| Page Range | 18841-18974 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 82 FR 18936 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 82 FR 18928 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 82 FR 18907 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 82 FR 18893 - Phosphor Copper From the Republic of Korea: Antidumping Duty Order | |
| 82 FR 18902 - Sunshine Act Notice | |
| 82 FR 18923 - Notice of Issuance of Final Determination Concerning Certain Network Tap Products | |
| 82 FR 18929 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Application for Alien Employment Certification, Extension of Currently Approved Collection | |
| 82 FR 18935 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Information Collections: Nondisplacement of Qualified Workers Under Service Contracts, Executive Order 13495 | |
| 82 FR 18947 - Revisions to Railroad Annual Report Form R-1 and Quarterly Operating Reports | |
| 82 FR 18948 - Notice of Intent To Rule on Change in Use of Aeronautical Property at Immokalee Regional Airport | |
| 82 FR 18841 - Special Conditions: Viking Air, Ltd., Models DHC-6-100/-200/-300; Avmax Aviation Services, Inc., Installation of Rechargeable Lithium Batteries | |
| 82 FR 18936 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 18927 - National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related Actions | |
| 82 FR 18930 - Portable Fire Extinguishers (Annual Maintenance Certification Record); Extension of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of the Information Collection (Paperwork) Requirements | |
| 82 FR 18932 - Notice of Alleged Safety and Health Hazard (Form OSHA-7); Extension of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Collections of Information | |
| 82 FR 18934 - Rigging Equipment for Material Handling; Extension of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork) Requirements | |
| 82 FR 18858 - Civil Monetary Penalty Rates Inflation Adjustments for Calendar Year 2017 and Initial “Catch-Up” Adjustments | |
| 82 FR 18898 - Fees for Reviews of the Rule Enforcement Programs of Designated Contract Markets and Registered Futures Associations | |
| 82 FR 18973 - Advisory Committee on Former Prisoners of War; Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 18919 - Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders in Newborns and Children | |
| 82 FR 18865 - Safety Zone; Chapel Street Over Mill River Bridge Rehabilitation-New Haven, CT | |
| 82 FR 18947 - Military Reservist Economic Injury Disaster Loans: Interest Rate for Third Quarter FY 2017 | |
| 82 FR 18902 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment New Source Review | |
| 82 FR 18937 - GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy LLC Facility | |
| 82 FR 18939 - Water Remediation Technology LLC | |
| 82 FR 18860 - Special Local Regulation; Hebda Cup Rowing Regatta; Detroit River, Trenton Channel; Wyandotte, MI | |
| 82 FR 18896 - Supercalendered Paper From Canada: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Expedited Review | |
| 82 FR 18894 - Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part; 2015-2016 | |
| 82 FR 18929 - Meeting of the Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor Review Board | |
| 82 FR 18891 - Notice of Request for Reinstatement of an Information Collection; National Animal Health Reporting System | |
| 82 FR 18891 - Notice of Request for Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Importation of Fresh Pomegranates From Chile | |
| 82 FR 18892 - Notice of Request for Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Phytophthora Ramorum; Quarantine and Regulations | |
| 82 FR 18928 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Clean Air Act | |
| 82 FR 18862 - Special Local Regulation; Bush River, Harford County, MD | |
| 82 FR 18971 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Multiple IRS Information Collection Requests | |
| 82 FR 18949 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision | |
| 82 FR 18920 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Public Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 18913 - Product-Specific Guidance for Naloxone Hydrochloride; New Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
| 82 FR 18871 - Annual Civil Monetary Penalties Adjustment | |
| 82 FR 18918 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection: Public Comment Request; Information Collection Request Title: AIDS Drug Assistance Program Data Report, OMB No. 0915-0345-Extension | |
| 82 FR 18951 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes | |
| 82 FR 18954 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision | |
| 82 FR 18953 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes Mellitus | |
| 82 FR 18956 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision | |
| 82 FR 18889 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 18909 - Gastroenterology and Urology Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 18917 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection: Public Comment Request; Information Collection Request Title: Delta States Rural Development Network Grant Program, OMB No. 0915-0386-Revision | |
| 82 FR 18901 - Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive Patent License; Per Vivo Labs, Inc. | |
| 82 FR 18913 - Training Program for Regulatory Project Managers; Information Available to Industry | |
| 82 FR 18910 - Safe Use Symposium: A Focus on Reducing Preventable Harm From Drugs in the Outpatient Setting | |
| 82 FR 18915 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Information From United States Firms and Processors That Export to the European Union | |
| 82 FR 18916 - Guerbet Group; Withdrawal of Approval of Two New Drug Applications | |
| 82 FR 18912 - Reducing the Risk of Preventable Adverse Drug Events Associated With Hypoglycemia in the Older Population; Public Workshop | |
| 82 FR 18911 - Science Board to the Food and Drug Administration Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 18910 - Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 18923 - Center for Substance Abuse Treatment; Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 18895 - Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate From India, Indonesia, and the Republic of Korea: Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders | |
| 82 FR 18966 - Agency Requests for Renewal of a Previously Approved Information Collection(s): Uniform Financial Reporting Requirements | |
| 82 FR 18967 - Request for Comments of a Previously Approved Information Collection | |
| 82 FR 18966 - Agency Requests for Renewal of a Previously Approved Information Collection(s): Automated Mutual Assistance Vessel Rescue System | |
| 82 FR 18965 - Request for Comments of a Previously Approved Information Collection | |
| 82 FR 18945 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 18908 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 18890 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 18945 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq GEMX, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Rulebook and Schedule of Fees To Incorporate Certain Name Changes | |
| 82 FR 18941 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change Related to Unusual Market Conditions and the Requirement To Systemize Non-Electronic Orders Prior to Representation | |
| 82 FR 18943 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Fees for Use on Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. | |
| 82 FR 18942 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ISE Mercury, LLC; Order Declaring Effective a Minor Rule Violation Plan | |
| 82 FR 18900 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Intent To Renew Collection Number 3038-0091, Disclosure and Retention of Certain Information Relating to Cleared Swaps Customer Collateral | |
| 82 FR 18877 - Request for Comment on Possible Changes to Industry Guide 3 (Statistical Disclosure by Bank Holding Companies); Extension of Comment Period | |
| 82 FR 18958 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request: Cab Technology Integration Lab (CTIL) Head-up Display Survey | |
| 82 FR 18898 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 18970 - Internal Revenue Service Advisory Council (IRSAC); Nominations | |
| 82 FR 18970 - Tax Counseling for the Elderly (TCE) Program Availability of Application Packages | |
| 82 FR 18969 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for United States Gift (and Generation-Skipping Transfer) Tax Return | |
| 82 FR 18970 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation Project | |
| 82 FR 18968 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation Project | |
| 82 FR 18889 - Notice of Request for Extension or Renewal of a Currently Approved Information Collection | |
| 82 FR 18907 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company | |
| 82 FR 18908 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
| 82 FR 18964 - Notice of Request for Revisions of an Information Collection | |
| 82 FR 18904 - Information Collections Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and Budget | |
| 82 FR 18903 - Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and Budget | |
| 82 FR 18921 - Office of Global Affairs: Stakeholder Listening Session in Preparation for the 70th World Health Assembly | |
| 82 FR 18960 - Transit Asset Management: Final Guidebooks | |
| 82 FR 18879 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Ashley River, Charleston, SC | |
| 82 FR 18877 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Banana River, Indian Harbour Beach, FL | |
| 82 FR 18922 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 82 FR 18922 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 82 FR 18923 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 18922 - National Center for Complementary & Integrative Health; Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 18882 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Mid-Atlantic Forage Species Omnibus Amendment | |
| 82 FR 18881 - Air Plan Approval; Connecticut; General Permit To Limit Potential To Emit From Major Stationary Sources of Air Pollution | |
| 82 FR 18868 - Air Plan Approval; Connecticut; General Permit To Limit Potential To Emit From Major Stationary Sources of Air Pollution | |
| 82 FR 18874 - Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Lebanon, MO | |
| 82 FR 18875 - Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Wellington, KS | |
| 82 FR 18854 - Amendment of Class E Airspace and Establishment of Class E En Route Airspace; Paso Robles, CA | |
| 82 FR 18855 - Amendment of Class E Airspace; Atlantic City, NJ | |
| 82 FR 18856 - Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Elmira, NY | |
| 82 FR 18852 - Establishment of Class E Airspace; Kill Devil Hills, NC | |
| 82 FR 18843 - Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce plc Turbofan Engines | |
| 82 FR 18849 - Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce plc Turbofan Engines | |
| 82 FR 18845 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 18967 - Hazardous Materials: Use of DOT Specification 39 Cylinders for Liquefied Flammable Compressed Gas |
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Navy Department
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Coast Guard
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
National Park Service
Office of Natural Resources Revenue
Justice Programs Office
Employment and Training Administration
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Wage and Hour Division
National Endowment for the Arts
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Maritime Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final special conditions; request for comments.
These special conditions are issued for the Viking Air, Ltd., models DHC-6-100/-200/-300, Twin Otter, Turbopropeller airplanes. This airplane, as modified by Avmax Aviation Services, Inc., will have a novel or unusual design feature associated with the use of a replacement option of a lithium battery instead of nickel-cadmium and lead-acid rechargeable batteries. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
The effective date of these special conditions is April 24, 2017.
We must receive your comments by June 8, 2017.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-0381 using any of the following methods:
□
□
□
□
Ruth Hirt, Federal Aviation Administration, Aircraft Certification Service, Small Airplane Directorate, ACE-114, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, MO; telephone (816) 329-4108; facsimile (816) 329-4090.
The FAA has determined that notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are impracticable because these procedures would significantly delay issuance of the approval design and thus delivery of the affected aircraft. In addition, the FAA has determined, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) and 553(d)(3), that notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are unnecessary because the substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon issuance.
We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. We ask that you send us two copies of written comments.
We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.
On January 18, 2016, Avmax Aviation Services, Inc., (Avmax) applied for a supplemental type certificate (STC) to install a rechargeable lithium battery on the Viking Air, Ltd. (Viking Air), models DHC-6-100/-200/-300, Twin Otter, Turbopropeller airplanes. These are normal category airplanes, powered by two Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A-20 engines (-100 and -200) or two PT6A-27 engines (-300). The maximum takeoff weight is 12,500 pounds (5,670 kg) for the -300, but lesser for the -100 and -200.
The current regulatory requirements for part 23 airplanes do not contain adequate requirements for use of
Under the provisions of § 21.101, Avmax must show that the models DHC-6-100/-200/-300 Turbopropeller airplanes, as changed, continue to meet the applicable provisions of the regulations incorporated by reference in Type Certificate Data Sheet No. A9EA
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (
The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in § 11.19, under § 11.38 and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.101.
Special conditions are initially applicable to the models for which they are issued. Should the applicant apply for an STC to modify any other model included on the same type certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.
The Viking Air models DHC-6-100/-200/-300 Turbopropeller airplanes will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features:
The installation of a rechargeable lithium battery as a main or engine start aircraft battery.
The applicable regulations governing the installation of batteries in general aviation airplanes were derived from CAR 3 as part of the recodification that established 14 CFR part 23. The battery requirements identified in § 23.1353 were a rewording of the CAR requirements. Additional rulemaking activities, as a result of increased incidents of Ni-Cd battery fire or failures, incorporated § 23.1353(f) and (g) at amendments 23-20 and 23-21 respectively. However, the regulation prescribed was not for lithium battery installations.
The proposed use of rechargeable lithium batteries prompted the FAA to review the adequacy of these existing regulations. We found that the existing regulations do not adequately address the safety of lithium battery installations.
Current experience with rechargeable lithium batteries in commercial or general aviation is limited. However, other users of this technology, ranging from personal computers, to wireless telephone manufacturers, to the electric vehicle industry, have noted safety problems with rechargeable lithium batteries. These problems include overcharging, over-discharging, flammability of cell components, cell internal defects, and those resulting from exposure to extreme temperatures that are described in the following paragraphs.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The special conditions are applicable to the models DHC-6-100/-200/-300 Turbopropeller airplanes. Should Avmax apply at a later date for an STC to modify any other model included on the same type certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well.
This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on the models DHC-6-100/-200/-300 Turbopropeller airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability and affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the airplane.
The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in several prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the subject contained herein. Therefore, notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are unnecessary and the FAA finds good cause, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) and 553(d)(3), making these special conditions effective upon issuance. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Signs and symbols.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113 and 44701; 14 CFR 21.16 and 21.101; and 14 CFR 11.38 and 11.19.
The FAA adopts that the following special conditions be applied to lithium battery installations on the models DHC-6-100/-200/-300 Turbopropeller airplanes in lieu of the requirements § 23.1353(a)(b)(c)(d)(e), amendment 49.
Lithium battery installations on the models DHC-6-100/-200/-300 Turbopropeller airplanes must be designed and installed as follows:
(1) Safe cell temperatures and pressures must be maintained during—
i. Normal operations;
ii. Any probable failure conditions of charging or discharging or battery monitoring system; and
iii. Any failure of the charging or battery monitoring system not shown to be extremely remote.
(2) The rechargeable lithium battery installation must be designed to preclude explosion or fire in the event of 1(1)(ii) and 1(1)(iii) failures.
(3) Design of the rechargeable lithium batteries must preclude the occurrence of self-sustaining, uncontrolled increases in temperature or pressure.
(4) No explosive or toxic gasses emitted by any rechargeable lithium battery in normal operation or as the result of any failure of the battery charging system, monitoring system, or battery installation which is not shown to be extremely remote, may accumulate in hazardous quantities within the airplane.
(5) Installations of rechargeable lithium batteries must meet the requirements of § 23.863(a) through (d) at amendment 23-34.
(6) No corrosive fluids or gases that may escape from any rechargeable lithium battery may damage surrounding structure or any adjacent systems, equipment, electrical wiring, or the airplane in such a way as to cause a major or more severe failure condition, in accordance with § 23.1309 at amendment 23-49 and applicable regulatory guidance.
(7) Each rechargeable lithium battery installation must have provisions to prevent any hazardous effect on structure or essential systems that may be caused by the maximum amount of heat the battery can generate during a short circuit of the battery or of its individual cells.
(8) Rechargeable lithium battery installations must have—
i. A system to automatically control the charging rate of the battery to prevent battery overheating and overcharging; and either
ii. A battery temperature sensing and over-temperature warning system with a means for automatically disconnecting the battery from its charging source in the event of an over-temperature condition; or
iii. A battery failure sensing and warning system with a means for automatically disconnecting the battery from its charging source in the event of battery failure.
(9) Any rechargeable lithium battery installation, the function of which is required for safe operation of the aircraft, must incorporate a monitoring and warning feature that will provide an indication to the appropriate flight crewmembers whenever the state of charge of the batteries has fallen below levels considered acceptable for dispatch (see note 1) of the aircraft.
Reference § 23.1353(h) for dispatch consideration.
(10) The Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA) required by § 23.1529 must contain maintenance requirements (see note 2) to assure that the battery has been sufficiently charged (see note 3) at appropriate intervals specified by the battery manufacturer and the equipment manufacturer that contain the rechargeable lithium battery or rechargeable lithium battery system. The lithium rechargeable batteries and lithium rechargeable battery systems must not degrade below specified ampere-hour levels sufficient to power the aircraft system. The ICA must also contain procedures for the maintenance of replacement batteries (see note 4) to prevent the installation of batteries that have degraded charge retention ability or other damage due to prolonged storage at a low state of charge. Replacement batteries must be of the same manufacturer and part number as approved by the FAA.
Maintenance requirements include procedures that—
(a) Check battery capacity, charge degradation at manufacturers recommended inspection intervals.
(b) Replace batteries at manufacturers recommended replacement schedule/time to prevent age related degradation.
The term “sufficiently charged” means that the battery must retain enough charge, expressed in ampere-hours, to ensure that the battery cells will not be damaged.
A battery cell may be damaged by low charge (
Replacement battery in spares storage may be subject to prolonged storage at a low state of charge.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are superseding airworthiness directive (AD) 2012-04-01 for all Rolls-Royce plc (RR) RB211-Trent 800 model turbofan engines. AD 2012-04-01 required removal from service of certain critical engine rotating parts based on reduced life limits. This AD makes additional revisions to the life limits of certain critical engine rotating parts. This AD was prompted by RR further revising the life limits of certain critical engine rotating parts. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective May 30, 2017.
See the
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Robert Green, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7754; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2012-04-01, Amendment 39-16956 (77 FR 10355, February 22, 2012), (“AD 2012-04-01”). AD 2012-04-01 applied to the specified products. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comments received. The Boeing Company and American Airlines support the NPRM as written.
We reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed.
We estimate that this AD affects 16 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective May 30, 2017.
This AD replaces AD 2012-04-01, Amendment 39-16956 (77 FR 10355, February 22, 2012).
This AD applies to all Rolls-Royce plc (RR) RR RB211-Trent 875-17, 877-17, 884-17, 884B-17, 892-17, 892B-17, and 895-17 turbofan engines.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7200, Engine (Turbine/Turboprop).
This AD was prompted by RR revising the life limits of certain critical engine rotating parts. We are issuing this AD to prevent the failure of critical engine rotating parts, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) After the effective date of this AD, remove from service the parts listed in Table 1 to paragraph (f) of this AD before exceeding the new life limit indicated:
(2) Reserved.
After the effective date of this AD, do not install any IP turbine discs, P/N FK33083, into any engine.
The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request. You may email your request to:
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Robert Green, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7754; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
(2) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency, AD 2016-0223, dated November 8, 2016, for more information. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
None.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A300 series airplanes; Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes); and Model A310 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report indicating that during inspections to detect corrosion of the bulk cargo doors, several cracks were discovered. This AD requires inspections of the bulk cargo door frame to identify any structural repairs and cracking, and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective May 30, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of May 30, 2017.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 44 51; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-2125; fax: 425-227-1149.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Model A300 series airplanes; Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes); and Model A310 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2015-0238, dated December 18, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A300 series airplanes; Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes); and Model A310 series airplanes. The MCAI states:
During inspections to detect corrosion on the Bulk Cargo Doors of Airbus A300 family aeroplanes, several cracks were discovered. Investigations revealed that a set of SRM [structural repair manual] repair solutions was defined in 1993, and was classified as permanent and without limitation. As of 2011, this set of repair solutions was revised and classified permanent, but with post-repair required actions.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could result in rapid decompression events or even loss of the bulk cargo door.
As per Ageing Aircraft rules, it was determined that new inspections have to be completed on the Bulk Cargo Door Frames to detect potential fatigue damages on repaired structures or to perform a new repair scheme.
Based on the fact that several aeroplanes could potentially be flying with potential fatigue damages on repaired structures, Airbus was requested to issue Alert Operator Transmission (AOT) A53W010-15 to provide fleet-wide inspection instructions to address this condition.
For the reasons describes above, this [EASA] AD requires a one-time inspection of the bulk cargo door frame to determine whether a repair has been accomplished and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s).
The required actions in this AD include a detailed visual inspection of the bulk cargo door frame at the repaired area for any cracking, repair of cracks, and post-repair inspections of crack-free frames. This AD affects airplanes that have accumulated more than 14,600 total flight cycles as of the effective date of this AD. For airplanes that have accumulated 14,600 total flight cycles or fewer as of the effective date of this AD, no actions are required by this AD; however, we might consider further rulemaking for these airplanes.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
United Parcel Service (UPS) requested that we remove Model F4-622R airplanes from the applicability in paragraph (c) of the proposed AD. UPS stated that review of the applicable structural repair manual (SRM) sections identified in Airbus Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) A53W010-15, Revision 00, including Appendixes 1, 2, 3, and 4, dated December 15, 2015, revealed that Model A300 F4-622R airplanes with Airbus Modification 12046 embodied do not have the repair configuration in question available for use on these airplanes.
We agree with the commenter's request. Since the issuance of the NPRM, Airbus has revised the service information. Airbus AOT A53W010-15, Revision 01, including Appendixes 1, 2, 3, and 4, dated October 4, 2016, excludes Model A300 F4-622R and Model F4-605R airplanes in the post-Modification 12046 configuration. Therefore, we have redesignated paragraph (c) of the proposed AD as paragraph (c)(1) of this AD and added paragraph (c)(2) to this AD to exclude those airplanes.
Richard Vernon requested that we revise paragraph (g) of the proposed AD to state that no further action is required for airplanes on which no structural repairs are identified.
We agree. We have determined that this change is consistent with the intent of the MCAI. Therefore, we have revised paragraph (g) of this AD to state that if no structural repairs are found or identified during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD or the maintenance records review specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, no further action is required by this AD for that airplane.
