-0032 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket number for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without change to
Mr. Thomas Yager, Chief, FMCSA Driver and Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards; Telephone: 614-942-6477. Email:
FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and related materials.
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (FMCSA-2012-0032), indicate the specific section of this document to which the comment applies, and provide a reason for suggestions or recommendations. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so the Agency can contact you if it has questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant exemptions from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
The Agency reviews the safety analyses and the public comments, and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of the Agency must be published in the
Daimler has applied for an exemption renewal for one of its engineers from 49 CFR 383.23, which prescribes licensing requirements for drivers operating CMVs in interstate or intrastate commerce. This driver, Martin Zeilinger, holds a valid German commercial license but is unable to obtain a CDL in any of the U.S. States due to residency requirements. A copy of the application is in Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0032.
FMCSA initially granted an exemption to Mr. Zeilinger on March 27, 2015 (80 FR 16511). This exemption was effective March 27, 2015, and expires March 27, 2017. Detailed information about the qualifications and experience of Mr. Zeilinger was provided by Daimler in its original application, a copy of which is in the docket.
The exemption renewal would allow Mr. Zeilinger to operate CMVs in interstate or intrastate commerce to
Daimler has explained in prior exemption requests that the German knowledge and skills tests and training program ensure that Daimler's drivers operating under the exemption will achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety obtained by complying with the U.S. requirement for a CDL.
FMCSA has previously determined that the process for obtaining a German commercial license is comparable to, or as effective as, the requirements of part 383, and adequately assesses the driver's ability to operate CMVs in the U.S. Since 2012, FMCSA has granted Daimler drivers similar exemptions [May 25, 2012 (77 FR 31422); July 22, 2014 (79 FR 42626); March 27, 2015 (80 FR 16511); October 5, 2015 (80 FR 60220); December 7, 2015 (80 FR 76059); December 21, 2015 (80 FR 79410)].
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice; request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR) described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its review and approval and invites public comment. The FMCSA requests approval to renew an ICR titled, “Request for Revocation of Authority Granted.”
We must receive your comments on or before May 22, 2017.
You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket Number FMCSA-2017-0045. Using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Tura Gatling, Office of Registration Information and Licensing, Department of Transportation, OA, West Building 6th Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: 202-385-2412; email
Subsection (d) of 49 U.S.C. 13905 also provides that on application of the registrant, the Secretary may amend or revoke a registration. Form OCE-46 allows these transportation entities to apply voluntarily for revocation of their registration (operating rights) or parts thereof. If the transportation entity fails to maintain evidence of the required level of insurance coverage on file with FMCSA, its registration (operating authority) will be revoked involuntarily. Although the effect of both types of revocation is the same, some carriers prefer to request voluntary revocation. For various business reasons, a carrier may request revocation of some part, but not all, of its operating authority.
This information collection supports the DOT Strategic Goal of Safety by enabling motor carriers to voluntarily request revocation of operating authority, or some part of that authority, by identifying themselves to the FMCSA.
A completed Form OCE-46 is filed with FMCSA by the registrant for the purpose of requesting that all, or a part, of its registration be revoked. The information contained on the form is used by the FMCSA in making a determination on the revocation request. The use of Form OCE-46 has proven to be an easy and effective means by which a registrant can request revocation of its registration.
Form OCE-46 is filed by registrants on a voluntary, and for the most part, one-time basis. It calls for a very limited amount of information to identify the registrant and the scope of its request. Thus, the information collection itself
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice; request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR) described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval and invites public comment. FMCSA requests approval to extend the ICR entitled “
We must receive your comments on or before May 22, 2017.
You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket Management System Number FMCSA-2016-0354 by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Mr. Thomas Yager, Chief, Driver and Carrier Operations Division, Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, West Building 6th Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: 202-366-4325; email
Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 390.15(b), requires motor carriers to make certain specified records and information pertaining to CMV accidents available to an authorized representative or special agent of the FMCSA upon request or as part of an inquiry. Motor carriers are required to maintain an “accident register” consisting of information concerning all “accidents” involving their CMVs (49 CFR 390.15(b)(see “Definition: Accident” below). The following information must be recorded for each accident: Date, location, driver name, number of injuries, number of fatalities, and whether certain dangerous hazardous materials were released. In addition, the motor carrier must maintain copies of all accident reports required by insurers or governmental entities. Motor carriers must maintain this information for three years after the date of the accident. Section 390.15 does not require motor carriers to submit any information or records to FMCSA or any other party.
This ICR supports the DOT strategic goal of safety. By requiring motor carriers to gather and record information concerning CMV accidents, FMCSA is strengthening its ability to assess the safety performance of motor carriers. This information is a valuable resource in Agency initiatives to prevent, and reduce the severity of, CMV crashes.