UPS requested that we revise the NPRM to expand paragraph (g) and to reorganize paragraphs (h) through (i) of the proposed AD. UPS stated that the initial inspection and applicable corrective actions are spread over multiple paragraphs, including combining reporting requirements with the “no damage found” follow-on action.
We disagree with the commenter's request. While we understand the commenter's proposed reorganization of the paragraphs, our intent of the AD as written is to provide requirements that are consistent with the requirements of the MCAI. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
UPS commented that a detailed review of paragraphs (g) and (h) of the proposed AD indicates that there is no guidance for airplanes without repairs installed or repairs installed after December 2011 when the repair was classified in the SRM as “permanent with post-repair actions.” UPS stated that it is possible for an airplane with more than 14,600 total flight cycles to have an SRM repair identified in Airbus Alert Operators Transmission A53W010-15, Revision 00, dated December 15, 2015, References (1) through (8), and to be in compliance with the SRM post-repair actions and still have to re-validate the repair per the NPRM.
We infer that UPS is requesting that we provide guidance for airplanes repaired after December 2011 and airplanes with no repairs installed.
We agree to clarify. There is further action for airplanes repaired after December 2011, as required by paragraph (h) of this AD. SRM repairs and post-repair inspections do not allow for detecting cracks at doubler angles, whether the repairs were permanent or not or performed before or after December 2011. We have not revised this AD in this regard. For airplanes on which no structural repairs are identified during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD or the records review specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, no further action is necessary. As stated previously, we have added language to paragraph (g) of this AD that states that if no structural repairs are found or identified, no further action is required by this AD for that airplane.
UPS provided restructured text for paragraph (g) of the proposed AD. The text includes an allowance to review the airplane maintenance records to identify the existence of any structural repairs of the bulk cargo door frame.
From this language provided by UPS, we infer that UPS was requesting that we include an option to allow a review of the airplane maintenance records to determine the existence of any structural repairs in lieu of the required general visual inspection of the bulk cargo door frame. We agree. We have revised paragraph (g) of this AD to add a statement that a review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of the inspection specified in paragraph (g) of this AD as long as the existence of any structural repairs can be conclusively determined from that review. We have also revised paragraph (h) of this AD to refer to the maintenance records review.
FedEx requested that we allow credit for those airplanes which have been previously inspected in accordance with Airbus AOT A53W010-15, Revision 00, including Appendixes 1, 2, 3, and 4, dated December 15, 2015. FedEx stated that it has previously performed the required inspection on its airplanes as specified in Airbus AOT A53W010-15, Revision 00, including Appendixes 1, 2, 3, and 4, dated December 15, 2015. FedEx stated that Airbus indicated that airplanes having accumulated less than 14,600 total flight cycles will be covered later by another means of inspection. FedEx asserted that the NPRM will impose an additional burden based upon the results of the inspection on its airplanes, which were all negative.
We agree with the commenter's request for the reasons stated. We have revised this AD to provide credit for actions specified in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD if those actions were done before the effective date of this AD using Airbus AOT A53W010-15, Revision 00, including Appendixes 1, 2, 3, and 4, dated December 15, 2015.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.
We reviewed Airbus AOT A53W010-15, Revision 01, including Appendixes 1, 2, 3, and 4, dated October 4, 2016. The service information describes procedures for a general visual inspection of the bulk cargo door frame to identify any structural repairs, and a detailed visual inspection of the frame at the repaired area. The service information also provides procedures for contacting Airbus for repair instructions and reporting of inspection results. 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 135 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD, except for the cost of reporting, specified as follows:
A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, ATTN: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.
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
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 May 30, 2017.
None.
(1) This AD applies to Airbus Model A300 B2-1A, B2-1C, B2K-3C, B2-203, B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203 airplanes; Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, B4-622, B4-605R, B4-622R, F4-605R, and F4-622R airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes; and Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes, certificated in any category, that have accumulated more than 14,600 total flight cycles as of the effective date of this AD.
(2) Airbus Model A300 F4-605R and F4-622R airplanes in the post-Modification 12046 configuration are not affected by the requirements of this AD.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by a report indicating that during inspections to detect corrosion of the bulk cargo doors, several cracks were discovered. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the bulk cargo doors; such cracking could result in rapid airplane decompression or possible loss of the bulk cargo door.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 250 flight cycles or 6 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first: Do a general visual inspection of the bulk cargo door frame to identify the existence of any structural repairs, in accordance with the instructions of Airbus Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) A53W010-15, Revision 01, including Appendixes 1, 2, 3, and 4, dated October 4, 2016. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection as long as the existence of any structural repairs can be conclusively determined from that review. If no structural repairs are found or identified during the inspection or maintenance records review, no further action is required by this AD for that airplane.
If, during the general visual inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD or the maintenance records review specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, any repair is found or identified on the bulk cargo door frame: Before further flight, do a detailed visual inspection for cracking of the frame at the repaired area, in accordance with the instructions of Airbus AOT A53W010-15, Revision 01, including Appendixes 1, 2, 3, and 4, dated October 4, 2016.
If any cracking is found during the detailed visual inspection required by paragraph (h) 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).
If no cracking is found during the detailed visual inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD: Do the actions in paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this AD.
(1) At the applicable time specified in paragraph (j)(1)(i) or (j)(1)(ii) of this AD: Send a report of the inspection results to Airbus Service Bulletin Reporting Online Application on Airbus World (
(i) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 60 days after the inspection.
(ii) If the inspection was done before the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 60 days after the effective date of this AD.
(2) Within 2,800 flight cycles after the detailed visual inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD: Do applicable post-repair inspections and repairs, using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA.
This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus AOT A53W010-15, Revision 00, including Appendixes 1, 2, 3, and 4, dated December 15, 2015.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2015-0238, dated December 18, 2015, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (n)(3) and (n)(4) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Airbus Alert Operators Transmission A53W010-15, Revision 01, including Appendixes 1, 2, 3, and 4, dated October 4, 2016.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
We are superseding airworthiness directive (AD) 2017-01-01 for all Rolls-Royce plc (RR) RB211-Trent 970-84, RB211-Trent 970B-84, RB211-Trent 972-84, RB211-Trent 972B-84, RB211-Trent 977-84, RB211-Trent 977B-84, and RB211-Trent 980-84 turbofan engines. AD 2017-01-01 required inspections of the low-pressure turbine (LPT) exhaust case and support assembly or tail bearing housing (TBH) to detect cracks or damage. This AD corrects references to certain service bulletins in the compliance section of AD 2017-01-01. This AD was prompted by reports that references to service bulletins in AD 2017-01-01 are incorrect. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective May 9, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of January 26, 2017 (82 FR 3146, January 11, 2017).
We must receive any comments on this AD by June 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 service information identified in this AD, contact Rolls-Royce plc, Corporate Communications, P.O. Box 31, Derby, England, DE24 8BJ; phone: 011-44-1332-242424; fax: 011-44-1332-245418, or email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Robert Green, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7754; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to provide your comments before it becomes effective. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
On December 22, 2016, we issued AD 2017-01-01, Amendment 39-18768 (82 FR 3146, January 11, 2017), for all RR RB211-Trent 970-84, RB211-Trent 970B-84, RB211-Trent 972-84, RB211-Trent 972B-84, RB211-Trent 977-84, RB211-Trent 977B-84, and RB211-Trent 980-84 turbofan engines. AD 2017-01-01 required inspections of the LPT exhaust case and support assembly or TBH to detect cracks or damage. AD 2017-01-01 resulted from RR performing additional analysis of inspection results and determining that the existing inspections need to be modified. We issued AD 2017-01-01 to
Since we issued AD 2017-01-01, we learned that certain references to certain service bulletins in AD 2017-01-01 are incorrect. In the fourth row, second column of Table 2 to paragraph (f) of AD 2017-01-01, the applicable Alert Non-Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB) states “RB.211-72-AJ101” but the correct reference is “RB.211-72-AH154.” In addition, two references to “NMSB RB.211-72-J024” in Table 1 and Table 2 to paragraph (f) of AD 2017-01-01 should say “SB RB.211-72-J024”. We have corrected those references in this AD.
RR has issued Alert NMSB RB.211-72-AG971, Revision 2, dated May 5, 2016; Alert NMSB RB.211-72-AH154, Revision 5, dated May 5, 2016; Alert NMSB RB.211-72-AJ101, dated May 5, 2016; and Service Bulletin (SB) RB.211-72-J055, dated March 22, 2016. RR Alert NMSB RB.211-72-AG971 describes procedures for on-wing or in-shop inspection of the TBH mount lug run-outs. RR Alert NMSB RB.211-72-AH154 describes procedures for an on-wing or in-shop inspection of a pre-mod 72-J024 TBH. RR Alert NMSB RB.211-72-AJ101 describes procedures for on-wing or in-shop inspection of a post-mod 72-J024 TBH. RR SB RB.211-72-J055 describes procedures for modifying the engine by introducing a revised TBH. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This AD requires inspections of the LPT exhaust case and support assembly or TBH to detect cracks or damage.
No domestic operators use this product. Therefore, we find that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
We estimate that this AD affects 0 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective May 9, 2017.
This AD replaces AD 2017-01-01, Amendment 39-18768 (82 FR 3146, January 11, 2017).
This AD applies to all Rolls-Royce plc (RR) RB211-Trent 970-84, RB211-Trent 970B-84, RB211-Trent 972-84, RB211-Trent 972B-84, RB211-Trent 977-84, RB211-Trent 977B-84, and RB211-Trent 980-84 turbofan engines.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7200, Engine (Turbine/Turboprop).
This AD was prompted by reports that references to certain service bulletins are incorrect. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the tail bearing housing (TBH), resulting in damage to the engine and to the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) Within the compliance times and using the service information specified in Table 1 to paragraph (f) of this AD, accomplish on-wing inspections of the TBH features using the following instructions, as applicable.
(i) If during any on-wing inspection of the TBH mount lug run-outs done using the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.A.(1), of RR Alert Non-Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB) RB.211-72-AG971, Revision 2, dated May 5, 2016, any cracks less than or equal to 2 mm in length are found, remove the engine from service within 10 flight cycles (FCs). If any cracks greater than 2 mm are found, remove the engine from service before further flight.
(ii) If during any on-wing inspection of the TBH mount lug run-outs done using the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.A.(2), of RR Alert NMSB RB.211-72-AG971, Revision 2, dated May 5, 2016, any crack indications resulting in an inspection signal with an amplitude of 50% full screen height or more are found, remove the engine from service before further flight.
(iii) If during any on-wing inspection of a pre-mod 72-J024 TBH, any crack or damage is found on the TBH mount lug forging leading edge (LE) areas, re-inspect the engine or remove the engine from service in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.A.(3)(t), of RR Alert NMSB RB.211-72-AH154, Revision 5, dated May 5, 2016.
(iv) If during any on-wing inspection of a post-mod 72-J024 TBH, any crack is found on the TBH mount lug forging LE or cutback areas, re-inspect the engine or remove the engine from service in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.A.(3)(t), of RR Alert NMSB RB.211-72-AJ101, dated May 5, 2016.
(2) Within the compliance times and using the service information specified in Table 2 to paragraph (f) of this AD, perform in-shop inspections of the TBH features using the following instructions, as applicable.
(i) If during any in-shop inspection of the TBH, any crack is found on the TBH mount lug or central male catcher run-outs, replace the TBH with a TBH eligible for installation before the engine is returned to service.
(ii) If during any in-shop inspection of the TBH, any crack is found on the top core vanes, reject as unserviceable or repair the TBH in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.C.(1)(f), of RR Alert NMSB RB.211-72-AG971 Revision 2, dated May 5, 2016, before the engine is returned to service.
(iii) If during any in-shop inspection of a pre-mod 72-J024 TBH, any crack or damage is found on the TBH mount lug forging LE areas, reject as unserviceable or repair the TBH in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.B.(2)(u)(ii), of RR Alert NMSB RB.211-72-AH154, Revision 5, dated May 5, 2016, or the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.C.(1)(f), of RR Alert NMSB RB.211-72-AG971, Revision 2, dated May 5, 2016, before the engine is returned to service.
(iv) If during any in-shop inspection of a post-mod 72-J024 TBH, any crack is found on the TBH mount lug forging LE or cutback areas, repair the TBH in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.B.(2)(u)(ii), of RR Alert NMSB RB.211-72-AJ101, dated May 5, 2016, or the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.C.(1)(f), of Alert NMSB RB.211-72-AG971, Revision 2, dated May 5, 2016, before the engine is returned to service.
(1) If you performed inspections and corrective actions on an engine before the effective date of this AD, in accordance with earlier versions of RR Alert NMSB RB.211-72-AG971, Revision 2, dated May 5, 2016, or RR Alert NMSB RB.211-72-AH154, Revision 5, dated May 5, 2016, you met the requirements of paragraph (f)(1) or (2) of this AD, as applicable.
(2) If, on or before April 7, 2014, you performed the inspections and corrective actions required by paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this AD using RR Technical Variance (TV) No. 124801, Issue 2, dated July 4, 2012 or earlier versions; or RR TV No. 124851, Issue 2, dated July 4, 2012 or earlier versions; you met the requirements for a mount lug run-out inspection.
(3) If, on or before April 7, 2014, you performed the inspections and corrective actions required by paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this AD using RR Repeater TV No. 132043, Issue 1, dated March 25, 2013 or earlier versions; or using RR Repeater TV No. 132217, Issue 5, dated May 23, 2013 or earlier versions; you met the requirements for the mount lug forging LE inspections of this AD.
(1) Accomplishment of corrective actions required by paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this AD does not constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by this AD.
(2) Modification of an engine in accordance with the instructions of RR Service Bulletin RB.211-72-J055, dated March 22, 2016, constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this AD for that engine, provided that, following this modification, no affected TBH is installed on that engine.
The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request. You may email your request to:
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Robert Green, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7754; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
(2) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency AD 2016-0193, dated September 30, 2016, for more information. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
(3) RR TV No. 124801, Issue 2, dated July 4, 2012; RR TV No. 124851, Issue 2, dated July 4, 2012, Repeater TV No. 132043, Issue 1, dated March 25, 2013, and Repeater TV No. 132217, Issue 5, dated May 23, 2013; which are not incorporated by reference in this AD, can be obtained from RR using the contact information in paragraph (k)(3) 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 the AD specifies otherwise.
(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on January 26, 2017 (82 FR 3146, January 11, 2017).
(i) Rolls-Royce plc (RR) Service Bulletin RB.211-72-J055, dated March 22, 2016.
(ii) RR Alert Non-Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB) RB.211-72-AJ101, dated May 5, 2016;
(iii) RR Alert NMSB RB.211-72-AG971, Revision 2, dated May 5, 2016; and
(iv) RR Alert NMSB RB.211-72-AH154, Revision 5, dated May 5, 2016.
(4) For RR service information identified in this AD, contact Rolls-Royce plc, Corporate Communications, P.O. Box 31, Derby, England, DE24 8BJ; phone: 011-44-1332-242424; fax: 011-44-1332-245418, or email:
(5) You may view this service information at FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.
(6) You may view this service information at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action establishes Class E airspace at Kill Devil Hills, NC, to accommodate new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) serving First Flight Airport. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport.
Effective 0901 UTC, June 22, 2017. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of
FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-6364.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at First Flight Airport, Kill Devil Hills, NC for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport.
On November 22, 2016, the FAA published in the
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11A dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the
This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of First Flight Airport, Kill Devil Hills, NC to support the new RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the airport. An editorial change to the latitude coordinate of the airport has been made, changing it to lat. 36°01'03”, from lat. 36°1'3. Aside from the editorial change, this final rule is the same as published in the NPRM.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120, E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of First Flight Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action modifies Class E surface area airspace, Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, and establishes Class E en route airspace at Paso Robles Municipal Airport, Paso Robles, CA. Also, the geographic coordinates of the airport are adjusted to match the current FAA aeronautical database. These changes are necessary to support new Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) standard instrument approach procedures at the airport and en route operations where the Federal airway structure is inadequate.
Effective 0901 UTC, June 22, 2017. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Tom Clark, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203-4511.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends controlled airspace at Paso Robles Municipal Airport, Paso Robles, CA.
On November 10, 2016, the FAA published in the
The FAA is transitioning from a system of ground based navigational aids, which are being decommissioned, to Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) for navigation and found airspace redesign necessary to support new GNSS standard instrument approach procedures and en route, point-to-point clearances for which the Federal airway structure is inadequate.
Except for an editorial change adding the airport name in the regulatory text for Class E en route airport, this rule is the same as published in the NPRM.
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6002, 6005, and 6006, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the
This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 modifies Class E surface area airspace, Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, and establishes Class E en route airspace upward from 1,200 feet above the surface at Paso Robles Municipal Airport, Paso Robles, CA.
Class E surface airspace is modified to within a 5.7-mile radius of Paso Robles Municipal Airport (from a 5-mile radius), and language excluding the Hunter Low A, Hunter Low B, and Roberts Military Operations Areas is removed.
Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface is slightly enlarged north and south of the airport to accommodate new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures developed for the airport.
Additionally, Class E en route airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface is established at the airport to adjoin the Monterey, Lemoore, Bakersfield, and Santa Barbara Class E airspace areas upward from 1,200 feet above the surface, to provide controlled airspace where the Federal airway structure is inadequate. Also, the geographic coordinates of the airport are adjusted to match the FAA's aeronautical database.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace within a 5.7-mile radius of Paso Robles Municipal Airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 10.5-mile radius of Paso Robles Municipal Airport from the 351° bearing of the airport clockwise to the 040° bearing, and within a 5.7-mile radius from the 040° bearing of the airport clockwise to the 128° bearing, and within a 9-mile radius from the 128° bearing of the airport clockwise to the 168° bearing, and within a 7-mile radius from the 168° bearing of the airport clockwise to the 209° bearing, and within a 5.7-mile radius from the 209° bearing of the airport clockwise to the 323° bearing, and within 1.8 miles each side of the 341° bearing from the airport extending to 9.6 miles northwest of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface at Paso Robles Municipal Airport within the area bounded by lat. 35°34′54″ N., long. 120°4′52″ W.; to lat. 35°43′55″ N., long. 120°4′52″ W.; to lat. 35°43′58″ N., long. 120°20′49″ W.; to lat. 36°8′51″ N., long. 120°39′41″ W.; to lat. 36°23′8″ N., long. 120°42′26″ W.; to lat. 36°23′13″ N., long. 121°3′25″ W.; to lat. 36°0′42″ N., long. 121°33′30″ W.; to lat. 35°37′48″ N., long. 121°21′48″ W.; to lat. 35°25′55″ N., long. 121°2′47″ W.; to lat. 35°32′43″ N., long. 121°2′47″ W.; to lat. 35°32′52″ N., long. 120°40′42″ W.; to lat. 35°22′10″ N., long. 120°32′00″ W; to lat. 35°31′44″ N., long. 120°14′50″ W.; to lat. 35°35′25″ N., long. 120°17′41″ W.; to the point of beginning.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends Class E airspace at Atlantic City, NJ, as Atlantic City Municipal/Bader Field has closed, requiring airspace reconfiguration at Atlantic City International Airport. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations in the Atlantic City International Airport area.
Effective 0901 UTC, June 22, 2017. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on-line at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-6364.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends Class E airspace at Atlantic City International Airport, Atlantic City, NJ for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations in the Atlantic City International Airport area.
On January 17, 2017, the FAA published in the
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraphs 6003 and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11A dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the
This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 amends Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class C surface area, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Atlantic City International Airport, Atlantic City, NJ, by removing Atlantic City Municipal/Bader Field from the airspace description as the airport has closed, no longer requiring controlled airspace.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120, E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from the surface within 2.7 miles either side of the Atlantic City VORTAC 303° radial extending from the 5-mile radius to 7.4 miles northwest of Atlantic City International Airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.2-mile radius of Atlantic City International Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends Class D and E airspace at Elmira, NY, as the ERINN Outer Marker (OM) has been decommissioned requiring airspace reconfiguration at Elmira/Corning Regional Airport. This action enhances the safety and airspace management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport. This action also updates the geographic coordinates of the airport, and eliminates the Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) part-time status of the Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D surface area. Also, the FAA found the Class E airspace designated as an extension to a class D surface area description was inaccurate. This action corrects the error.
Effective 0901 UTC, June 22, 2017. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends Class D and Class E airspace at Elmira/Corning Regional Airport, Elmira, NY.
On December 13, 2016, the FAA published in the
Subsequent to publication, the regulatory text for the Class E airspace designated as an extension was found to have some inaccuracies and is rewritten for clarity.
Class D and Class E airspace designations are published in paragraphs 5000, 6002 and 6004, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11A dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class D and Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the
This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 amends Class D airspace, Class E surface area airspace, and Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D surface area at Elmira/Corning Regional Airport, Elmira, NY. This action amends the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database, and eliminates the NOTAM information from the regulatory text of the Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D that reads, “This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and time established in advance by Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.” This action also corrects some inaccuracies in the segment dimensions northeast, east, and southwest of the airport in the description of Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D surface.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120, E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 3,500 MSL within a 4.2-mile radius of the Elmira/Corning Regional Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement, (previously called Airport/Facility Directory).
That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 4.2-mile radius of the Elmira/Corning Regional Airport. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement, (previously called Airport/Facility Directory).
That airspace extending upward from the surface within 1.8 miles each side of the 062° bearing from the airport extending from the
Office of the Secretary, Office of Natural Resources Revenue, Interior.
Final rule.
In accordance with the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (Act), as amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (2015 Act) and recent Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance, the Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR) is publishing this final rule to adjust our maximum civil monetary penalty (CMP) rates for calendar year 2017. This final rule also adopts as final a 2016 interim final rule that adjusted the amount of our civil monetary penalties for inflation with initial “catch-up” adjustments under the 2015 Act.
This rule is effective on April 24, 2017.
For questions on procedural issues, contact Armand Southall, Regulatory Specialist, by telephone at (303) 231-3221 or email to
The Act, as amended (set out in a note following 28 U.S.C. 2461), requires Federal agencies to adjust their civil monetary penalty (CMP) rates through an interim final rulemaking to take effect no later than August 1, 2016, and to make annual inflation adjustments not later than January 15 of every year thereafter with the guidance that OMB provides us by December 15 of each calendar year, as required by section 7 of the Act, to calculate the maximum CMP rates for the following calendar year.
On February 24, 2016, OMB issued guidance on calculating the initial catch-up and subsequent annual CMP inflation adjustments.
On December 16, 2016, OMB issued additional guidance on the annual adjustment of CMPs for 2017.
ONRR assesses CMPs under section 109 of the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act of 1982 (FOGRMA), codified as amended at 30 U.S.C. 1719. In accordance with FOGRMA, we calculate and assess CMPs per violation, at the applicable rate, for each day such violation continues.
Since we had not adjusted the maximum CMP rates for inflation since their establishment in 1983, we calculated the new maximum CMP rates for 2016 using the inflation-adjustment multiplier for CMPs established in 1983, as set out in Table A in OMB Memorandum M-16-06. That multiplier was 2.35483. On June 9, 2016, we published an interim final rule in the
In accordance with sections 4 and 5 of the Act, as amended, the annual CMP Inflation Adjustment calculation for 2017 is based on the percent change in the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U) between October 2015 and October 2016. To calculate the maximum CMP rates for 2017, we are using the inflation-adjustment multiplier that OMB provided in its Memorandum M-17-11. That multiplier is 1.01636. In accordance with section 5(a) of the Act, as amended, the new maximum CMP rates will be rounded to the nearest dollar. For example, the maximum CMP rate under 30 U.S.C. 1719(a) in 2016 is $1,177 per violation for each day such violation continues; the 2017 CMP inflation-adjustment multiplier is 1.01636; $1,177 × 1.01636 = $1,196.2557, which rounds down to $1,196. Therefore, the new maximum CMP rate for this violation is $1,196 for each day such violation continues. It is important to note that, by themselves, the increases in maximum CMP rates contained in this final rule do not determine the amount of the CMP that we will assess for a particular violation; as authorized by FOGRMA and the implementing regulations codified at 30 CFR part 1241, we calculate each CMP on a case-by-case basis.
In accordance with section 6 of the Act, as amended, the new maximum
This final rule adjusts the maximum CMP rates for each of the four categories of violations identified in 30 U.S.C. 1719(a)-(d). The following list identifies the existing ONRR regulations containing CMP rates and shows those rates before and after adjustment.
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in OMB will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not significant.
E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866, while calling for improvements in the Nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. E.O. 13563 directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public, where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
This rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601
This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:
a. Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.
b. Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers; individual industries; Federal, State, local government agencies; or geographic regions.
c. Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.
This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. This rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, we are not required to provide a statement containing the information that the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531
This rule does not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under E.O. 12630. Therefore, this rule does not require a takings implication assessment.
Under the criteria in section 1 of E.O. 13132, this rule does not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism summary impact statement. Therefore, this rule does not require a Federalism summary impact statement.
This rule complies with the requirements of E.O. 12988. Specifically, this rule:
a. Meets the criteria of section 3(a), which requires that we review all regulations to eliminate errors and ambiguity and to write them to minimize litigation.
b. Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2), which requires that we write all regulations in clear language using clear legal standards.
The Department strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with the Indian Tribes through a commitment to consultation with the Indian Tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and Tribal sovereignty. Under the Department's consultation policy and the criteria in E.O. 13175, we evaluated this rule and determined that it will have no substantial direct effects on Federally-recognized Indian Tribes and does not require consultation.
This rule:
(a) Does not contain any new information collection requirements.
(b) Does not require a submission to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
This rule does not constitute a major Federal action, significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. We are not required to provide a detailed statement under NEPA because this rule qualifies for categorical exclusion under 43 CFR 46.210(i) in that this rule is “. . .
This rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in E.O.
We are required by E.O. 12866 (section 1(b)(12)), E.O. 12988 (section 3(b)(1)(B)), and E.O. 13563 (section 1(a)), and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(a) Be logically organized.
(b) Use the active voice to address readers directly.
(c) Use common, everyday words and clear language rather than jargon.
(d) Be divided into short sections and sentences.
(e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send your comments to
The Act requires agencies to publish annual inflation adjustments by no later than January 15, 2017, and by no later than January 15 each subsequent year, notwithstanding section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553). OMB has interpreted this direction to mean that the usual APA public procedure for rulemaking—which includes public notice of a proposed rule, an opportunity for public comment, and a delay in the effective date of a final rule—is not required when agencies issue regulations to implement the annual adjustments to civil penalties that the Act requires. Accordingly, we are issuing the 2017 annual adjustments as a final rule without prior notice or an opportunity for comment and with an effective date immediately upon publication in the
Section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that “notice and public procedure . . . are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest,” the agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an opportunity for prior public comment. Under section 553(b), ONRR finds that there is good cause to promulgate this rule without first providing for public comment. It would not be possible to meet the deadlines imposed by the Act if we were to first publish a proposed rule, allow the public sufficient time to submit comments, analyze the comments, and publish a final rule. Also, ONRR is promulgating this final rule to implement the statutory directive in the Act, which requires agencies to publish a final rule and to update the civil penalty amounts by applying a specified formula. We have no discretion to vary the amount of the adjustment to reflect any views or suggestions provided by commenters. Accordingly, it would serve no purpose to provide an opportunity for public comment on this rule prior to promulgation. Thus, providing for notice and public comment is impracticable and unnecessary.
Furthermore, ONRR finds under section 553(d)(3) of the APA that good cause exists to make this final rule effective immediately upon publication in the
Administrative practice and procedure, Civil penalties, Coal, Geothermal, Inflation, Mineral resources, Natural gas, Notices of non-compliance, Oil.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, ONRR amends 30 CFR part 1241 as set forth below:
25 U.S.C. 396
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a special local regulation for certain waters of the Detroit River, Trenton Channel, Wyandotte, MI. This action is necessary and is intended to ensure safety of life on navigable waters to be used for a rowing event immediately prior to, during, and immediately after this event. This regulation requires vessels to maintain a minimum speed for safe navigation and maneuvering.
This temporary final rule is effective from 7:30 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. on April 29, 2017.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this temporary rule, call or email Tracy Girard, Prevention Department, Sector Detroit, Coast Guard; telephone 313-568-9564, or email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable. The Coast Guard did not receive the final details of this rowing event until there was insufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be impracticable because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect participants, mariners and vessels from the hazards associated with this event. We are issuing this rule under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), as the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1233. The Captain of the Port Detroit (COTP) has determined that the likely combination of recreation vessels, commercial vessels, and an unknown number of spectators in close proximity to a youth rowing regatta along the water pose extra and unusual hazards to public safety and property. Therefore, the COTP is establishing a Special Local Regulation around the event location to help minimize risks to safety of life and property during this event.
This rule establishes a temporary special local regulation from 7:30 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. on April 29, 2017. In light of the aforementioned hazards, the COTP has determined that a special local regulation is necessary to protect spectators, vessels, and participants. The special local regulation will encompass the following waterway: All waters of the Detroit River, Trenton Channel between the following two lines going from bank-to-bank: the first line is drawn directly across the channel from position 42°11.0′ N., 083°09.4′ W. (NAD 83); the second line, to the north, is drawn directly across the channel from position 42°11.7′ N., 083°08.9′ W. (NAD 83).
An on-scene representative of the COTP or event sponsor representatives may permit vessels to transit the area when no race activity is occurring. The on-scene representative may be present on any Coast Guard, state, or local law enforcement vessel assigned to patrol the event. Vessel operators desiring to transit through the regulated area must contact the Coast Guard Patrol Commander to obtain permission to do so. The COTP or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 or at 313—568-9560.
The COTP or his designated on-scene representative will notify the public of the enforcement of this rule by all appropriate means, including a Broadcast Notice to Mariners and Local Notice to Mariners.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and executive orders.
Executive Orders 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”) and 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771
(“Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”), directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that “for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.”
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed it. As this rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017 titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs'” (February 2, 2017). A regulatory analysis (RA) follows.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-year of the special local regulation. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this special local regulation zone which will impact a small designated area of the Detroit River from 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. April 29, 2017. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the special local regulation and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the area.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the special local regulation may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a special local regulation lasting nine hours that will limit entry to a designated area. It is categorically excluded under section 2.B.2, figure 2-1, and paragraph 34(h) of the Instruction. A Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) is available in the docket where indicated in the
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1233.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) Vessel operators desiring to operate in the regulated area must contact the Coast Guard Patrol Commander to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port Detroit (COTP) or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 or at 313-568-9560. Vessel operators given permission to operate within the regulated area must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP or his on-scene representative.
(3) The “on-scene representative” of the COTP Detroit is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer or a Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Detroit to act on his behalf.
(4) Vessel operators shall contact the COTP Detroit or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to enter or operate within the special local regulation. The COTP Detroit or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 or at 313-568-9464. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the regulated area must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP Detroit or his on-scene representative.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing special local regulations for certain waters of the Bush River, including Otter Point Creek. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters located near Flying Point Park in Harford County, MD, during a high-speed power boat racing event on May 6, 2017, and May 7, 2017. This rulemaking would
This rule is effective from 11 a.m. on May 6, 2017, until 7 p.m. on May 7, 2017.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Mr. Ronald Houck, Waterways Management Division, Sector Maryland-National Capital Region, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 410-576-2674, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable. Details of the proposed event were provided to the Coast Guard on March 30, 2017. At this time, it would be impracticable to complete the full notice and comment process because this special local regulation must be established on May 6, 2017, and May 7, 2017.
We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1233, which authorizes the Coast Guard to establish and define special local regulations. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Maryland-National Capital Region has determined that potential hazards associated with the power boat race would be a safety concern for anyone intending to operate within certain waters of the Bush River and Otter Point Creek in Harford County, MD. The purpose of this rulemaking is to protect event participants and transiting vessels on certain waters of the Bush River and Otter Point Creek before, during, and after the scheduled event.
This rule establishes a special local regulation from 11 a.m. until 7 p.m. on May 6, 2017, and from 11 a.m. until 7 p.m. on May 7, 2017. The regulated area would cover all navigable waters of the Bush River, including Otter Point Creek, from shoreline to shoreline, bounded to the north by a line drawn from the western shoreline of the Bush River at latitude 39°27′15″ N., longitude 076°14′39″ W. and thence eastward to the eastern shoreline of the Bush River at latitude 39°27′03″ N., longitude 076°13′57″ W.; and bounded to the south by the Amtrak Railroad Bridge, across the Bush River at mile 6.8, between Perryman, MD and Edgewood, MD. This rule provides additional information about areas within the regulated area, their definitions, and the restrictions that apply to mariners. The regulated areas include a “Race Area” and a “Buffer Zone”.
The enforcement and duration of the regulated area is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and the specified navigable waters before, during, and after the noon to 6 p.m. high-speed power boat races. Except for Flying Point Park Outboard Regatta participants, no vessel or person would be permitted to enter the regulated area without obtaining permission from the COTP Maryland-National Capital Region or Coast Guard Patrol Commander. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders (E.O.s) related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and E.O.s, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
E.O.s 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”) and 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (“Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”), directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that “for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.”
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it.
As this rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size and duration of the regulated area, which would impact a small designated area of the Bush River and Otter Point Creek for a 16 hour enforcement period. The Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the status of the regulated area. Moreover, the rule would allow vessels to request permission to enter the regulated area, and vessel traffic would be able to safely transit the regulated area once the Coast Guard Patrol Commander deems it safe to do so.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the regulated area may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in E.O. 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves implementation of regulations within 33 CFR part 100 applicable to organized marine events on the navigable waters of the United States that could negatively impact the safety of waterway users and shore side activities in the event area lasting for a total of 16 hours. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated in the
We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1233.
(a)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(c)
(2) Except for participants and vessels already at berth, all persons and vessels within the regulated area at the time it is implemented are to depart the regulated area.
(3) Persons and vessels desiring to transit, moor, or anchor within the regulated area must obtain authorization from the Captain of the Port Maryland—National Capital Region or Coast Guard Patrol Commander. Prior to the enforcement periods, persons may request permission to transit, moor, or anchor within the regulated area, from Captain of the Port Maryland—National Capital Region at telephone number 410-576-2693 or on Marine Band Radio, VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). During the enforcement periods, to request permission to transit, moor, or anchor within the area, the Coast Guard Patrol Commander can be contacted on Marine Band Radio, VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz) for direction.
(4) The Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol and enforcement of the regulated area by other Federal, State, and local agencies. The Coast Guard Patrol Commander and official patrol vessels enforcing this regulated area can be contacted on marine band radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz) and channel 22A (157.1 MHz).
(5) The Coast Guard will publish a notice in the Fifth Coast Guard District Local Notice to Mariners and issue a marine information broadcast on VHF-FM marine band radio announcing specific event date and times.
(d)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on Mill River in New Haven, CT around the Chapel Street Bridge. The safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by the Mohawk Northeast, Inc. Chapel Street Bridge Rehabilitation Project. When enforced, this regulation prohibits entry of vessels or people into the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Long Island Sound.
This rule is effective without actual notice from April 24, 2017 through May 26, 2017. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from April 1, 2017, through April 24, 2017.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, contact Petty Officer Katherine Linnick, Prevention Department, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Long Island Sound, telephone (203) 468-4565, email
On March 6, 2017, Sector Long Island Sound was made aware of a bridge rehabilitation project for the Chapel Street Bridge over the Mill River in New Haven, CT. The COTP Sector LIS has determined that the potential hazards associated with the bridge rehabilitation project will be a safety concern for anyone within the work area.
The project is scheduled to begin on April 1, 2017 and be completed by May 26, 2017. During this project, masonry repairs, fender system repairs, mechanical system replacement, and upgrades to the superstructure will take place. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The safety zone will be enforced during two brief periods when work barges will be placed in the navigable channel during structural steel replacement or when other hazards to navigation arise. The Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 24 hours in advance to any period of enforcement or as soon as practicable in response to an emergency. If the project is completed prior to May 26, 2017, enforcement of the safety zone will be suspended and notice given via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The late finalization of project details did not give the Coast Guard enough time to publish an NPRM, take public comments, and issue a final rule before the construction work is set to begin. It would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest to delay promulgating this rule as it is necessary to protect the safety of the public and waterway users.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), and for the same reasons stated in the preceding paragraph, the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The legal basis for this temporary rule is 33 U.S.C. 1231. The COTP Sector LIS has determined that potential hazards associated with the bridge rehabilitation project starting on April 1, 2017 and continuing through May 26, 2017 will be a safety concern for anyone within the work zone. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment within the safety zone while the bridge rehabilitation project is completed.
This rule establishes a safety zone from 6:00 a.m. on April 1, 2017 through 9:00 p.m. on May 26, 2017. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of Mill River in New Haven, CT around the Chapel Street Bridge: Beginning at a point in position at 41°18′14″ N., 072°54′21″ W. north of the Chapel Street Bridge; then east across Mill River to a point in position at 41°18′14″ N., 072°54′18″ W.; then south to a point in position at 41°18′11″ N., 072°54′18″ W.; then west across Mill River to a point in position at 41°18′11″ N., 072°54′21″ W.; then north across Chapel Street Bridge back to point of origin (NAD 83). All positions are approximate. The duration of the zone is intended to protect people, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters during the Mohawk Northeast, Inc. Chapel Street Bridge Rehabilitation Project. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.
The Coast Guard will notify the public and local mariners of this safety zone through appropriate means, which may include, but are not limited to, publication in the
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order. 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. The Coast Guard has determined that this rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action for the following reasons: (1) The safety zone only impacts a small designated area of the Mill River during a time of year when vessel traffic is normally low, (2) the zone will only be enforced temporarily when work barges will be placed in the navigable channel during structural steel replacement or if necessitated by an emergency, (3) persons or vessels desiring to enter the safety zone may do so with permission from the COTP Sector LIS or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will notify the public of the enforcement of this rule via appropriate means, such as via Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit this regulated area may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator. Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This temporary rule involves a safety zone enforced from April 1, 2017 through May 26, 2017 that will prohibit entry within the work zone during the bridge rehabilitation project. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. An environmental analysis checklist and Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record keeping requirements, Security measures, and Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(2) In accordance with the general regulations in 33 CFR 165.23, entry into or movement within this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP Long Island Sound.
(3) Operators of vessels desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone should contact the COTP Long Island Sound at 203-468-4401 (Sector Long Island Sound command center) or the designated representative on scene via VHF channel 16 to obtain permission to do so.
(4) Mariners are requested to cooperate with the Mohawk Northeast, Inc. project work vessels for the safety
(5) Any vessel given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP Long Island Sound, or the designated on scene representative.
(6) Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing light or other means, the operator of the vessel shall proceed as directed.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Connecticut. This revision approves into the Connecticut SIP the provisions of Connecticut's “General Permit to Limit Potential to Emit from Major Stationary Sources of Air Pollution” (GPLPE) as they apply to the restriction of emissions of criteria pollutants for which EPA has established national ambient air quality standards. Separately, we are also approving the provisions of the GPLPE as it applies to the restriction of emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). The State issued the GPLPE on November 9, 2015. The permit imposes legally and practicably enforceable emissions limitations restricting eligible sources' potential to emit air pollutants. Such restrictions would generally allow eligible sources to avoid having to comply with reasonably available control technology (RACT) that would otherwise apply to major stationary sources, title V operating permit requirements, or other requirements that apply only to major stationary sources. This action is being taken in accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).
This direct final rule will be effective from June 23, 2017 to November 8, 2020, unless EPA receives adverse comments by May 24, 2017. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2016-0542 at
Susan Lancey, Air Permits, Toxics, and Indoor Programs Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100 (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, telephone 617-918-1656, fax 617-918-0656, email
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.
Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble.
In a letter dated June 27, 2016, the State of Connecticut submitted a formal revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP revision consists of Connecticut's GPLPE as it relates to criteria pollutants. Federally-enforceable limits on criteria pollutants or their precursors (
Connecticut's June 27, 2016 letter also requested that EPA approve the GPLPE under section 112(l) of the CAA, as the GPLPE relates to HAPs. The GPLPE was issued on November 9, 2015 and expires on November 8, 2020. As noted earlier, the GPLPE is a general permit designed to limit air pollutant emissions from major stationary sources to below major source thresholds by including legally and practicably enforceable permit restrictions on potential and actual emissions.
By letter dated August 18, 2016, CT DEEP withdrew from its June 27, 2016 SIP submittal, all explicit and implicit
We note that inclusion in our approval of Section 7 of the GPLPE, entitled “Commissioner's Powers,” does not, as a matter of law, and is not intended to, supersede or in any way affect EPA's authority under the CAA in relation to enforcement or any other authority. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
As noted earlier, the State of Connecticut's principal purpose in issuing the GPLPE is to have a federally and practicably enforceable means of expeditiously restricting sources' potential and actual emissions of air pollutants, such that those eligible sources would no longer be required to comply with reasonably available control technology (RACT) that would otherwise apply to major stationary sources, title V operating permit requirements, or other requirements that only apply to major stationary sources. The operating permit provisions in title V of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 created interest in mechanisms for limiting sources' potential to emit, thereby allowing eligible sources to avoid being defined as “major” with respect to title V operating permit programs. Please note, however, that a source that is eligible for coverage under the GPLPE may still need a title V operating permit if EPA promulgates a National Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) which requires non-major sources to obtain a title V permit.