The Agency increases its estimate from 26,700 to 36,157 burden hours. The regulation has not changed; the increase in burden hours does not
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.
Notice.
This notice announces final environmental actions taken by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for projects in Seattle and King County, WA. The purpose of this notice is to announce publicly the environmental decisions by FTA on the subject projects and to activate the limitation on any claims that may challenge these final environmental actions.
By this notice, FTA is advising the public of final agency actions subject to Section 139(l) of Title 23, United States Code (U.S.C.). A claim seeking judicial review of FTA actions announced herein for the listed public transportation projects will be barred unless the claim is filed on or before August 21, 2017.
Nancy-Ellen Zusman, Assistant Chief Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel, (312) 353-2577 or Meghan Kelley, Environmental Protection Specialist, Office of Environmental Programs, (202) 366-6098. FTA is located at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Notice is hereby given that FTA has taken final agency actions by issuing certain approvals for the public transportation projects listed below. The actions on the projects, as well as the laws under which such actions were taken, are described in the documentation issued in connection with the projects to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and in other documents in the FTA administrative record for the projects. Interested parties may contact either the project sponsor or the relevant FTA Regional Office for more information. Contact information for FTA's Regional Offices may be found at
This notice applies to all FTA decisions on the listed projects as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws under which such actions were taken, including, but not limited to, NEPA [42 U.S.C. 4321-4375], Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 [49 U.S.C. 303], Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act [16 U.S.C. 470f], and the Clean Air Act [42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q]. This notice does not, however, alter or extend the limitation period for challenges of project decisions subject to previous notices published in the
1.
2.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before April 21, 2017.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2017-0046. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel LAU LEA is:
The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD-2017-0046 at
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts these comments, without edit, to accessible through
49 CFR 1.93(a), 46 U.S.C. 55103, 46 U.S.C. 12121.
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before April 21, 2017.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2017-0049. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel CLOSE E NUFF is:
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts these comments, without edit, to
49 CFR 1.93(a), 46 U.S.C. 55103, 46 U.S.C. 12121.
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before April 21, 2017.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2017-0031. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel SLO GIN is:
The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD-2017-0031 at
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts these comments, without edit, to
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The Maritime Administration (MARAD) invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. The information to be collected will be used by MARAD and the U.S. Transportation Command, and its components, to assure the continued availability of commercial sealift resources to meet the Department of Defense (DOD) military requirements. We are required to publish this notice in the
Written comments should be submitted by May 22, 2017.
You may submit comments [identified by Docket No. DOT-MARAD-2017-0045] through one of the following methods:
•
•
•
William McDonald, 202-366-0688, Office of Sealift Support, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, 20590.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1:93.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before April 21, 2017.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2017-0020. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel FAST MOVING DIME is:
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts these comments, without edit, to
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before April 21, 2017.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2017-0047. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel TO LIFE is:
The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD-2017-0047 at
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts these comments, without edit, to
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before April 21, 2017.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2017-0048. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel LEI ALOHA is:
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts these comments, without edit, to
49 CFR 1.93(a), 46 U.S.C.55103, 46 U.S.C. 12121)
By Order of the Maritime Administrator
Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology (OST-R), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The BTS is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for an information collection related to tank car facilities to obtain an estimate of tank cars projected to be modified or built to the new safer Department of Transportation (DOT) standards.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 22, 2017.
You may submit comments identified by Docket No. DOT-OST-2017-0010 through the
Please note that anyone is able to electronically search all comments received into our docket management system by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
Clara Reschovsky, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room E34-409, Washington, DC 20590, Telephone (202) 366-2857.
In accordance with the requirements of 44 U.S.C. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) (the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995), this notice announces the intention of the BTS to request the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB's) approval for an information collection related to Section 7308 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (Pub. L. 114-94; the “FAST Act”). Specifically, Section 7308(c) of the FAST ACT directs the Secretary of Transportation to conduct a survey of tank car facilities to obtain an estimate of tank cars projected to be modified or built to the new safer Department of Transportation (DOT) Specification 117 or 117R. In order to satisfy the FAST Act requirements, BTS is planning the data collection. BTS invites comments on its intention to collect information from tank car retrofitting and manufacturing facilities on the planned and projected number of tank cars to be retrofitted or manufactured beginning the next calendar year, annually. Any facility identified with the capacity to modify or build new tank cars to the 117 or 117R specification, as described in Section 7308(c) of the FAST Act will be included in the survey identified in this notice and submit the results to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) no later than 60 days upon request. Individual responses to the survey will be kept confidential and a summary report of aggregate findings will be provided to:
(1) The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate; and
(2) The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives.
In addition, this summary report will also be published to the BTS Web page.