The GPLPE requires a permittee to submit a registration that includes, among other things, calculation of a source's potential and actual emissions of regulated air pollutants and a detailed description of the methodology used to calculate those actual and potential emissions. The methodology used by an eligible source must be selected from a preferential hierarchy of methodologies explicitly identified in the GPLPE. Under the GPLPE, facilities may register to be limited to emissions less than 50% of the title V operating permit program thresholds for a major source; or, alternatively, facilities with certain specified source categories may apply to be limited to emissions up to, but no more than, 80% of the title V operating permit program thresholds for a major source, provided the permittee conducts the additional specified monitoring and any other additional requirements required by the GPLPE for the relevant source category. Section 5 of the GPLPE contains emissions limitations, requirements for the source to calculate potential and actual emissions, monitoring requirements, recordkeeping requirements, and requires eligible sources to submit an annual compliance certification. This approach was developed in accordance with an EPA guidance document entitled “Options for Limiting Potential to Emit of a Stationary Source under Section 112 and Title V of the Clean Air Act,” issued by John Seitz, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards to EPA Air Division Directors, dated January 25, 1995. This guidance outlines various approaches to establishing federally-enforceable mechanisms to limit emissions from sources that wish to limit potential emissions to below major source levels.
We note that Connecticut is not relying on the GPLPE's emissions limitations for any National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) attainment demonstration purposes. The GPLPE has a permit term of five years and expires on November 8, 2020. Therefore, when the permit expires as a matter of state law on November 8, 2020, the permit also will no longer be an enforceable part of the Connecticut SIP for purposes of federal law.
The GPLPE satisfies the criteria necessary for EPA's approval as a SIP revision under section 110 of the CAA. The GPLPE contains legally enforceable limitations on emissions that are also federally and practicably enforceable. As noted earlier, Connecticut is also seeking approval of the GPLPE under section 112(l) of the CAA for the purpose of limiting an eligible source's potential and actual emissions of HAPs. The following is a discussion of EPA's criteria for approval of the GPLPE under section 112(l).
The state of Connecticut has also requested approval of its GPLPE under section 112(l) of the Act for the purpose of creating federally enforceable limitations on the potential to emit of HAPs. Approval under section 112(l) is necessary because the SIP approval discussed above, pursuant to section 110 of the Act, does not extend to HAPs. Approval pursuant to section 112(l) of the Act will render the GPLPE federally enforceable for sources of HAPs.
In order for EPA to approve the Connecticut GPLPE for limiting the potential to emit of HAPs, the GPLPE must meet the statutory criteria for approval under section 112(l)(5) of the Act. In a July 10, 1996
EPA is approving Connecticut's GPLPE as a revision to the State's SIP with respect to criteria pollutants and is separately approving the GPLPE under section 112(l) of the Act with respect to HAPs. The GPLPE was issued on November 9, 2015 and has an expiration date of November 8, 2020. EPA is not taking any action on any implicit or explicit references to GHGs contained in the GPLPE (which Connecticut withdrew from the June 27, 2016 SIP submittal). EPA is approving Connecticut's request in accordance with the requirements of sections 110 and 112 of the CAA.
The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a notice withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on the proposed rule. All parties interested in commenting on the proposed rule should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on June 23, 2017 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the General Permit to Limit Potential to Emit from Major Stationary Sources, issuance date November 9, 2015, except for all provisions related to greenhouse gases which Connecticut withdrew from consideration as part of the SIP as described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• 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 Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 23, 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, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(114) Revisions to the State Implementation Plan submitted by the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection on June 27, 2016 and August 18, 2016.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) General Permit to Limit Potential to Emit from Major Stationary Sources, issuance date November 9, 2015, except for the provisions listed below, related to greenhouse gases which Connecticut withdrew from consideration as part of the SIP.
(
(
(
(
(5) In Section 5, the words “and (vi)” in paragraph 5(b)(2)(A)(vii); and
(
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Final rule.
The Maritime Administration (MARAD) is updating its regulations to reflect required annual inflation-related increases to the civil monetary penalties in its regulations, pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvement Act of 2015. This final rule adjusts civil penalty amounts for violations of procedures related to the American Fisheries Act, certain regulated transactions involving documented vessels, the Automated Mutual Assistance Vessel Rescue program (AMVER) and the Defense Production Act.
MARAD finds that good cause exists for immediate implementation of this final rule because prior notice and comment are unnecessary, per the specific provisions of the 2015 Act.
This rule is effective May 4, 2017.
Office of Chief Counsel, MAR 225, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Second Floor, Washington, DC 20590.
T. Mitchell Hudson, Jr., Office of Chief Counsel, MARAD, telephone (202) 366-9373, email to:
The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (Sec. 701 of Pub. L. 114-74) (the “2015 Act”), which is intended to improve the effectiveness of civil monetary penalties and to maintain the deterrent effect of such penalties, requires agencies to adjust the civil monetary penalties for inflation annually.
Generally, agencies may promulgate final rules only after issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking and providing an opportunity for public comment under procedures required by the APA, as provided in 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and (c). The APA, in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), provides an exception from these requirements when notice and public comment procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” MARAD finds that prior notice and comment to this civil penalty adjustment is unnecessary because section 4 of the 2015 Act specifically requires the annual adjustments to be accomplished through final rule without notice and comment.
Also pursuant to the APA (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3)), the rule will be effective 10 days after publication in the
On June 30, 2016, MARAD published an interim final rule using an initial “catch up” adjustment, as required by section 4 of the 2015 Act (81 FR 41453). Just like this final rule, the interim final rule made adjustments to civil penalty amounts for violations of procedures related to the American Fisheries Act, certain regulated transactions involving documented vessels, the Automated Mutual Assistance Vessel Rescue program (AMVER) and the Defense Production Act.
The annual inflation adjustment for each applicable civil monetary penalty is determined using the percent increase in the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the month of October of the year in which the amount of each civil penalty was most recently established or modified. In the December 16, 2016, OMB Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Agencies and Departments, M-17-11,
Using the 2017 multiplier, MARAD adjusts all its applicable monetary penalties.
The maximum civil penalties arising under 46 CFR 221.61 have not been updated since they were established, except for inflationary adjustments pursuant to the Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990. Applying the multiplier for the increase in CPI-U for 2017, the maximum civil penalty for a single violation of any provision under 46 U.S.C. Chapter 313 and all of Subtitle III related MARAD regulations, except section 31329, specified in 31309 of Title 46 of the United States Code is adjusted to $20,111. Likewise, the maximum civil penalty for a single violation of 31329 of Title 46 of the United States Code as it relates to the court sales of documented vessels, specified in 31330 of Title 46 of the
Applying the multiplier for the increase in CPI-U for 2017, the maximum civil penalty for a single violation of 50113 of Title 46 of the United States Code related to use and performance reports by operators of vessels as specified in 50113(b) of Title 46 of the United States Code is adjusted to $127.00.
Applying the multiplier for the increase in CPI-U for 2017, the maximum civil penalty for a single violation of 4501 of Title 50 of the United States Code, specified in 4513 of Title 50 of the United States Code, at 46 CFR 340.9, is adjusted to $25,409.
Applying the multiplier for the increase in CPI-U for 2017, the maximum civil penalty for a single violation of 12151 of Title 46 of the United States Code for engaging in fishing operations as defined in section 3 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, within the Exclusive Economic Zone, specified in 12151(c) of Title 46 of the United States Code, and at 46 CFR 356.49, is adjusted to $147,396 for each day such vessel engaged in fishing.
MARAD has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This rulemaking document was not reviewed under Executive Order 12866 or Executive Order 13563. This action is limited to the adoption of adjustments of civil penalties under statutes that the agency enforces, and has been determined to be not “significant” under the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures and the policies of the Office of Management and Budget. Because this rulemaking does not change the number of entities that are subject to civil penalties, the impacts are limited. Furthermore, excluding the penalties in 46 CFR 221.61, 307.19, 340.9 and 356.49 for violating certain long standing procedures, this final rule does not establish civil penalty amounts that MARAD is required to seek.
We also do not expect the increase in the civil penalty amount in any of these regulations to be economically significant. Over the last five years, MARAD has not collected any civil penalties under these regulations. Increasing the current civil penalty amount by 150 percent would not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.
We have also considered the impacts of this regulation under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I certify that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Since this regulation does not establish a penalty amount that MARAD is required to seek, except for the long standing civil penalties set forth in 46 CFR 221.61, 307.19, 340.9 and 356.49, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on small businesses. Additionally, over the last five years, MARAD has not collected any civil penalties under these regulations. Accordingly, increasingly the civil penalty amount is unlikely to have any economic impact on any small businesses.
Executive Order 13132 requires MARAD to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that 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.” Under Executive Order 13132, the agency may not issue a regulation with Federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, the agency consults with State and local governments, or the agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the regulation.
This rule 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132. This rule only updates existing penalties, pursuant to statute. MARAD has not collected any civil penalties under these regulations within the last five years and if it were to assess penalties, due to the amounts involved, it would not have a substantial direct effect on a State. Thus, the requirements of Section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Public Law 104-4, requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the cost, benefits and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually. Because this rule will not have a $100 million effect, no Unfunded Mandates assessment will be prepared.
This rule does not have a retroactive or preemptive effect. Judicial review of this rule may be obtained pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 702. That section does not require that a petition for reconsideration be filed prior to seeking judicial review.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, we state that there are no requirements for information collection associated with this rulemaking action.
Administrative practice and procedure, Maritime carriers, Mortgages, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Trusts and trustees.
Marine safety, Maritime carriers, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Harbors, Maritime carriers, National defense, Packaging and containers.
Citizenship and naturalization, Fishing vessels, Mortgages, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Vessels.
In consideration of the foregoing, 46 CFR parts 221, 307, 340, and 356 are amended as set forth below.
46 U.S.C. chs. 301, 313, and 561; Pub. L. 114-74; 49 CFR 1.93.
(a) This subpart describes procedures for the administration of civil penalties that the Maritime Administration may assess under 46 U.S.C. 31309, 31330 and 56101, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 336.
(b) Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 31309, a general penalty of not more than $20,111 may be assessed for each violation of chapter 313 or 46 U.S.C. subtitle III administered by the Maritime Administration, and the regulations in this part that are promulgated thereunder, except that a person violating 46 U.S.C. 31329 and the regulations promulgated thereunder is liable for a civil penalty of not more than $50,276 for each violation. A person that charters, sells, transfers or mortgages a vessel, or an interest therein, in violation of 46 U.S.C. 56101(e) is liable for a civil penalty of not more than $19,246 for each violation.
Pub. L. 109-304; 46 U.S.C. 50113; Pub. L. 114-74; 49 CFR 1.93.
The owner or operator of a vessel in the waterborne foreign commerce of the United States is subject to a penalty of $127.00 for each day of failure to file an AMVER report required by this part. Such penalty shall constitute a lien upon the vessel, and such vessel may be libeled in the district court of the United States in which the vessel may be found.
50 U.S.C. 4501
Pursuant 50 U.S.C. 4513 any person who willfully performs any act prohibited, or willfully fails to perform any act required, by the provisions of this regulation shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $25,409 or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
46 U.S.C. 12102; 46 U.S.C. 12151; 46 U.S.C. 31322; Pub. L. 105-277, division C, title II, subtitle I, section 203 (46 U.S.C. 12102 note), section 210(e), and section 213(g), 112 Stat. 2681; Pub. L. 107-20, section 2202, 115 Stat. 168-170; Pub. L. 114-74; 49 CFR 1.93.
(b) A fine of up to $147,396 may be assessed against the vessel owner for each day in which such vessel has engaged in fishing (as such term is defined in section 3 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1802) within the exclusive economic zone of the United States; and
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Floyd W. Jones Airport, Lebanon, MO. This action is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Lebanon non-directional radio beacon (NDB), and cancellation of the NDB approach, and would enhance the safety and management of standard instrument approach procedures for instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport.
Comments must be received on or before June 8, 2017.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826, or 1-800-647-5527. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2017-0176; Airspace Docket No. 17-ACE-3, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at
FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Rebecca Shelby, Federal Aviation Administration, Contract Support, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5859.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Floyd W. Jones Airport, Lebanon, MO.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2017-0176/Airspace Docket No. 17-ACE-3.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by modifying Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Floyd W. Jones Airport, Lebanon, MO.
Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning and cancellation of the Lebanon NDB, and NDB approach, which would enhance the safety and management of the standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the airport.
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Floyd W. Jones Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Wellington Municipal Airport, Wellington, KS. This action is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Wellington non-directional radio beacon (NDB), and cancellation of the NDB approach, and would enhance the safety and management of standard instrument approach procedures for instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport.
Comments must be received on or before June 8, 2017.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826, or 1-800-647-5527. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2017-0177; Airspace Docket No. 17-ACE-4, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at
FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Rebecca Shelby, Federal Aviation Administration, Contract Support, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5859.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2017-0177/Airspace Docket No. 17-ACE-4.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by modifying Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Wellington Municipal Airport, Wellington, KS within a 6.4-mile radius (reduced from 6.8 miles) of the airport.
Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning and cancellation of the Wellington NDB, and NDB approach, which would enhance the safety and management of the standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the airport.
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of Wellington Municipal Airport.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Extension of comment period.
The Securities and Exchange Commission is extending the comment period for its request for comment seeking public input as to the disclosures called for by Industry Guide 3,
Comments should be received on or before July 7, 2017.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Use the Federal eRulemaking Portal (
• Send paper comments to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Lindsay McCord, Associate Chief Accountant in the Office of Chief Accountant, Division of Corporation Finance, at (202) 551-3400, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549.
The Commission has published a request for comment to seek public input as to the disclosures called for by Industry Guide 3,
The Commission originally requested that comments on the request for comment be received by May 8, 2017. The Commission has received requests for an extension of time for public comment to, among other things, allow for adequate time to fully consider our request and to improve the quality of responses.
By the Commission.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to modify the operating schedule that governs the Mathers Bridge across the Banana River, mile 0.5, in Indian Harbour Beach, FL. Inconsistent bridge openings for vessels passing through the bridge have been causing vehicle traffic backups on the roads in and around the vicinity of the bridge. This action is necessary to help reduce vehicle traffic congestion in this area. The proposed rulemaking would only allow the bridge to open for vessels at specific periods.
Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before June 23, 2017.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2017-0060 using Federal eRulemaking Portal at
If you have questions on this proposed rule, call or email Mr. Rod Elkins with the Seventh Coast Guard District Bridge Office; telephone 305-415-6989, email
On January 12, 2017, the Brevard County Public Works Department requested the Coast Guard consider allowing the bridge to not open for vessels except every 30 minutes on the hour and half hour. The County conducted traffic studies and reviewed bridge logs which showed the change would alleviate vehicle traffic without adversely affecting vessel traffic. The data supporting the request will be included in the electronic docket for this proposed rulemaking.
Mathers Bridge across Banana River, mile 0.5, at Indian Harbour Beach, FL is a swing bridge. It has a vertical clearance of 7 feet at mean high water in the closed position and a horizontal clearance of 74 feet and 81 feet. Presently, in accordance with 33 CFR 117.263, the Mathers Bridge is required to open on signal for the passage of vessels except that, from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. Monday through Friday except Federal holidays, the draw shall open on signal if at least two hours notice is given.
The Coast Guard proposes to modify the operating schedule that governs the Mathers Bridge across the Banana River, mile 0.5, in Indian Harbour Beach, FL.
This proposed rule would implement regulations for the bridge to only open for vessels requesting passage through the bridge on the hour and half hour, from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., on Sunday through Thursday. On Fridays, Saturdays and all Federal Holidays, the bridge will only open for vessels requesting passage through the bridge on the hour and half hour. At all other times, the bridge shall open on signal if at least two hours notice is given.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and Executive orders and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
The Coast Guard has determined that this NPRM is not a significant regulatory action because of the minimal impact to vessels on the waterway; as the bridge will have an opening every 30 minutes to allow vessel traffic to pass. Additionally, vessels that can transit under the bridge without an opening may do so.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the bridge may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rulemaking would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule simply promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.
Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are not required for this rule. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Documents mentioned in this proposed rule, and all public comments, are in our online docket at
Bridges.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a) The draw of the Mathers Bridge, mile 0.5, at Indian Harbour Beach, will operate in accordance with the following schedule:
(1) Sundays through Thursdays, between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., the draw will open on signal, on the hour and on the half hour.
(2) Fridays, Saturdays, and Federal holidays, 24 hours a day, the draw will open on signal, on the hour and on the half hour.
(3) At all other times, the bridge shall open on signal if at least two hours notice is given.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to modify the operating schedule that governs the Ashley River Bridges across the Ashley River, miles 2.4 and 2.5 at Charleston, SC. This proposed rule would require a bridge tender to be present during the daytime hours only from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. daily for on signal openings. All other times would require 12 hours advance notification. This modification would provide some relief to vehicle traffic congestion and would have little to no effect on navigation.
Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before June 23, 2017.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2016-0776 using Federal eRulemaking Portal at
See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the
If you have questions on this proposed rule, call or email LT John Downing with the Coast Guard; telephone 843-740-3184, email
On May 19, 2015, the HDR/ICA contractor for South Carolina Department of Transportation requested that the Coast Guard review the current bridge operating schedule to determine whether a change could be made to improve vehicle traffic flow in the area.
The US 17, Ashley River Bridges, miles 2.4 and 2.5, at Charleston, SC are double leaf bascule bridges. Each bridge has a vertical clearance of 24 feet in the closed position at mean high water and a horizontal clearance of 90 feet.
Presently, in accordance with 33 CFR 117.915(a), the Ashley River bridges (US17) also known as the US17 Highway Bridge at miles 2.4 and 2.5 at Charleston, SC shall open on signal, except that from 7 a.m. until 9 a.m. Monday through Friday and 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. daily, the draws need be opened only if at least 12 hours notice is given. The draws of either bridge shall open as soon as possible for the passage of vessels in an emergency involving danger to life or property.
The Coast Guard proposes to change the operation of the Ashley River (US17) Bridges, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, miles 2.4 and 2.5, at Charleston, SC. The proposed regulation would require a bridge tender to be present during the daytime hours only from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. daily to open the bridge on signal. All other times would require at least 12 hours notice. This regulation change should not have a significant impact on navigation in this area.
These proposed changes will still allow vessels to pass through the bridge while taking into account the reasonable needs of other modes of transportation. Vessels not requiring an opening may pass at any time.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and Executive orders and we also discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
This regulatory action determination is based on the limited impact that it is anticipated to have on vessel traffic on the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, while taking in to consideration the needs of vehicular traffic. Vessels that can transit under the bridge without an opening may do so. Emergency vessels and tugs with tows can still request openings at any time.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies, under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the bridge may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule will not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further
Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are not required for this rule. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Documents mentioned in this proposed rule and all public comments are in our online docket at
Bridges.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a) The draws of the US17 highway bridges, mile 2.4 and 2.5 at Charleston, SC shall open on signal; except that, from 4 p.m. to 9 a.m. daily, the draws shall open only if at least 12 hours notice is given. The draws of either bridge shall open as soon as possible for the passage of vessels in an emergency involving danger to life or property.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Connecticut. The intended effect of this action is to approve into the Connecticut SIP the provisions of Connecticut's “General Permit to Limit Potential to Emit from Major Stationary Sources of Air Pollution” (GPLPE) as they apply to the restriction of emissions of criteria pollutants for which EPA has established national ambient air quality standards. Separately, we are also approving the provisions of the GPLPE as it applies to the restriction of emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). The State issued the GPLPE on November 9, 2015. The permit imposes legally and practicably enforceable emissions limitations restricting eligible sources' potential to emit air pollutants. Such restrictions would generally allow eligible sources to avoid having to comply with reasonably available control technology (RACT) that would otherwise apply to major stationary sources, title V operating permit requirements, or other requirements that apply only to major stationary sources. This action is being taken in accordance with the Clean Air Act.
Written comments must be received on or before May 24, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2016-0542 at
Susan Lancey, Air Permits, Toxics, and Indoor Programs Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, telephone 617-918-1656, fax 617-918-0656, email
In the Final Rules Section of this
For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules Section of this
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
NMFS proposes to approve and implement measures included in an omnibus amendment submitted by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council that would manage forage species within Mid-Atlantic Federal waters. This amendment would implement an annual landing limit, possession limits, and permitting and reporting requirements for Atlantic chub mackerel and certain previously unmanaged forage species and species groups within Mid-Atlantic Federal waters. The purpose of this action is to prevent the development of new, and the expansion of existing, commercial fisheries on certain forage species until the Council has adequate opportunity and information to evaluate the potential impacts of forage fish harvest on existing fisheries, fishing communities, and the marine ecosystem.
Public comments must be received by May 30, 2017.
You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2017-0013, by any of the following methods:
•
•
The Council prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the Unmanaged Forage Omnibus Amendment that describes the proposed action and other alternatives considered and provides a thorough analysis of the impacts of the proposed measures and alternatives considered. Copies of the Unmanaged Forage Omnibus Amendment, including the EA, the Regulatory Impact Review, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis are available from: Christopher Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Suite 201, 800 State Street, Dover, DE 19901. The EA/RIR/IRFA is accessible via the Internet at
Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this proposed rule may be submitted to the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office and by email to
Douglas Christel, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9141, fax (978) 281-9135.
Mid-Atlantic Council stakeholders identified managing forage species as a key concern for future action during a 2011 strategic planning and visioning process. Forage species are generally considered small, mostly pelagic schooling species that serve as prey for larger species. In 2014, the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) developed a white paper on forage species. The paper indicated that forage species facilitate the transfer of energy from the lowest levels of the food chain to higher levels, highlighting the importance of forage species in maintaining the productivity of marine ecosystems. The Council recognized that although it already manages several forage species that are the target of directed commercial fisheries (Atlantic mackerel, longfin and
On December 8, 2014, the Council initiated an action to begin protecting previously unmanaged forage species in each fishery management plan (FMP) under its jurisdiction. The purpose of the action is to prevent the development
The Council developed the Unmanaged Forage Omnibus Amendment and the measures described in this proposed rule under the discretionary provision specified in section 303(b)(12) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This provision allows a Council to “include management measures in the plan to conserve target and non-target species and habitats, considering the variety of ecological factors affecting fishery populations.” While many forage species are important to the ecosystem, the Council focused its efforts developing measures for a subset of previously unmanaged forages species with a known connection to commercial and recreational fisheries within the Mid-Atlantic. Species with the greatest potential to support future large-scale commercial fisheries and those important to marine mammals and sea birds were prioritized by the Council.
During the development of this action, the Council initially considered Atlantic chub mackerel as a forage species. However, because a directed commercial fishery for Atlantic chub mackerel has recently emerged in Federal waters, the Council believed that this species is in need of specific conservation and management measures of its own. The Council subsequently developed preliminary measures to regulate the catch of this species in this action. The Council intends to formally integrate chub mackerel as a managed species in the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish FMP through a separate action within 3 years. Accordingly, while the Council considers chub mackerel to be a forage species for the purposes of the Unmanaged Forage Omnibus Amendment, in this proposed rule, chub mackerel is treated separately from other forage species in the description of proposed measures and in the associated regulations in this rule.
The Unmanaged Forage Omnibus Amendment proposes to designate the following species and species groups as “ecosystem component species” in all of the FMPs under the Council's jurisdiction:
The National Standard Guidelines at 50 CFR 600.305(d)(13) define ecosystem component (EC) species as “stocks that a Council . . . has determined do not require conservation and management, but desire to list in an FMP in order to achieve ecosystem management objectives.” The overall rationale used to designate the above list as EC species is provided in Section 5.1 of the EA, with additional details in Sections 6.1 and 6.4 for each species. Generally, these species and species groups are small low trophic level organisms that have been documented as bycatch in existing regulated fisheries, or as prey for marine mammals, sea birds, endangered species, and species that are the subject of important Mid-Atlantic commercial and recreational fisheries. No large-scale directed commercial fisheries for these species occur in Federal waters. Most of the proposed EC species have been documented as a bycatch in Federal fisheries or by gear types used in such fisheries, but such observations are rare for several species groups. Over half of these species groups have never been reported in Federal dealer data from 1996-2015 (greeneyes, halfbeaks, herrings and sardines, lanternfish, pearlsides, and cusk-eels), or only in small amounts and by few vessels (anchovies and argentines). A small number of these species are harvested as bait, but mostly in state waters. For example, 96 percent of recorded sand lance landings and 99.6 percent of silverside landings during 1996-2015 were associated with state vessels. Thus, fisheries for these species have not developed to a large degree, particularly in Federal waters, and are not directly important to the national or regional economy. Further, because there is little evidence that these species are predominantly caught in Federal waters, formal integration of these species into a Federal FMP is unlikely to improve the condition of the stock. There are very few data and no stock assessments for these species or species groups to assess the current status of these organisms, although existing data generally suggest that these stocks are unlikely to become overfished or subject to overfishing unless a directed commercial fishery develops. As a result, while the Council did not believe that the development of a FMP for these species is warranted at this time, the Council took a precautionary approach to implement measures in this action that would restrict future harvest to recent levels and collect more detailed information to inform future scientific assessments and management decisions. This is consistent with the National Standard Guidelines at 50 CFR 600.305(c)(5), which state “management measures can be adopted in order to, for example, collect data on the EC species, minimize bycatch or bycatch mortality of EC species, protect the associated role of EC species in the ecosystem, and/or to address other ecosystem issues.”
During the development of this action, we advised the Council to include in this amendment only species that have a direct connection to species managed by the Council. In a June 17, 2016, letter, we outlined our concerns with including bullet and frigate mackerel as EC species in this action. We recommended that the Council remove bullet mackerel and frigate mackerel from further consideration, as these species do not meet the criteria
Designation of EC species, in itself, does not carry specific regulatory requirements under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The term, as described above, is used in the National Standard Guidelines to help Councils distinguish which species require the development of a FMP and associated conservation and management measures. Accordingly, we are not proposing to individually list these species as EC species in the regulations. Instead, to reflect the purpose of this action to manage forage species, the proposed EC species will be collectively referred to as “Mid-Atlantic forage species” for the remainder of this preamble discussion and in the proposed regulatory text. This approach will also reduce confusion by helping to distinguish species managed by this action from other forage species designated as EC species by the Pacific Fishery Management Council in a similar action in 2015.
A commercial vessel that possesses, lands, or sells Mid-Atlantic forage species or chub mackerel caught in Federal waters from New York through Cape Hatteras, North Carolina (an area referred to as the “Mid-Atlantic Forage Species Management Unit” below and in the proposed regulations), would be required to obtain any valid commercial fishing vessel permit issued by the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office (GARFO). Similarly, a dealer purchasing and selling these species would be required to obtain a valid seafood dealer permit issued by GARFO for any species. Any commercial vessel operator fishing for or possessing these species in or from the Mid-Atlantic Forage Species Management Unit would be required to obtain and retain on board a valid operator permit issued by GARFO. Vessel operators and dealers would also be required to report the catch and sale of these species and species groups on existing vessel trip reports (logbooks) and dealer reports, respectively.
The Council is not proposing an annual landing limit for Mid-Atlantic forage species in this action. However, this action would set an annual landing limit of 2.86 million lb (1,297 mt) for Atlantic chub mackerel. This limit represents the average annual chub mackerel landings in the Northeast from 2013 through 2015 based on Federal dealer data. All landings of chub mackerel in ports from Maine through North Carolina would count against the annual landings limit. The Council considered counting only chub mackerel landings in Mid-Atlantic ports against the annual landings limit. However, this would have created a loophole by which vessels could catch chub mackerel in the Mid-Atlantic, but land it in New England ports to avoid counting it against the annual landing limit. The Council thought it would be difficult to effectively enforce the limit without a vessel monitoring system or other similar mechanism that could detect the area fished, but the Council did not require such monitoring mechanisms at this time.
NMFS would close the directed fishery for chub mackerel in the Mid-Atlantic Forage Species Management Unit once the Regional Administrator determines that 100 percent of the chub mackerel annual landing limit has been harvested. After the closure of the directed fishery, vessels would be subject to the chub mackerel incidental possession limit described below.
The chub mackerel annual landing limit would expire 3 years after implementation, unless overwritten by another Council action. This is because the Council intended the measures in this action to be temporary, applying only until the Council is able to develop long-term measures and the scientific information necessary to formally integrate chub mackerel as a stock in the fishery managed under the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish FMP. Long-term conservation and management measures required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act, such as biological reference points, an overfishing threshold, and accountability measures, may take several years to develop. At its February 2017 meeting, the Council initiated a separate action to develop these long-term measures for implementation by 2020, if approved.
This action would specify a 1,700 lb (771 kg) combined possession limit for all Mid-Atlantic forage species. This limit would apply to any Mid-Atlantic forage species (see the list of EC species listed above) caught within the Mid-Atlantic Forage Species Management Unit. With the exception of bullet and frigate mackerel, this proposed limit represents 99 percent of trip-level landings of Mid-Atlantic forage species in the Federal dealer database from 1996-2015.
Initially, vessels would not be subject to a possession limit for chub mackerel. Once the chub mackerel annual landing limit is harvested, NMFS would implement a 40,000-lb (18,144-kg) chub mackerel possession limit in the Mid-Atlantic Forage Species Management Unit. This limit reflects the amount of chub mackerel needed to fill a bait truck. Due to low prices and the relatively high volumes landed by the large vessels primarily responsible for recent chub mackerel landings, the Council concluded that vessels are unlikely to target chub mackerel below the proposed incidental possession limit. Similar to the annual landing limit, the chub mackerel incidental possession limit would expire 3 years after implementation unless overwritten by another Council action.
A vessel issued a Federal commercial fishing permit from GARFO that possesses Mid-Atlantic forage species and chub mackerel in excess of the proposed possession limits would be allowed to transit Mid-Atlantic Forage Species Management Unit in certain circumstances. The following three conditions must be met to transit through the management unit: (1) Forage species were harvested outside of the Mid-Atlantic Forage Species Management Unit; (2) the vessel lands in a port that is outside of the Mid-Atlantic Forage Species Management Unit (
Under this action, the Council would establish a policy that requires use of an experimental fishing permit (EFP) to support any new fishery or the expansion of existing fisheries for Mid-Atlantic forage species. An EFP is a permit issued by GARFO authorizing a vessel to conduct fishing activities that are otherwise prohibited under existing regulations. The Regional Administrator consults with the Council's Executive Director before approving any exemption under an EFP request. The Council would consider the results of any experimental fishing activity and other relevant information before deciding how to address future changes to the management of fisheries for Mid-Atlantic forage species.
This action also would allow the Council to modify annual landing limits and possession limits for Mid-Atlantic forage species and chub mackerel through a framework adjustment to applicable FMPs rather than through an amendment to the FMP. This would help streamline future development and approval of revisions to these measures because measures revised through a framework adjustment can be implemented more quickly than those implemented through an amendment to a FMP.
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Acting Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Mid-Atlantic Forage Species Omnibus Amendment, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment. In making a final determination, NMFS will take into account the data, views, and comments received during the comment period.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The purpose, context, and statutory basis for this action is described above and not repeated here. Business entities affected by this action were identified as groups of vessels with shared owners that had landings of species included in this amendment documented in dealer reports from 2006-2015. Any entity with combined annual fishery landing receipts less than $11 million is considered a small entity based on NMFS standards published in the
Mid-Atlantic forage species and chub mackerel accounted for only 0.11-1.76 percent of the average annual gross receipts for all entities landing these species during 2006-2015. Average annual revenue from these species was only $3,140 per entity. Even those with the highest annual fisheries revenue (greater than $100,000), averaged only $10,680 from the sale of forage species during this period. No entity consistently relied on these species for a substantial portion (greater than10 percent) of their annual income over the past 10 years. Forty-six percent of the entities affected by this action reported landings of these species in only one year during the period from 2006-2015. Three entities indicated that these species represented 100 percent of annual fishing income in one year during this period. These three entities landed less than 1,700 lb of forage species during that one year, and reported fishing revenue from any species in only four or fewer years during the period from 2006-2015. It is likely that they may have taken advantage of high to moderate prices for key forage species on a few occasions, and that they were not likely reliant upon fishing for income over the past 10 years.
In determining the significance of the economic impacts of the proposed action, we considered the following two criteria outlined in applicable NMFS guidance: Disproportionality and profitability. The proposed measures would not place a substantial number of small entities at a significant competitive disadvantage to large entities. This is because all entities affected by this action are small entities, as noted above. There are no distributional economic effects from this action, as proposed measures would maintain fishing opportunities for forage species at recent levels and would not change any entity's access to these resources. For the same reason, the measures also would not significantly reduce profit for a substantial number of small entities. This action would not impose any costs to affected entities or reduce their revenues in comparison to the revenues of recent landings of forage species and chub mackerel. Because the proposed action is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required, and none has been prepared.
This proposed rule contains a collection-of-information requirement subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement has been submitted to OMB for approval. Public reporting burden for these collections of information, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
1. Initial Federal vessel permit application, OMB# 0648-0202, (45 minutes/response);
2. Initial Federal dealer permit application, OMB# 0648-0202, (15 minutes/response);
3. Initial Federal operator permit application, OMB# 0648-0202, (60 minutes/response);
4. Vessel logbook report of catch by species, OMB# 0648-0212, (5 minutes/response); and
5. Dealer report of landings by species, OMB# 0648-0229, (4 minutes/response).
Public comment is sought regarding: Whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Send comments on these or any other aspects of the collection of information to the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office at the
Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed to be amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(1) Anchovies (family Engraulidae), including but not limited to the following species:
(i) Striped anchovy-
(ii) Dusky anchovy-
(iii) Bay anchovy-
(iv) Silver anchovy-
(2) Argentines (family Argentinidae), including but not limited to the following species:
(i) Striated argentine-
(ii) Pygmy argentine-
(3) Greeneyes (family Chlorophthalmidae), including but not limited to the following species:
(i) Shortnose greeneye-
(ii) Longnose greeneye-
(4) Halfbeaks (family Hemiramphidae), including but not limited to the following species:
(i) Flying halfbeak-
(ii) Balao-
(iii) Ballyhoo-
(iv) False silverstripe halfbeak/American halfbeak/Meek's halfbeak-
(5) Herrings and Sardines (family Clupeidae). With the exception of other herring and sardine species managed under this part, including American shad, Atlantic herring, blueback herring, hickory shad, and river herring/alewife, as defined in this section, the following herring and sardine species are Mid-Atlantic forage species:
(i) Round herring-
(ii) Scaled sardine-
(iii) Atlantic thread herring-
(iv) Spanish sardine-
(6) Lanternfishes (family Myctophidae), including but not limited to the following species:
(i) Horned lanternfish-
(ii) Dumril's headlightfish-
(iii) Crocodile lanternfish-
(iv) Doflein's false headlightfish-
(v) Spotted lanternfish-
(7) Pearlsides (family Sternoptychidae), including but not limited to the following species:
(i) Atlantic silver hatchetfish-
(ii) Muller's pearlside-
(iii) Weizman's pearlside-
(iv) Slope hatchetfish-
(8) Sand lances (family Ammodytidae), including but not limited to the following species:
(i) American/inshore sand lance-
(ii) Northern/offshore sand lance-
(9) Silversides (family Atherinopsidae), including but not limited to the following species:
(i) Rough silverside-
(ii) Inland silverside-
(iii) Atlantic silverside-
(10) Cusk-eels (order Ophidiiformes), including but not limited to the following species:
(i) Chain pearlfish-
(ii) Fawn cusk-eel-
(iii) Striped cusk-eel-
(11) Atlantic saury-
(12) Bullet mackerel-
(13) Frigate mackerel-
(14) Pelagic mollusks and cephalopods, excluding sharptail shortfin squid (
(i) Neon flying squid-
(ii) European flying squid-
(iii) Atlantic brief squid-
(iv) Bobtail squids (family Sepiolidae), including but not limited to the following species:
(A) Odd bobtail squid-
(B) Big fin bobtail squid-
(C) Warty bobtail squid
(D) Lesser bobtail squid-
(E) Butterfly bobtail squid
(v) Sea angels and sea butterflies (orders Gymnosomata and Thecosomata).
(vi) Tuberculate pelagic octopus-
(15) Species under one inch as adults, including but not limited to the following species groups:
(i) Copepods (subclass Copepoda).
(ii) Krill (order Euphausiacea).
(iii) Amphipods (order Amphipoda).
(iv) Ostracods (class Ostracoda).
(v) Isopods (order Isopoda).
(vi) Mysid shrimp (order Mysidacea).
(a) * * *
(15)
(a)
(2) Following are the applicable species: Atlantic sea scallops, NE multispecies, spiny dogfish, monkfish, Atlantic herring, Atlantic surfclam, ocean quahog, Atlantic mackerel, squid, butterfish, scup, black sea bass, or Atlantic bluefish, harvested in or from the EEZ; tilefish harvested in or from the EEZ portion of the Tilefish Management Unit; skates harvested in or from the EEZ portion of the Skate Management Unit; Atlantic deep-sea red crab harvested in or from the EEZ portion of the Red Crab Management Unit; or Atlantic chub mackerel or Mid-Atlantic forage species, as defined at § 648.2, harvested in or from the EEZ portion of the Mid-Atlantic Forage Species Management Unit, as defined at § 648.351(c).
(a) * * *
(1) All dealers of NE multispecies, monkfish, skates, Atlantic herring, Atlantic sea scallop, Atlantic deep-sea red crab, spiny dogfish, summer flounder, Atlantic surfclam, ocean quahog, Atlantic mackerel, squid, butterfish, scup, bluefish, tilefish, and black sea bass; Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog processors; Atlantic hagfish dealers and/or processors, and Atlantic herring processors or dealers, as described in § 648.2; must have been issued under this section, and have in their possession, a valid permit or permits for these species. A dealer of Atlantic chub mackerel or Mid-Atlantic forage species, as defined in § 648.2, harvested in or from the EEZ portion of the Mid-Atlantic Forage Species Management Unit, as defined at § 648.351(c), must have been issued and have in their possession, a valid dealer permit for any species issued in accordance with this paragraph.
The Regional Administrator may exempt any person or vessel from the requirements of subparts A (General provisions), B (Atlantic mackerel, squid, and butterfish), D (Atlantic sea scallop), E (Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog), F (NE multispecies and monkfish), G (summer flounder), H (scup), I (black sea bass), J (Atlantic bluefish), K (Atlantic herring), L (spiny dogfish), M (Atlantic deep-sea red crab), N (tilefish), O (skates), and P (Mid-Atlantic forage species and Atlantic chub mackerel) of this part for the conduct of experimental fishing beneficial to the management of the resources or fishery managed under that subpart. The Regional Administrator shall consult with the Executive Director of the MAFMC before approving any exemptions for the Atlantic mackerel, squid, butterfish, summer flounder, scup, black sea bass, spiny dogfish, bluefish, and tilefish fisheries, including exemptions for experimental fishing contributing to the development of new or expansion of existing fisheries for Mid-Atlantic forage species and Atlantic chub mackerel.
(w)
(1) Fish for, possess, transfer, receive, or land; or attempt to fish for, possess, transfer, receive, or land; more than 1,700 lb (771.11 kg) of all Mid-Atlantic forage species combined per trip in or from the Mid-Atlantic Forage Species Management Unit, as defined at § 648.351(c). A vessel not issued a commercial permit in accordance with § 648.4 that fished exclusively in state waters or a vessel that fished Federal waters outside of the Mid-Atlantic Forage Species Management Unit that is transiting the area with gear that is stowed and not available for immediate use is exempt from this prohibition.
(2) Fish for, possess, transfer, receive, or land; or attempt to fish for, possess, transfer, receive, or land; more than 40,000 lb (18.14 mt) of Atlantic chub mackerel per trip in or from the Mid-Atlantic Forage Species Management Unit, as defined at § 648.351(c), after the annual Atlantic chub mackerel landing limit has been harvested and notice has been provided to the public consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act. A vessel not issued a commercial permit in accordance with § 648.4 that fished exclusively in state waters or a vessel that fished in Federal waters outside of the Mid-Atlantic Forage Species Management Unit that is transiting the area with gear that is stowed and not available for immediate use is exempt from this prohibition.
(a)
(b)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
Department of Agriculture, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the intention of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights to request a renewal to a currently approved information collection for race, ethnicity, and gender along with comments.
Comments on this notice must be received by June 23, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) 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 the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent by any of the following methods:
•
•
All comments received will be available for public inspection during regular business hours at the same address.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.
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 May 24, 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.