This notice is applicable to Section 7308(c) of the FAST Act which directs the Secretary to conduct an annual survey of tank car shops to acquire projections of the number of tank cars to be built or manufactured to the new safer specifications. This includes those tank cars modified to the DOT Specification 117R, or equivalent, as well as any new tank cars built to the DOT Specification 117, or equivalent. Modified tank cars will include, but may not be limited to, those previously built to Specifications: DOT105, DOT109, DOT111, DOT112, DOT114, DOT115, and DOT120.
Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), DOT.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics invites the general public, industry and other governmental parties to comment on the continuing need for and usefulness of DOT requiring U.S. and foreign air carriers to file traffic and capacity data pursuant to 14 CFR 241.19 and Part 217, respectively. These reports are used to measure air transportation activity to, from, and within the United States.
Written comments should be submitted by May 22, 2017.
Jennifer Rodes, Office of Airline Information, RTS-42, Room E34-420, OST-R, BTS, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001, Telephone Number (202) 366-8513, Fax Number (202) 366-3383 or EMAIL
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket ID Number DOT-OST-2014-0031 by any of the following methods:
You may access comments received for this notice at
The Federal Aviation Administration uses enplanement data for U.S. airports to distribute the annual Airport Improvement Program (AIP) entitlement funds to eligible primary airports,
The FAA uses traffic, operational and capacity data as important safety indicators and to prepare the air carrier traffic and operation forecasts that are used in developing its budget and staffing plans, facility and equipment funding levels, and environmental impact and policy studies. The FAA monitors changes in the number of air carrier operations as a way to allocate inspection resources and in making decisions as to increased safety surveillance. Similarly, airport activity statistics are used by the FAA to develop airport profiles and establish priorities for airport inspections.
While the Justice Department has the primary responsibility over air carrier acquisitions and mergers, the Department reviews the transfer of
The FAA uses traffic, operational and capacity data as important safety indicators and to prepare the air carrier traffic and operation forecasts. These forecast as used by the FAA, airport managers, the airlines and others in the air travel industry as planning and budgeting tools.
The mix of aircraft type are used in determining the practical annual capacity (PANCAP) at airports as prescribed in the FAA Advisory Circular
The Department apprizes Congress, the Administration and others of the effect major changes or innovations are having on the air transportation industry. For this purpose, summary traffic and capacity data as well as the detailed segment and market data are essential. These data must be timely and inclusive to be relevant for analyzing emerging issues and must be based upon uniform and reliable data submissions that are consistent with the Department's regulatory requirements.
The Department is responsible for establishing international and intra-Alaska mail rates. International mail rates are set based on scheduled operations in four geographic areas: Trans-border, Latin America, operations over the Atlantic Ocean and operations over the Pacific Ocean. Separate rates are set for mainline and bush Alaskan operations. The rates are updated every six months to reflect changes in unit costs in each rate-making entity. Traffic and capacity data are used in conjunction with cost data to develop the required unit cost data.
The Department reassesses service levels at small domestic communities to assure that capacity levels are adequate to accommodate current demand
The FAA is charged with administering a series of grants that are designed to accomplish the necessary airport planning for future development and growth. These grants are made to state metropolitan and regional aviation authorities to fund needed airport systems planning work. Individual airport activity statistics, nonstop market data, and service segment data are used to prepare airport activity level forecasts.
The Department reviews all of the International Air Transport Association (IATA) agreements that relate to fares, rates, and rules for international air transportation to ensure that the agreements meet the public interest criteria. Current and historic summary traffic and capacity data, such as revenue ton-miles and available ton-miles, by aircraft type, type of service, and length of haul are needed to conduct these analyses: To (1) develop the volume elements for passenger/cargo cost allocations, (2) evaluate fluctuations in volume of scheduled and charter services, (3) assess the competitive impact of different operations such as charter versus scheduled, (4) calculate load factors by aircraft type, and (5) monitor traffic in specific markets.
Foreign air carriers are required to submit applications for authority to operate to the United States. In reviewing these applications the Department must find that the requested authority is encompassed in a bilateral agreement, other intergovernmental understanding, or that granting the application is in the public interest. In the latter cases, T-100 data are used in assessing the level of benefits that carriers of the applicant's homeland presently are receiving from their U.S. operations. These benefits are compared and balanced against the benefits U.S. carriers receive from their operations to the applicant's homeland.
The Department determines whether U.S. air carriers are and continue to be fit, willing and able to conduct air service operations without undue risk to passengers and shippers. The Department monitors a carrier's load factor, operational, and enplanement data to compare with other carriers with similar operating characteristics. Carriers that expand operations at a high rate are monitored more closely for safety reasons.
Pursuant to an international agreement, the United States is obligated to report certain air carrier data to the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). The traffic data supplied to ICAO are extracted from the U.S. air carriers' Schedule T-100 submissions.
The Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002 (44 U.S.C. 3501 note), requires a statistical agency to clearly identify information it collects for non-statistical purposes. BTS hereby notifies the respondents and the public that BTS uses the information it collects under this OMB approval for non-statistical purposes including, but not limited to, publication of both Respondent's identity and its data, submission of the information to agencies outside BTS for review, analysis and possible use in regulatory and other administrative matters.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning, Disclosure of Returns and Return Information by Other Agencies.
Written comments should be received on or before May 22, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Tuawana Pinkston, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6141, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulation should be directed to R. Joseph Durbala, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning the disabled access credit.
Written comments should be received on or before May 22, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Tuawana Pinkston, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6141, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for copies of the form and instructions should be directed to R. Joseph Durbala, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 317-5746, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning TD 8566, General Asset Accounts Under the Accelerated Cost Recovery System.
Written comments should be received on or before May 22, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Tuawana Pinkston, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulation should be directed to Martha R. Brinson, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Revenue Procedure 2010-52, Extension of the Amortization Period.
Written comments should be received on or before May 22, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Tuawana Pinkston, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the revenue procedure should be directed to Sara Covington at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number.
Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning TD 9210, LIFO Recapture Under Section 1363(d).
Written comments should be received on or before May 22, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Laurie Brimmer, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulation should be directed to Martha R. Brinson, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning the Rev. Proc. 2008-27, 9100 Relief Under Sections 897 and 1445.
Written comments should be received on or before May 22, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Tuawana Pinkston, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6141, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of this revenue procedure should be directed to R. Joseph Durbala, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Rev. Proc. 2004-29, Statistical Sampling in § 274 Context.
Written comments should be received on or before May 22, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Laurie Brimmer, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the revenue procedure should be directed to Martha R. Brinson, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Pursuant to United States Code, Title 31, section 5135(b)(8)(C), the United States Mint announces the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee (CCAC) public meeting originally scheduled for March 15, 2017, has been rescheduled for March 21, 2017.
Interested members of the public may either attend the meeting in person or dial in to listen to the meeting at (866) 564-9287/Access Code: 62956028.
Any member of the public interested in submitting matters for the CCAC's consideration is invited to submit them by fax to the following number: 202-756-6525.
In accordance with 31 U.S.C. 5135, the CCAC:
Advises the Secretary of the Treasury on any theme or design proposals relating to circulating coinage, bullion coinage, Congressional Gold Medals, and national and other medals.
Advises the Secretary of the Treasury with regard to the events, persons, or places to be commemorated by the issuance of commemorative coins in each of the five calendar years succeeding the year in which a commemorative coin designation is made.
Makes recommendations with respect to the mintage level for any commemorative coin recommended.
Members of the public interested in attending the meeting in person will be admitted into the meeting room on a first-come, first-serve basis as space is limited. Conference Room A&B can accommodate up to 50 members of the public at any one time. In addition, all persons entering a United States Mint facility must adhere to building security protocol. This means they must consent to the search of their persons and objects in their possession while on government grounds and when they enter and leave the facility, and are prohibited from bringing the following items into the facility:
Illegal drugs, drug paraphernalia, and contraband;
Weapons of any type;
The United States Mint Police Officer conducting the screening will evaluate whether an item may enter into or exit from a facility based upon federal law, Treasury policy, United States Mint Policy, and local operating procedure; and all prohibited and unauthorized items will be subject to confiscation and disposal.
Betty Birdsong, Acting United States Mint Liaison to the CCAC; 801 9th Street NW.; Washington, DC 20220; or call 202-354-7200.
31 U.S.C. 5135(b)(8)(C).
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, that the Genomic Medicine Program Advisory Committee will meet on May 22, 2017, at the Hilton Garden Inn, Washington, DC, U.S. Capitol, 1225 1st Street NE., Washington, DC 20002. The meeting will convene at 9:00 a.m. and adjourn at 4:30 p.m. The meeting is open to the public.
The purpose of the Committee is to provide advice and make recommendations to the Secretary of VA on using genetic information to optimize medical care for Veterans and to enhance development of tests and treatments for diseases particularly relevant to Veterans.
The Committee will receive program updates and continue to provide insight into optimal ways for VA to incorporate genomic information into its health care program while applying appropriate ethical oversight and protecting the privacy of Veterans. The meeting focus will be on updates on the progress and planned characterization of the Million Veteran Program (MVP) samples and data access for the MVP, as well as updates from other national research programs such as the Kaiser Permanante. The Committee will also receive an update from the VA Clinical Genomics Service. Public comments will be received at 3:30 p.m. and are limited to 5 minutes each. Individuals who speak are invited to submit a 1-2 page summary of their comments for inclusion in the official meeting record to Dr. Sumitra Muralidhar, Designated Federal Officer, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC, 20420, or by email at
| 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 |