The Department of Agriculture will submit the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 on or after the date of publication of this notice. 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 should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC; New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received by May 24, 2017. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8681.
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.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Reinstatement of an information collection; comment request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request the reinstatement of an information collection associated with the National Animal Health Reporting System.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before June 23, 2017.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
For more information on the National Animal Health Reporting System, contact Mr. Bill Kelley, Supervisory Analyst, Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health, VS, APHIS, 2150 Centre Avenue, Building B MS 2E6, Fort Collins, CO 80526; (970) 494-7270. For copies or more detailed information on the information collection, contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483.
As a member country of OIE, the United States must submit reports to the OIE on the status of certain diseases in specific livestock, poultry, and aquaculture species. Reportable diseases are diseases that have the potential for rapid spread, irrespective of national borders, that are of serious socioeconomic or public health consequence, and that are of major importance in the international trade of animals and animal products. The potential benefits to trade of accurate reporting on the health status of the U.S. commercial livestock, poultry, and aquaculture industries include expansion of those industries into new export markets, and preservation of existing markets through increased confidence in quality and disease freedom. This data collection is unique in terms of the type, quantity, and frequency; no other entity is collecting and reporting data to the OIE on the health status of U.S. livestock, poultry, and aquaculture.
We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve these information collection activities for 3 years.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate 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) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies,
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request a revision to and extension of approval of an information collection associated with the regulations for the importation of fresh pomegranates from Chile into the continental United States.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before June 23, 2017.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
For information on the importation of fresh pomegranates from Chile, contact Dr. Robert Baca, Assistant Director, Permitting and Compliance Coordination, Compliance and Environmental Coordination Branch, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 150, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851-2292. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483.
Under the regulations, fresh pomegranates from Chile may be imported into the continental United States under certain conditions, as listed in 7 CFR 319.56-56, to prevent the introduction of plant pests into the United States. Under the systems approach, the fruit has to be grown in a place of production that is registered with the Government of Chile and certified as having a low prevalence of
The regulations require respondents to complete documents such as a foreign phytosanitary certificate, phytosanitary inspections, marking of cartons, production site registration, a list of certified production sites, low prevalence production site certification, and identifying shipping documents.
We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities, as described, for an additional 3 years.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate 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) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies;
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request a revision to and extension of approval of an information collection associated with the regulations for the interstate movement of regulated articles to prevent the spread of
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before June 23, 2017.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
For information on the regulations for the interstate movement of regulated articles to prevent the spread of
In accordance with the regulations in “Subpart-Phytophthora Ramorum” (§§ 301.92 through 301.92-12), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture restricts the interstate movement of certain articles to prevent the spread of
We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities, as described, for an additional 3 years.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate 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) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies;
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Based on an affirmative final determination by the Department of Commerce (“Department”) and the International Trade Commission (“ITC”), the Department is issuing the antidumping duty order on phosphor copper from the Republic of Korea (“Korea”).
Effective April 24, 2017.
Cindy Robinson, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3797.
In accordance with section 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”), and 19 CFR 351.210(c), on March 3, 2017, the Department published its affirmative final determination in the less than fair value (“LTFV”) investigation of phosphor copper from Korea.
The merchandise covered by the order is master alloys
Merchandise covered by the order is currently classified in the Harmonized
On April 17, 2017, in accordance with sections 735(b)(1)(A)(i) and 735(d) of the Act, the ITC notified the Department of its final determination in this investigation, in which it found that imports of phosphor copper from Korea are materially injuring a U.S. industry.
Because the ITC determined that imports of phosphor copper from Korea are materially injuring a U.S. industry, unliquidated entries of such merchandise from Korea, entered or withdrawn for consumption, are subject to the assessment of antidumping duties.
Therefore, in accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, antidumping duties equal to the amount by which the normal value of the merchandise exceeds the export price (or constructed export price) of the merchandise, for all relevant entries of phosphor copper from Korea. Antidumping duties will be assessed on unliquidated entries of phosphor copper entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after October 14, 2016, the date on which the Department published the
In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we will instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation on entries of subject merchandise from Korea. These instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.
We will also instruct CBP to require cash deposits equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margins indicated in the chart below. Accordingly, effective on the date of publication of the ITC's final affirmative injury determination, CBP will require, at the same time as importers would normally deposit estimated duties on this subject merchandise, a cash deposit at the rates listed below.
Section 733(d) of the Act states that instructions issued pursuant to an affirmative preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months, except where exporters representing a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise request the Department to extend that four-month period to no more than six months. At the request of Bongsan Co., Ltd., the sole mandatory respondent in this investigation, the Department extended the four-month period to six months.
Therefore, in accordance with section 733(d) of the Act and our practice, we will instruct CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation and to liquidate, without regard to antidumping duties, unliquidated entries of phosphor copper entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption after April 11, 2017, the date the provisional measures expired, and through the day preceding the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determination in the
The Department determines that the estimated final weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:
This notice constitutes the antidumping duty order with respect to phosphor copper from Korea, pursuant to section 736(a) of the Act. Interested parties can find a list of antidumping duty orders currently in effect at
This order is issued and published in accordance with section 736(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.211(b).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) is rescinding its administrative review in part on diamond sawblades and parts thereof (diamond sawblades) from the People's Republic of China (the PRC) for the period of review (POR) November 1, 2015, through October 31, 2016.
Effective April 24, 2017.
Yang Jin Chun AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5760.
On November 4, 2016, we published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on diamond sawblades from the PRC for the POR November 1, 2015, through October 31,
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review, “in whole or in part, if a party that requested a review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review.” Because the petitioner and Husqvarna withdrew their review requests in a timely manner, and because no other party requested a review of Husqvarna, we are rescinding the administrative review in part with respect to Husqvarna.
The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. For Husqvarna, for which the review is rescinded, antidumping duties shall be assessed at the rate equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP within 15 days after publication of this notice.
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement may result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Commerce.
As a result of these sunset reviews, the Department of Commerce (the Department) finds that revocation of the antidumping duty (AD) orders on certain cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate (CTL plate) from India, Indonesia, and the Republic of Korea (Korea) would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the levels indicated in the “Final Results of Sunset Reviews” section of this notice.
Effective April 24, 2017.
Terre Keaton Stefanova, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1280.
On December 1, 2016, the Department published the notice of initiation of the sunset reviews of the AD
On January 3, 2017, the Department received complete substantive responses to the
The products covered under the
The merchandise subject to the
The Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice, provides a full description of the scope of the
A complete discussion of all issues raised in these reviews is provided in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum. The issues discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margin of dumping that is likely to prevail if the
Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(c)(1) and (3) of the Act, the Department determines that revocation of the AD
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective orders is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing the results of the reviews and this notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) has conducted an expedited review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on supercalendered paper (SC paper) from Canada. The period of review (POR) for which we are measuring subsidies is January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014. We determine that Irving Paper Limited received countervailable subsidies during the POR and that Catalyst received
Effective April 24, 2017.
Toby Vandall or Peter Zukowski, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1664 and (202) 482-0189, respectively.
The Department published the
The product covered by this order is SC paper from Canada. A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.
The Department has conducted this CVD expedited review in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(k). For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
Based on our review and analysis of the comments received from parties, we made certain changes to Catalyst's and Irving's subsidy rate calculations since the
We calculated a CVD rate for each producer/exporter of the subject merchandise that requested an expedited review.
As a result of this expedited review, we determine the countervailable subsidy rates to be:
Pursuant to section 19 CFR 351.214(k)(3)(iii), the final results of this expedited review will not be the basis for the assessment of countervailing duties. Upon the issuance of these final results, the Department will instruct Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties for the companies subject to this expedited review, at the rates shown above, on shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this expedited review. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(k)(3)(iv), because we have determined a countervailable subsidy rate for Catalyst that is
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(k).
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFMCA, 16 U.S.C. 1801
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice of 2016 schedule of fees.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or “Commission”) charges fees to designated contract markets and registered futures associations to recover the costs incurred by the Commission in the operation of its program of oversight of self-regulatory organization rule enforcement programs, specifically National Futures Association (“NFA”), a registered futures association, and the designated contract markets. The calculation of the fee amounts charged for 2016 by this notice is based upon an average of actual program costs incurred during fiscal year (“FY”) 2013, FY 2014, and FY 2015.
Mary Jean Buhler, Chief Financial Officer, Commodity Futures Trading Commission; (202) 418-5089; Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581. For information on electronic payment, contact Jennifer Fleming; (202) 418-5034; Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581.
This notice relates to fees for the Commission's review of the rule enforcement programs at the registered futures associations
The fees charged by the Commission to the SROs are designed to recover program costs, including direct labor costs and overhead. The overhead rate is calculated by dividing total Commission-wide overhead direct program labor costs into the total amount of the Commission-wide overhead pool. For this purpose, direct program labor costs are the salary costs of personnel working in all Commission programs. Overhead costs generally consist of the following Commission-wide costs: Indirect personnel costs (leave and benefits), rent, communications, contract services, utilities, equipment, and supplies. This formula has resulted in the following overhead rates for the most recent three years (rounded to the nearest whole percent): 181 percent for FY 2013, and 180 percent for FY 2014, and 211 percent for FY 2015.
Under the formula adopted by the Commission in 1993, the Commission calculates the fee to recover the costs of its rule enforcement reviews and examinations, based on the three-year average of the actual cost of performing such reviews and examinations at each SRO. The cost of operation of the Commission's SRO oversight program varies from SRO to SRO, according to the size and complexity of each SRO's program. The three-year averaging computation method is intended to smooth out year-to-year variations in cost. Timing of the Commission's reviews and examinations may affect costs—a review or examination may span two fiscal years and reviews and examinations are not conducted at each SRO each year.
As noted above, adjustments to actual costs may be made to relieve the burden on an SRO with a disproportionately large share of program costs. The Commission's formula provides for a reduction in the assessed fee if an SRO has a smaller percentage of United States industry contract volume than its percentage of overall Commission oversight program costs. This adjustment reduces the costs so that, as a percentage of total Commission SRO oversight program costs, they are in line with the pro rata percentage for that SRO of United States industry-wide contract volume.
The calculation is made as follows: The fee required to be paid to the Commission by each DCM is equal to the lesser of actual costs based on the three-year historical average of costs for that DCM or one-half of average costs incurred by the Commission for each DCM for the most recent three years, plus a pro rata share (based on average trading volume for the most recent three years) of the aggregate of average annual costs of all DCMs for the most recent three years. The formula for calculating the second factor is: 0.5a + 0.5 vt = current fee. In this formula, “a” equals the average annual costs, “v” equals the percentage of total volume across DCMs over the last three years, and “t” equals the average annual costs for all DCMs. NFA has no contracts traded; hence, its fee is based simply on costs for the most recent three fiscal years. This table summarizes the data used in the calculations of the resulting fee for each entity:
An example of how the fee is calculated for one exchange, the Chicago Board of Trade, is set forth here:
a. Actual three-year average costs equal $79,476.
b. The alternative computation is: (.5) ($79,476) + (.5) (.30) ($1,218,491) = $223,017.
c. The fee is the lesser of a or b; in this case $79,476.
As noted above, the alternative calculation based on contracts traded is not applicable to NFA because it is not a DCM and has no contracts traded. The Commission's average annual cost for conducting oversight review of the NFA
Fees for the Commission's review of the rule enforcement programs at the registered futures associations and DCMs regulated by the Commission are as follows:
The Debt Collection Improvement Act (DCIA) requires deposits of fees owed to the government by electronic transfer of funds.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or “Commission”) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed renewal of a collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be submitted on or before June 23, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by “Disclosure and Retention of Certain Information Relating to Cleared Swaps Customer Collateral,” and Collection Number 3038-0091 by any of the following methods:
• The Agency's Web site, at
•
•
•
Please submit your comments using only one method.
All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to
Jacob Chachkin, Special Counsel, 202-418-5496, email:
Under the PRA,
Regulation 22.2(g) requires each FCM with Cleared Swaps Customer Accounts
The Commission believes that the information collection obligations imposed by Commission regulations 22.2(g), 22.5(a), 22.11, 22.12, 22.16, and 22.17 are essential (i) to ensuring that FCMs and DCOs develop and maintain adequate customer protections and procedures over Cleared Swap Customer funds as required by the CEA, and Commission regulations, and (ii) to the effective evaluation of these registrants' actual compliance with the CEA and Commission regulations. 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.
With respect to the collection of information, the CFTC invites comments on:
• Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have a practical use;
• The accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden of 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;
You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. If you wish the Commission to consider information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, a petition for confidential treatment of the exempt information may be submitted according to the procedures established in § 145.9 of the Commission's regulations.
The Commission reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or remove any or all of your submission from
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice.
The Department of the Navy hereby gives notice of its intent to grant to Per Vivo Labs, Inc., a revocable, nonassignable, exclusive license to practice in the field of use of explosive ordnance detection and disposal in the United States, the Government-owned invention described in U.S. Patent Application No. 14/978,040 entitled “Mixed Odor Delivery Device (MODD)”, Navy Case No. 103,340 and any continuations, divisionals or re-issues thereof.
Anyone wishing to object to the grant of this license must file written objections along with supporting evidence, if any, not later than May 9, 2017.
Written objections are to be filed with the Naval Research Laboratory, Code 1004, 4555 Overlook Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20375-5320.
Amanda Horansky-McKinney, Head, Technology Transfer Office, NRL Code 1004, 4555 Overlook Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20375-5320, telephone 202-767-1644. Due to U.S. Postal delays, please fax 202-404-7920, email:
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.
Notice of public business meeting.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board's (Board) public business meeting described below.
10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m., May 11, 2017.
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Headquarters, 625 Indiana Ave. NW., Suite 352, Washington, DC 20004-2901.
Open.
This public meeting will be conducted pursuant to the Government in the Sunshine Act, the Board's implementing regulations for the Government in the Sunshine Act, and the Board's Operating Procedures. The purpose of this meeting is for Board members to review staff effort to develop a potential scorecard regarding safety oversight of Defense Nuclear Facilities. The meeting will proceed in accordance with the meeting agenda, which is posted on the Board's public Web site at
Glenn Sklar, General Manager, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004-2901, (800) 788-4016. This is a toll-free number.
Public participation in the meeting is invited. Individual oral comments may be limited by the time available, depending on the number of persons who wish to comment. Additional information and/or revisions to the meeting agenda may be posted on the Board's public Web site prior to the meeting.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment New Source Review” (EPA ICR No. 1230.32, OMB Control No. 2060-0003) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through April 30, 2017. Public comments were previously requested via the
Additional comments may be submitted on or before May 24, 2017.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0901, to (1) the EPA 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.
Ben Garwood, Air Quality Policy Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, C504-03, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709; telephone number: (919) 541-1358; fax number: (919) 541-5509; 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
Implementing regulations for these three programs are promulgated at 40 CFR 49.101 through 49.105; 40 CFR 49.151 through 49.173; 40 CFR 51.160 through 51.166; 40 CFR part 51, Appendix S; and 40 CFR 52.21 and 52.24. In order to receive a construction permit for a major new source or major modification, the applicant must conduct the necessary research, perform the appropriate analyses and prepare the permit application with documentation to demonstrate that their project meets all applicable statutory and regulatory NSR requirements. Specific activities and requirements are listed and described in the Supporting Statement for the ICR.
State, local, tribal or federal reviewing authorities review permit applications and provide for public review of proposed projects and issue permits based on their consideration of all technical factors and public input. The EPA, more broadly, reviews a fraction of the total applications and audits the state and local programs for their effectiveness. Consequently, information prepared and submitted by sources is essential for sources to receive permits, and for federal, state, and local environmental agencies to adequately review the permit applications and thereby properly administer and manage the NSR programs.
Information that is collected is handled according to EPA's policies set forth in title 40, chapter 1, part 2, subpart B—Confidentiality of Business Information (
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments should be submitted on or before May 24, 2017. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email
For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the Web page
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal
(xiv)(A) Railroad police officers are a class of users eligible to operate on the nationwide interoperability and mutual aid channels listed in 90.20(i) provided their employer holds a Private Land Mobile Radio (PLMR) license of any radio category, including Industrial/Business (I/B). Eligible users include full and part time railroad police officers, Amtrak employees who qualify as railroad police officers under this subsection, Alaska Railroad employees who qualify as railroad police officers under this subsection, freight railroad employees who qualify as railroad police officers under this subsection, and passenger transit lines police officers who qualify as railroad police officers under this subsection. Railroads and railroad police departments may obtain licenses for the nationwide interoperability and mutual aid channels on behalf of railroad police officers in their employ. Employers of railroad police officers must obtain concurrence from the relevant state interoperability coordinator or regional planning committee before applying for a license to the Federal Communications Commission or operating on the interoperability and mutual aid channels.
(
(
(
(
(
(B) Eligibility for licensing on the 700 MHz narrowband interoperability channels is restricted to entities that have as their sole or principal purpose the provision of public safety services.
To effectively implement the provisions of the new Rule, no other modifications to existing FCC rules are required. The changes are intended to simplify the licensing process for railroad police officers and ensure interoperable communications. The modified rules provide a benefit to public safety licensees by ensuring that only railroad police officers with appropriate governmental authorization can operate on the interoperability and mutual aid channels during emergencies. This will provide the additional benefit of promoting interoperability with railroad police officers by eliminating eligibility as a gating factor when licensing spectrum. The
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to
Written comments should be submitted on or before May 24, 2017. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email
For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the Web page
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The purpose of this form is to obtain information sufficient to identify the parties to the proposed assignment or transfer, establish the parties basic eligibility and qualifications, classify the filing, and determine the nature of the proposed service. Various technical schedules are required along with the main form applicable to Auctioned Services, Partitioning and Disaggregation, Undefined Geographical Area Partitioning, Notification of Consummation or Request for Extension of Time for Consummation.
The data collected on FCC Form 603 includes the FCC Registration Number (FRN), which serves as a “common link” for all filings an entity has with the FCC. The Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 requires entities filing with the Commission use an FRN. On July 20, 2015, the Commission released the Part 1 R&O in which it updated many of its Part 1 competitive bidding rules (See Updating Part 1 Competitive Bidding Rules; Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions; Petition of DIRECTV Group, Inc. and EchoStar LLC for Expedited Rulemaking to Amend Section 1.2105(a)(2)(xi) and 1.2106(a) of the Commission's Rules and/or for Interim Conditional Waiver; Implementation of the Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act and Modernization of the Commission's Competitive Bidding Rules and Procedures, Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration of the First Report and Order, Third Order on Reconsideration of the Second Report and Order, and Third Report and Order, FCC 15-80, 30 FCC Rcd 7493 (2015), modified by Erratum, 30 FCC Rcd 8518 (2015) (Part 1 R&O)). Of relevance to the information collection at issue here, the Commission: (1) Modified the eligibility requirements for small business benefits, and updated the standardized schedule of small business sizes, including the gross revenues thresholds used to determine eligibility; (2) established a new bidding credit for eligible rural service providers; and (3) adopted targeted attribution rules to prevent the unjust enrichment of ineligible entities. The updated Part 1 rules apply to applicants seeking licenses and permits. Additionally, on June 2, 2014 the Commission released the Mobile Spectrum Holdings R&O, in which the Commission updated its spectrum screen and established rules for its upcoming auctions of low-band spectrum. Of relevance to the information collection at issue here, the Commission stated that it could reserve spectrum in order to ensure against excessive concentration in holdings of below-1-GHz spectrum (In the Matter of
The Commission seeks approval for revisions to its previously approved collection of information under OMB Control Number 3060-0800 to permit the collection of the additional information for Commission licenses and permits, pursuant to the rules and information collection requirements adopted by the Commission in the Part 1 R&O and the Mobile Spectrum Holdings R&O. As part of the collection, the Commission is seeking approval for the information collection and recordkeeping requirements associated with FCC Form 603.
In addition, the Commission seeks approval for various other, non-substantive editorial/consistency edits and updates to FCC Form 603 that correct inconsistent capitalization of words and other typographical errors, and better align the text on the form with the text in the Commission rules both generally and in connection with recent non-substantive, organizational amendments to the Commission's rules. Also, in certain circumstances, the Commission requires the applicant to provide copies of their agreements. We do not anticipate that these revisions will impact the collection filing burden.
The Commission therefore seeks approval for a revision to its currently approved information collection on FCC Form 603 to revise FCC Form 603 accordingly.
On July 20, 2015, the Commission released the Part 1 R&O in which it updated many of its Part 1 competitive bidding rules (See Updating Part 1 Competitive Bidding Rules; Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions; Petition of DIRECTV Group, Inc. and EchoStar LLC for Expedited Rulemaking to Amend Section 1.2105(a)(2)(xi) and 1.2106(a) of the Commission's Rules and/or for Interim Conditional Waiver; Implementation of the Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act and Modernization of the Commission's Competitive Bidding Rules and Procedures, Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration of the First Report and Order, Third Order on Reconsideration of the Second Report and Order, and Third Report and Order, FCC 15-80, 30 FCC Rcd 7493 (2015), modified by Erratum, 30 FCC Rcd 8518 (2015) (Part 1 R&O)). Of relevance to the information collection at issue here, the Commission: (1) Modified the eligibility requirements for small business benefits, and updated the standardized schedule of small business sizes, including the gross revenues thresholds used to determine eligibility; (2) established a new bidding credit for eligible rural service providers; and (3) adopted targeted attribution rules to prevent the unjust enrichment of ineligible entities. The updated Part 1 rules apply to applicants seeking licenses, leases, and permits.
Additionally, on June 2, 2014 the Commission released the Mobile Spectrum Holdings R&O, in which the Commission updated its spectrum screen and established rules for its upcoming auctions of low-band spectrum. Of relevance to the information collection at issue here, the Commission stated that it could reserve spectrum in order to ensure against excessive concentration in holdings of below-1-GHz spectrum (In the Matter of Policies Regarding Mobile Spectrum Holdings, Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions, FCC 14-63, Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd 6133, 90) 135 (2014) (Mobile Spectrum Holdings R&O). See also Application Procedures for Broadcast Incentive Auction Scheduled to Begin on March 29, 2016; Technical Formulas for Competitive Bidding, Public Notice, 30 FCC Rcd 11034, Appendix 3 (WTB 2015); Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Releases Updated List of Reserve-Eligible Nationwide Service Providers in each PEA for the Broadcast Incentive Auction, Public Notice, AU No. 14-252 (WTB 2016).
The Commission seeks approval for revisions to its previously approved collection of information under OMB Control Number 3060-1058 to permit the collection of the additional information for Commission licenses, leases and permits, pursuant to the rules and information collection requirements adopted by the Commission in the Part 1 R&O and the Mobile Spectrum Holdings R&O. As part of the collection, the Commission is seeking approval for the information collection and recordkeeping requirements associated with FCC Form 608.
In addition, the Commission seeks approval for various other, non-substantive editorial/consistency edits and updates to FCC Form 608 that correct inconsistent capitalization of words and other typographical errors, and better align the text on the form with the text in the Commission rules both generally and in connection with recent non-substantive, organizational amendments to the Commission's rules.
The Commission therefore seeks approval for a revision to its currently approved information collection on FCC Form 608 to revise FCC Form 608 accordingly.
The rules adopted in these three orders have the following information collection requirements:
(A) Routing Information. VRS and IP Relay providers must obtain and retain current routing information from their registered users.
(B) Provision of Routing Information. VRS and IP Relay providers must provision and maintain their registered users' routing information to the TRS Numbering Directory.
(C) Registered Location. VRS and IP Relay providers must obtain from each newly registered user the physical location at which the service will be utilized (the user's Registered Location) and offer their registered users one or more methods of updating their physical location.
(D) Provision of Registered Location. Each VRS and IP Relay provider must place its registered users' Registered Location and certain callback information into, or make that information available through, Automatic Location Information (ALI) databases across the country.
(E) User Notification. Every VRS or IP Relay provider must include an advisory on its Web site and in any promotional materials addressing numbering and E911 services for VRS or IP Relay.
(F) Affirmative Acknowledgements. VRS and IP Relay providers must obtain and keep a record of affirmative acknowledgement from each of their registered users of having received and understood the user notification.
(G) Ascertaining Registration Status of VRS or IP Relay User. Every VRS and IP Relay provider must verify whether a dial-around user is registered with another provider. Because there is only one IP Relay provider, dial-around service is not used with IP Relay at this time.
(H) Verifying Registration and Eligibility Information. Every VRS and IP Relay provider must institute procedures to verify the accuracy of registration information, and include a self-certification component requiring consumers to verify that they have a disability necessitating their use of TRS.
(I) Commission Approval for the Pass Through of Numbering Costs. Each VRS or IP Relay provider wishing to pass through certain numbering-related costs to its users must obtain Commission approval to do so.
(J) Information Sharing After a Change in Default Providers. Each VRS provider that provides equipment to a consumer must make available to other VRS providers enough information about that equipment to enable another VRS provider selected as the consumer's default provider to perform all of the functions of a default provider.
Federal Election Commission.
Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 10:00 a.m.
999 E Street NW., Washington, DC (Ninth Floor).
This meeting will be open to the public.
Individuals who plan to attend and require special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact Dayna C. Brown, Secretary and Clerk, at (202) 694-1040, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting date.
Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than May 9, 2017.
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 May 18, 2017.
1.
During Phase II, ACF will engage a contractor to conduct a cross-site process evaluation. Data collected for the process evaluation will be used to assess grantees' organizational capacity to implement and evaluate the model interventions and to monitor each grantee's progress toward achieving the goals of the implementation period. Data for the process evaluation will be collected through interviews during site visits.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announces a forthcoming public advisory committee meeting of the Gastroenterology and Urology Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee. The general function of the committee is to provide advice and recommendations to the Agency on FDA's regulatory issues. The meeting will be open to the public.
The meeting will be held on May 17, 2017, from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.
Hilton Washington, DC/North, Salons A, B, C, and D, 620 Perry Pkwy., Gaithersburg, MD 20877. The hotel's telephone number is 301-977-8900. Answers to commonly asked questions including information regarding special accommodations due to a disability, visitor parking, and transportation may be accessed at:
Patricio G. Garcia, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. G610, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,
FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is available at
Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please contact Artair Mallett at
FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public symposium.
The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA or Agency) Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Professional Affairs and Stakeholder Engagement Staff (PASES), is hosting a 1-day public symposium entitled “Safe Use Symposium: A Focus on Reducing Preventable Harm From Drugs in the Outpatient Setting.” The purpose of this symposium is to discuss sources of preventable harm from drugs in the outpatient setting and to stimulate the exchange of ideas among thought leaders on interventions to reduce preventable harms and how these interventions can be studied.
The public symposium will be held on June 15, 2017, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.
The public symposium will be held at FDA's White Oak campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave, Bldg. 31 (The Great Room C), Silver Spring, MD 20903. Entrance for the public symposium participants (non-FDA employees) is through Bldg. 1 where routine security check procedures will be performed. For parking and security information, please refer to
Christine Lee, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-4228, email:
The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Professional Affairs and Stakeholder Engagement Staff (PASES), is hosting a 1-day public symposium entitled “Safe Use Symposium: A Focus on Reducing Preventable Harm From Drugs in the Outpatient Setting.” The purpose of this symposium is to discuss sources of preventable harm from drugs in the outpatient setting, such as the use of inappropriate medications in particular age groups, drug-drug interactions, unintended exposures, and misuse; and to stimulate the exchange of ideas among thought leaders on interventions to reduce preventable harms and how these interventions can be studied. This information may assist FDA in identifying significant and unexplored areas of preventable harm from drugs for the purpose of funding future research through the Safe Use Initiative. The symposium will feature presentations on sources of outpatient preventable harms, possible interventions, and future research topics. Areas to be discussed include identifying drugs and populations associated with a higher risk of preventable harm, as well as events which may be amenable to interventions. Methods to measure the effect of interventions and how to apply these to the outpatient setting will also be an important focus of discussion.
Presenters will represent multidisciplinary backgrounds from government, academia, patient safety groups, health care industry, and clinicians. There will be opportunities for interaction between speakers and attendees as well as question and answer sessions.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announces a forthcoming public advisory committee meeting of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC). The general function of the committee is to provide advice and recommendations to the Agency on FDA's regulatory issues. The meeting will be open to the public.
The meeting will be held on May 17, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:45 p.m.
FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Building 31 Conference Center, the Great Room (rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. For those unable to attend in person, the meeting will also be Web Cast and will be available at the following link:
CAPT Serina Hunter-Thomas or Rosanna Harvey, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 6307C, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, at 240-402-5771
Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please contact CAPT Serina Hunter-Thomas at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at:
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announces a forthcoming public advisory committee meeting of the Science Board to the FDA. The general function of the committee is to provide advice to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and other appropriate officials on specific, complex scientific and technical issues important to FDA and its mission, including emerging issues within the scientific community. Additionally, the Science Board provides advice to the Agency on keeping pace with technical and scientific developments including in regulatory science, input into the Agency's research agenda and on upgrading its scientific and research facilities and training opportunities. It will also provide, where requested, expert review of Agency sponsored intramural and extramural scientific research programs. This meeting is open to the public.
The meeting will be held on May 9, 2017, from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m.
FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave, Bldg. 31, Rm. 1404, Silver Spring, MD 20993. This meeting will take place via audio Webcast. To access the link for the audio Webcast check the Agency's Web site at
For those unable to access the audio Webcast, a conference room with a speakerphone will be reserved at the meeting location provided at the top of the
Rakesh Raghuwanshi, Office of the Chief Scientist, Office of the Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave, Bldg. 1, Rm. 3309, Silver Spring MD 20993, 301-796-4769,
FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee
Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please contact Rakesh Raghuwanshi at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public workshop.
The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Professional Affairs and Stakeholder Engagement Staff (PASES), is announcing a 1-day public workshop entitled “Reducing the Risk of Preventable Adverse Drug Events Associated with Hypoglycemia in the Older Population.” The purpose of this workshop is to discuss the importance of individualized glycemic control targets for older patients with diabetes; to reduce the risk of serious hypoglycemia; identify and discuss medication safety efforts, both those that are part of the Safe Use Initiative and those external to FDA, that are of direct relevance and importance to older patients living with the disease; discuss future areas of research which could be explored to reduce the risk of serious hypoglycemia in older diabetic patients; and disseminate the results of this discussion to inform patients, patient advocates, and health care practitioners.
The public workshop will be held on September 12, 2017, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.
The public workshop will be held at FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31 Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993. Entrance for the public workshop participants (non-FDA employees) is through Building 1, where routine security check procedures will be performed. For parking and security information, please refer to
Scott Winiecki, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-8824, email:
FDA CDER, PASES, is announcing a 1-day public workshop entitled “Reducing the Risk of Preventable Adverse Drug Events associated with Hypoglycemia in the Older Population.” The purpose of this workshop is to: (1) Discuss the importance of individualized glycemic control targets for older patients with diabetes, in order to reduce the risk of serious hypoglycemia; (2) identify and discuss medication safety efforts, both those that are part of the Safe Use Initiative and those external to FDA, that are of direct relevance and importance to older patients living with the disease; (3) discuss future areas of research which could be explored to reduce the risk of serious hypoglycemia in older diabetic patients; and (4) disseminate the results of this discussion to inform patients, patient advocates, and health care practitioners.
The symposium will feature presentations on the scope of hypoglycemia-related adverse drug events in the older population, the risks and benefits of various degrees of glycemic control, factors affecting patient centered care, research into effective diabetes management, and the concept and translation of individualized glycemic targets to minimize adverse events in practice settings. Presenters will represent multidisciplinary backgrounds from government, academia, patient safety groups, health care industry, and clinicians. There will be opportunities for collaboration between speakers and attendees as well as question and answer sessions.
Registration is free and based on space availability, with priority given to early registrants. Persons interested in attending this public workshop must register by August 29, 2017, midnight Eastern Time. Early registration is recommended because seating is limited; therefore, FDA may limit the number of participants from each organization. If time and space permit,
For those without Internet access, please contact Scott Winiecki, (see
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) is announcing the continuation of the Regulatory Project Management Site Tours and Regulatory Interaction Program (the Site Tours Program). The purpose of this document is to invite pharmaceutical companies interested in participating in this program to contact CDER.
Pharmaceutical companies may send proposed agendas to the Agency by June 23, 2017.
Dan Brum, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 5480, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-0578,
An important part of CDER's commitment to make safe and effective drugs available to all Americans is optimizing the efficiency and quality of the drug review process. To support this primary goal, CDER has initiated various training and development programs to promote high performance in its regulatory project management staff. CDER seeks to significantly enhance review efficiency and review quality by providing the staff with a better understanding of the pharmaceutical industry and its operations. To this end, CDER is continuing its training program to give regulatory project managers the opportunity to tour pharmaceutical facilities. The goals are to provide the following: (1) Firsthand exposure to industry's drug development processes and (2) a venue for sharing information about project management procedures (but not drug-specific information) with industry representatives.
In this program, over a 2- to 3-day period, small groups (five or less) of regulatory project managers, including a senior level regulatory project manager, can observe operations of pharmaceutical manufacturing and/or packaging facilities, pathology/toxicology laboratories, and regulatory affairs operations. Neither this tour nor any part of the program is intended as a mechanism to inspect, assess, judge, or perform a regulatory function, but is meant rather to improve mutual understanding and to provide an avenue for open dialogue. During the Site Tours Program, regulatory project managers will also participate in daily workshops with their industry counterparts, focusing on selective regulatory issues important to both CDER staff and industry. The primary objective of the daily workshops is to learn about the team approach to drug development, including drug discovery, preclinical evaluation, tracking mechanisms, and regulatory submission operations. The overall benefit to regulatory project managers will be exposure to project management, team techniques, and processes employed by the pharmaceutical industry. By participating in this program, the regulatory project manager will grow professionally by gaining a better understanding of industry processes and procedures.
All travel expenses associated with the Site Tours Program will be the responsibility of CDER; therefore, selection will be based on the availability of funds and resources for each fiscal year. Selection will also be based on firms having a favorable facility status as determined by FDA's Office of Regulatory Affairs District Offices in the firms' respective regions. Firms that want to learn more about this training opportunity or that are interested in offering a site tour should respond by sending a proposed agenda by email directly to Dan Brum (see
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is announcing the availability of a new draft guidance for industry on generic naloxone hydrochloride nasal spray entitled “Draft Guidance on Naloxone Hydrochloride.” The new draft guidance, when finalized, will provide product-specific recommendations on, among other things, the design of bioequivalence (BE) studies to support abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) for naloxone hydrochloride nasal spray.
Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final versions of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidances by June 23, 2017.
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
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Xiaoqiu Tang, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 75, Rm. 4730, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-5850.
In the
As described in that guidance, FDA adopted this process to develop and disseminate product-specific guidances and to provide a meaningful opportunity for the public to consider and comment on the guidances. This notice announces the availability of a new draft guidance for generic naloxone hydrochloride nasal spray.
FDA initially approved new drug application 208411 for NARCAN (naloxone hydrochloride) nasal spray in November 2015. We are now issuing a new draft guidance for industry on generic naloxone hydrochloride nasal spray (“Draft Guidance on Naloxone Hydrochloride”).
In November 2016, Adapt Pharma Operations Limited (APOL), manufacturer of the reference listed drug NARCAN nasal spray, submitted a citizen petition requesting that FDA refrain from approving any ANDA referencing NARCAN nasal spray unless certain conditions are satisfied, including conditions related to demonstrating BE. FDA has reviewed the issues raised in the citizen petition and is responding to it separately in the docket for that citizen petition (Docket No. FDA-2016-P-4094, available at
The new draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The new draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on the design of BE studies to support ANDAs for naloxone hydrochloride nasal spray. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the draft guidances at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Fax written comments on the collection of information by May 24, 2017.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202-395-7285, or emailed to
Ila S. Mizrachi, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A63, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-7726.
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
The European Union (EU) is a group of 28 European countries that have agreed to harmonize their commodity requirements to facilitate commerce among member States. For certain food products, including those listed in this document, EU legislation requires assurances from the responsible authority of the country of origin that the processor of the food is in compliance with applicable regulatory requirements. Regulation (EC) No. 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the European Council states that products of animal origin may only be imported from establishments that appear on a list of establishments for which the competent authority of the exporting country has guaranteed compliance with applicable regulatory requirements and that shipments of these products must be accompanied by documents that certify the products' compliance with applicable regulatory standards. Section 801(e) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 381(e)) authorizes FDA to provide the certification described in Regulation (EC) No. 854/2004. As stated in the notice published in the
We request the following information from each firm or processor seeking to be included on the lists of eligible exporters for shell eggs, and game meat and game meat products (dairy products will be covered under OMB control number 0910-0509):
• Business name and address;
• name and telephone number of person designated as business contact;
• lists of products presently being shipped to the EU and those intended to be shipped in the next 6 months;
• name and address of manufacturing plants for each product; and
• names and affiliations of any Federal, State, or local governmental Agencies that inspect the plant, government-assigned plant identifier such as plant number, and last date of inspection.
We request the following information from each firm or processor seeking to be included on the list of eligible exporters for gelatin and collagen products:
• Food Facility Registration Number and Pin Number (if applicable);
• business name and address;
• name, telephone number, fax number, and email address of main business contact person;
• list of products presently shipped to the EU and those intended to be shipped within the next 2 years;
• name and address of the manufacturing and processing plant for each product (manufacturer type for primary producer);
• names and affiliations of any Federal, State, and local governmental Agencies that inspect the plant, government assigned plant identifier such as plant number and last date of inspection; and
• a copy of the most recent (within 1 year of the date of application) inspection report issued by a State, local, or Federal public health regulatory Agency and a copy of a recent laboratory analysis as required by the EU of the finished product including: Total aerobic bacteria, coliforms (30 degrees C), coliforms (44.5 degrees C), anaerobic sulphite-reducing bacteria (no gas production),
We use the information to maintain lists of firms and processors that have demonstrated current compliance with U.S. requirements. We make the lists available on our Web site. We include on the lists only firms and processors that are not the subject of an unresolved regulatory enforcement action or unresolved warning letter. If a listed firm or processor subsequently becomes the subject of a regulatory enforcement action or an unresolved warning letter, we will view such a circumstance as evidence that the firm or processor is no longer in compliance with applicable U.S. laws and regulations. Should this occur, we will take steps to remove that firm or processor from the list and send a revised list to the EU authorities, usually within 48 to 72 hours after the relevant regulatory enforcement action. If a firm or processor has been delisted as a result of a regulatory enforcement action or unresolved warning letter, the firm or processor will have to reapply for inclusion on the list once the regulatory action has been resolved.
We update quarterly the lists of firms and processors eligible to export products of animal origin to the EU. Firms and processors placed on lists of eligible exporters are subject to audit by FDA and EU officials. Complete requests for inclusion on the lists of eligible exporters, which is voluntary, must be submitted 12 months to remain on the list of firms and processors eligible to export products of animal origin to the EU. However, products of
In the
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
We base our estimates of the number of respondents and total annual responses on the submissions that we have received in the past 3 years for each product type. To calculate the estimate for the hours per response values, we assumed that the information requested is readily available to the submitter. We expect that the submitter will need to gather information from appropriate persons in the submitter's company and to prepare this information for submission. We believe that this effort should take no longer than 15 minutes (0.25 hour) per response. We estimate that we will receive 1 submission from 10 shell egg producers annually, for a total of 10 annual responses. Each submission is estimated to take 0.25 hour per response for a total of 2.5 hours, rounded to 3 hours. This collection has previously covered information collected to maintain lists of eligible exporters of dairy products; dairy products will be covered under OMB control number 0910-0509, so the estimated burden has been removed from this collection. We estimate that we will receive one submission from five game meat and game meat product producers annually, for a total of five annual responses. Each submission is estimated to take 0.25 hour per response for a total of 1.25 hours, rounded to 1 hour. We estimate that we will receive one submission from seven gelatin producers annually, for a total of seven annual responses. Each submission is estimated to take 0.25 hour per response for a total of 1.75 hours, rounded to 2 hours. We estimate that we will receive 1 submission from 18 collagen producers annually, for a total of 18 annual responses. Each submission is estimated to take 0.25 hour per response for a total of 4.5 hours, rounded to 5 hours. The estimated burden for collagen producers includes animal casings, which have been listed separately in previous notices. Therefore, the proposed annual burden for this information collection is 11 hours.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is withdrawing approval of two new drug applications (NDAs) held by Guerbet Group. Guerbet Group notified the Agency in writing that the drug products were no longer marketed and requested that the approval of the applications be withdrawn.
Withdrawal of approval is effective May 24, 2017.
Florine P. Purdie, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6248, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-3601.
The applications listed in table 1 in this document are no longer marketed, and Guerbet Group has requested that FDA withdraw approval of the applications pursuant to the process in § 314.150(c) (21 CFR 314.150(c)). The company has also, by its request, waived its opportunity for a hearing. Withdrawal of approval of an application or abbreviated application under § 314.150(c) is without prejudice to refiling.
Therefore, under authority delegated to the Director, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, by the Commissioner, approval of the applications listed in table 1 in this document, and all amendments and supplements thereto, is hereby withdrawn, effective May 24, 2017. Introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of products without approved new drug applications violates section 301(a) and (d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 331(a) and (d)). Drug products that are listed in table 1 that are in inventory on the date that this notice becomes effective (see the
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, HRSA announces plans to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Prior to submitting the ICR to OMB, HRSA seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate, below, or any other aspect of the ICR.
Comments on this ICR must be received no later than June 23, 2017.
Submit your comments to
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and draft instruments, email
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the information request collection title for reference, in compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
As a result of the reduction in performance measures, annualized burden is decreasing from 72 hours to 32 hours. The total annual burden hours estimated for this ICR are summarized in the table below.
HRSA specifically requests comments on (1) the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions, (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden, (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, HRSA announces plans to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Prior to submitting the ICR to OMB, HRSA seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate, below, or any other aspect of the ICR.
Comments on this ICR should be received no later than June 23, 2017.
Submit your comments to
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and draft instruments, email
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the information request collection title for reference, in compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
The following states, territories, and Pacific Island jurisdictions are eligible to apply for RWHAP ADAP funding: All 50 states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Republic of Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands. As part of the funding requirements, ADAPs submit reports concerning information on clients served, eligibility requirements, pharmaceuticals prescribed, pricing and other sources of support to provide HIV medication treatment, cost data, and coordination with Medicaid. The AIDS Drug Assistance Program Data Report (ADR) is submitted annually and consists of a Recipient Report and a client-level data file. The Recipient Report is a collection of basic information about grant recipient characteristics and policies. The client-level data is a collection of records (one record for each client enrolled in the ADAP), which includes the client's encrypted unique identifier, basic demographic data, enrollment information, services received, and clinical data.
HRSA specifically requests comments on (1) the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions, (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden, (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given of the following meeting for the Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders in Newborns and Children (ACHDNC). The meeting will be open to the public but advance registration is required. The online registration deadline is Thursday, May 4, 2017, 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time. Please check the Web site for additional guidance and registration information. The registration link is
The meeting will be held on May 11, 2017, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and May 12, 2017, 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
This meeting will be held in-person and by webcast. The address for the meeting is 5600 Fishers Lane, 5th Floor Pavilion, Rockville, MD 20857. Webcast information will be emailed to you after you register.
Anyone requesting information regarding the ACHDNC should contact Ann Ferrero, Maternal and Child Health Bureau (MCHB), HRSA, in one of three ways: (1) Send a request to Ann Ferrero, MCHB, HRSA 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 18N100C, Rockville, Maryland 20857; (2) call 301-443-3999 or (3) send an email to:
The ACHDNC, as authorized by Public Health Service Act, Title XI, § 1111 (42 U.S.C. 300b-10), provides advice to the Secretary of HHS on the development of newborn screening activities, technologies, policies, guidelines, and programs for effectively reducing morbidity and mortality in newborns and children having, or at risk for, heritable disorders. In addition, ACHDNC's recommendations regarding inclusion of additional conditions and inherited disorders for screening which have been adopted by the Secretary are then included in the Recommended Uniform Screening Panel (RUSP). Conditions listed on the RUSP constitute part of the comprehensive guidelines supported by HRSA for infants, children, and adolescents. Pursuant to section 2713 of the Public Health Service Act, codified at 42 U.S.C. 300gg-13, non-grandfathered health plans and health insurance issuers are required to cover screenings included in the HRSA-supported comprehensive guidelines without charging a co-payment, co-insurance, or deductible for plan years (
The Committee will not be voting on a proposed addition of a condition to the RUSP. The final meeting agenda will be available two (2) days prior to the meeting on the Committee's Web site:
Members of the public may submit written and/or present oral comments at the meeting. All comments are part of the official Committee record. Advance registration is required to submit written comments and/or present oral comments. Written comments must be submitted by April 28, 2017, 12:00 p.m. Eastern Time to be included in the May meeting briefing book. Written comments should identify the individual's name, address, email, telephone number, professional or organization affiliation, background or area of expertise (
Individuals who wish to provide oral comments must register by Thursday, May 4, 2017, 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time. To ensure that all individuals who have registered to make oral comments can be accommodated, the allocated time may be limited. Individuals who are associated with groups or have similar interests may be requested to combine their comments and present them through a single representative. No audiovisual presentations are permitted.
The 5600 Fishers Lane building requires a security screening on entry. To facilitate your access to the building, please contact Ann Ferrero at 301-443-3999. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify Ann Ferrero, MCHB, HRSA; email:
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services, has submitted an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. The ICR is for a new collection. Comments submitted during the first public review of this ICR will be provided to OMB. OMB will accept further comments from the public on this ICR during the review and approval period.
Comments on the ICR must be received on or before May 24, 2017.
Submit your comments to
Information Collection Clearance staff,
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the Information Collection Request Title and document identifier 0955-New-30D for reference.
The total annual burden hours estimated for this ICR are summarized in the table below.
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services, has submitted an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. The ICR is for revision of the approved information collection assigned OMB control number 0990-0452, scheduled to expire on January 31, 2020. Comments
Comments on the ICR must be received on or before May 24, 2017.
Submit your comments to
Information Collection Clearance staff,
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the OMB control number 0990-0452 for reference.
The findings from these analyses of program impacts will be of interest to the general public, to policymakers, and to schools and other organizations interested in supporting teen pregnancy prevention.
The total annual burden hours estimated for this ICR are summarized in the table below.
The Stakeholder Listening Session will help the HHS Office of Global Affairs prepare the U.S. delegation for the World Health Assembly by taking full advantage of the knowledge, ideas, feedback, and suggestions from communities that are interested in and may be affected by agenda items to be discussed at the 70th World Health Assembly. Your input will contribute to informing U.S. positions as we negotiate with our international colleagues at the World Health Assembly on these important health topics.
The listening session will be organized by agenda item, and participation is welcome from all individuals, particularly members of stakeholder communities, including the following:
• Public health and advocacy groups;
• State, local, and Tribal groups;
• Private industry;
• Minority health organizations; and
• Academic and scientific organizations.
All agenda items to be discussed at the 70th World Health Assembly can be found at this Web site:
Written comments are welcome and encouraged, even if you are planning on attending in person. Please send your written comments to
We look forward to hearing your comments related to the 70th World Health Assembly agenda items.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. app.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Council for Complementary and Integrative Health.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), 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.
Closed: 8:30 a.m. to 9:45 a.m.
Open: 10:00 a.m. to 3:05 p.m.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Advisory Council.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given that the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA's) Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) National Advisory Council will meet on May 8, 2017, 12:30 p.m.-1:00 p.m. (EDT) in a closed teleconference meeting.
The meeting will include discussions and evaluations of grant applications reviewed by SAMHSA's Initial Review Groups, and involve an examination of confidential financial and business information as well as personal information concerning the applicants. Therefore, the meeting will be closed to the public as determined by the SAMHSA Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use in accordance with title 5 U.S.C 552b(c)(4) and (6) and title 5 U.S.C. app. 2, section 10(d).
Meeting information and a roster of Council members may be obtained by accessing the SAMHSA Committee Web site at
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 network tap products known as Net Optics Slim Tap network taps. Based upon the facts presented, CBP has concluded that the country of origin of the Net Optics Slim Tap network taps is China for purposes of U.S. Government procurement.
The final determination was issued on April 18, 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 May 24, 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 April 18, 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
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 October 13, 2016, requesting a final determination on behalf of Ixia, pursuant to subpart B of Part 177 of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) Regulations (19 CFR Part 177). Under these regulations, which implement Title III of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (“TAA”), as amended (19 U.S.C. 2511
This final determination concerns the country of origin of Ixia's Net Optics Slim Tap network tap (“Slim Tap”). We note that Ixia is a party-at-interest within the meaning of 19 CFR 177.22(d)(1) and is entitled to request this final determination. In addition, we have reviewed and grant the request for confidentiality pursuant to 19 CFR 177.2(b)(7), with respect to certain information submitted.
The Slim Tap is a network tap produced by Ixia. A network tap is a fiber optic device that provides a physical connection or access to a network. Network taps enable users to physically connect a computer or other monitoring device to a network for the purpose of evaluating, monitoring, or checking network issues.
The Slim Tap consists of three optic to LC-LC adapters from Taiwan, two fiber optic splitters from China, a chassis from the United States, a foam tube holder from the United States, a bracket from the United States, screws from the United States, and three tamper proof labels from the United States. The components from Taiwan and China are imported into the United States, separately in different shipments at different times. In the United States, these foreign and domestic components are assembled into the finished product, the Slim Tap, by specially trained technicians. During this assembly process, the technicians must install the adapters from Taiwan and splitters from China in a specific manner per the wiring diagram for the Slim Tap, or else the finished product will not work properly. After assembly, the Slim Tap is tested to determine if the signal or line drops fall within acceptable parameters and to assure that the unit is otherwise functioning properly. According to Ixia, this assembly and testing process in the United States takes approximately 15 minutes.
In correspondence with the National Commodity Specialist Division (“NCSD”), Ixia provided the following information concerning the imported adapter and splitter components:
Ixia provided us with a product sample of the Slim Tap. We note that the three adapters on the front of the Slim Tap are labeled “A”, “B”, and “A/B”, with the “A” and “B” adapters having both an “in” and “out” component, while “A/B” adapter only has two “out” components. The reason for there being two “in” components and four “out” components is because the splitters splits one incoming signal into two outgoing signals.
What is the country of origin of the Slim Tap for purposes 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.
In order to determine whether a substantial transformation occurs when components of various origins are assembled into completed products, CBP considers the totality of the circumstances and makes such determinations on a case-by-case basis.
With regard to a change in name,
With regard to a change in character,
With regard to a change in use,
In this case, we are similarly examining whether imported components undergo a substantial transformation when assembled into the final product in the United States. Namely, while network taps and flashlights are different products, both this case and
As noted above, the Slim Tap consists of three adapters from Taiwan, two splitters from China, a foam tube holder from the United States, brackets and screws from the United States, and labels from the United States. Per the assembly diagram provided by Ixia, the foreign subassemblies are removed from their packaging, with the adapters being snapped into the chassis and the splitters being inserted into the foam tube holder that has already been attached to the chassis. After the adapters and splitters are placed into their proper positions within the chassis, the adapters and splitters are connected according to the precise instructions of the wiring diagram. Once the adapters and splitters are properly wired, the bracket, labels, and chassis cover are attached with screws to complete the assembly of the Slim Tap.
In examining whether a change in name occurred, we note that the foreign adapters and splitters do not lose their individual names as a result of this post-importation assembly process. Per the assembly description and wiring diagram, the adapters and splitters would still be identified as the adapter and splitter components of the Slim Tap. To this extent, each imported component retains its pre-importation name after post-importation assembly in the same manner that the various lenses retained their pre-importation name after their assembly into the flashlight. Accordingly, we find that the imported adapters and splitters do not change in name as a result of the post-importation assembly.
We also find that the assembly of the Slim Tap in the United States does not render a change in character to the adapters and splitters. Like in
In examining whether a change in use occurred, we note that Ixia uses the imported adapters and splitters because such are comprised of precise materials that permit passing data through the Slim Tap in the manner required by the product. As in
Therefore, through an analysis of the name, character, and use test, we find that the imported components do not undergo a substantial transformation when assembled into the Slim Tap in the United States. Nonetheless, Ixia makes two other arguments that the imported components are substantially transformed into the Slim Tap. First, Ixia argues that we should consider whether the Slim Tap would have originating status under the North American Free Trade Agreement (“NAFTA”) tariff shift rules when determining whether a substantial transformation occurred. However, as noted in
Additionally, Ixia argues that the assembly of the Slim Tap results in a substantial transformation of the imported components because the assembly process in the United States requires skilled technicians to do a microscopic examination of the splitters, install the parts according to a complex wiring diagram, and engage through complex testing procedures. In support of this argument, Ixia cites
As noted by Ixia, examining whether a substantial transformed occurred may require the consideration of subsidiary factors such as the resources expended on product design and development, the extent and nature of post-assembly inspection and testing procedures, and the degree of skill required during the actual manufacturing process.
Here, we find that the assembly process is not sufficiently complex or meaningful to render a substantial transformation of the imported components. We distinguish the comparisons to the assembly processes in
Accordingly, in this case, there are two foreign components, neither of which are substantially transformed by the further processing in the United States. As a result, the Slim Tap cannot be considered a product of the United States for purposes of U.S. Government procurement. However, since the adapters are from a designated country (Taiwan) and the splitters are from a non-designated country (China), and both are incorporated into one end-product (the Slim Tap), it still needs to be determined which of these two countries is the country of origin of the Slim Tap for purposes of U.S. Government procurement.
As noted in
Based on the facts provided, the imported components will not be substantially transformed into the Slim Tap because the post-importation assembly process in the United States does not change the name, character and use of the imported adapters and splitters. As such, because the imported splitters constitute the “essence” of the Slim Tap, China will be considered the country of origin of the product for purposes of U.S. Government procurement.
Notice of this final determination will be given in the
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The National Park Service is soliciting comments on the significance of properties nominated before March 25, 2017, for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places.
Comments should be submitted by May 9, 2017.
Comments may be sent via U.S. Postal Service and all other carriers to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St. NW., MS 7228, Washington, DC 20240.
The properties listed in this notice are being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places. Nominations for their consideration were received by the National Park Service before March 25, 2017. Pursuant to section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60, written comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Nominations submitted by State Historic Preservation Officers:
Nominations submitted by Federal Preservation Officers:
The State Historic Preservation Officer reviewed the nomination and responded to the Federal Preservation Officer within 45 days of receipt of the nomination and supports listing the property in the National Register of Historic Places.
A request for removal has been made for the following resource(s):
A request to move has been received for the following resource(s):
An additional documentation has been received for the following resource(s):
60.13 of 36 CFR part 60
United States International Trade Commission.
April 27, 2017 at 9:30 a.m.
Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.
Open to the public.
1. Agendas for future meetings: none.
2. Minutes.
3. Ratification List.
4. Vote in Inv. Nos. 731-TA-540 and 541 (Fourth Review) (Welded ASTM A-312 Stainless Steel Pipe from Korea and Taiwan). The Commission is currently scheduled to complete and file its determinations and views of the Commission by May 12, 2017.
5. Outstanding action jackets: none.
In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.
By order of the Commission.
On April 17, 2017, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the District of Alaska in the lawsuit entitled
This Consent Decree resolves disputes against Westward Seafoods, Inc. with respect to violations of the Clean Air Act at Westward's seafood processing facility in Dutch Harbor, Alaska. Coincidental with the entry of the Consent Decree we are also resolving claims for stipulated penalties for violations of a Consent Decree entered into with Westward regarding this facility in 2010 involving the Facility (“2010 Decree”). The same set of facts give rise to the violations of the CAA and the stipulated penalty provisions of the 2010 Decree.
The Consent Decree requires a penalty of $570,000 ($228,000 to the state of Alaska and $342,000 to the United States). Moreover, Westward has to pay $730,000 to resolve the Stipulated Penalty claims. Hence, Westward will pay a total of $1,300,000 in penalties. In addition, the Consent Decree requires that: (1) Westward undertake injunctive relief relating to improved operation and maintenance procedures and employee training focused on the key power generators; (2) Westward be subject to Third Party Verification regarding compliance with the Decree and with Westward's Clean Air Act permit; and (3) Westward implement two mitigation projects.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site:
Please enclose a check or money order for $36.75 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury. For a paper copy without the exhibits, the cost is $17.00.
Office of Justice Programs (OJP), Justice.
Notice of meeting.
This is an announcement of a meeting (via conference call-in) of the Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor Review Board to consider a range of issues of importance to the Board, to include, but not limited to: the MOV Charter renewal; Bylaws; membership/terms; applicant eligibility; the conflict of interest policy and procedures; the pending recommendation on the 2015-2016 MOV recipients and subsequent ceremony; application submissions for the 2016-2017 MOV and their review; program outreach and marketing efforts; potential updates to the administrative system; and to vote on the position of Board Chairperson. The meeting date and time is listed below.
June 8, 2017, 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. EST.
This meeting will take place via conference call-in.
Gregory Joy, Policy Advisor, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, 810 7th Street NW., Washington, DC 20531, by telephone at (202) 514-1369, toll free (866) 859-2687, or by email at
The Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor Review Board carries out those advisory functions specified in 42 U.S.C. 15202. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 15201, the President of the United States is authorized to award the Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor, the highest national award for valor by a public safety officer.
This meeting/conference call is open to the public at the offices of the Bureau of Justice Assistance. For security purposes, members of the public who wish to participate must register at least seven (7) days in advance of the meeting/conference call by contacting Mr. Joy. All interested participants will be required to meet at the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs; 810 7th Street, NW., Washington, DC, 20531, and will be required to sign in at the front desk. Note: Photo identification will be required for admission. Additional identification documents may be required.
Access to the meeting/conference call will not be allowed without prior registration. Anyone requiring special accommodations should contact Mr. Joy at least seven (7) days in advance of the meeting. Please submit any comments or written statements for consideration by the Review Board in writing at least seven (7) days in advance of the meeting date.
Employment and Training Administration, Labor.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL), Employment and Training Administration (ETA), is soliciting comments concerning a proposed extension for the authority to conduct the information collection request (ICR) titled “Application for Alien Employment Certification.” This comment request is part of continuing Departmental efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Consideration will be given to all written comments received by June 23, 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 by contacting William W. Thompson II, Administrator, Office of Foreign Labor Certification, telephone number: 202-513-7350 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with hearing or speech impairments may access the telephone number above via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 1-877-889-5627 (TTY/TDD). Fax: 202-513-7395 or by email at
Submit written comments about, or requests for a copy of, this ICR by mail or courier to the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Office of Foreign Labor Certification, Room 12-200, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; by email:
William W. Thompson II, by telephone at 202-513-7350 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email at
44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A).
The DOL, as part of continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden,
The Secretary of Labor is required by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to certify that any alien seeking to enter the United States for the purpose of performing skilled or unskilled labor will not adversely affect wages and working conditions of U.S. workers similarly employed, and that there are not sufficient U.S. workers able, willing, and qualified to perform such skilled or unskilled labor. Many foreign professional athletes must qualify as skilled labor to gain permanent admission to the United States. Section 212(a)(5)(A)(iii) of the INA deals specifically with professional athletes coming to the United States on a permanent basis as immigrants.
Part A of Form ETA-750 is used to collect information that, when appropriate, permits DOL to certify that the admission of a foreign professional athlete meets the requirements of Section 212(a)(5)(A) of the INA. Part B of Form ETA-750 provides detailed information about a foreign national's education and work history, and is used by DOL to collect information about the professional athlete on whose behalf an application for permanent labor certification is filed. The Department of Homeland Security also uses Part B under 8 CFR 204.5(k)(4)(ii), for aliens without an employer sponsor who are applying for a National Interest Waiver (NIW) of the job offer requirement under INA Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i), which allows aliens to self-petition and, where appropriate, to enter without a labor certification. Sections 203(b)(2)(B)(i) and 212(a)(5)(A)) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(2)(B)(i) and § 1182(a)(5)(A)) and 8 CFR 204.5(k)(4)(ii) 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 the OMB under the PRA approves it and the information collection displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
Interested parties are encouraged to provide comments to the contact shown in the
Submitted comments will also be a matter of public record for this ICR, and posted on the Internet without redaction. The DOL encourages commenters not to include personally identifiable information, confidential business data, or other sensitive statements/information in any comments.
The DOL is particularly interested in comments that:
• 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,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Request for public comments.
OSHA solicits public comments concerning its proposal to extend the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the information collection requirement contained in the Portable Fire Extinguishers Standard (Annual Maintenance Certification Record).
Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent or received) by June 23, 2017.
Todd Owen or Theda Kenney, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3609, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-2222.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (
Paragraph (e)(3) of the Standard specifies that employers must subject each portable fire extinguisher to an annual maintenance inspection and record the date of the inspection. In addition, this provision requires employers to retain the inspection record for one year after the last entry or for the life of the shell, whichever is less, and to make the record available to OSHA on request. This recordkeeping requirement assures workers and Agency compliance officers that portable fire extinguishers located in the workplace will operate normally in case of fire; in addition, this requirement provides evidence to OSHA compliance officers during an inspection that the employer performed the required maintenance checks on the portable fire extinguishers.
OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
• Whether the proposed information collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions, including whether the information is useful;
• The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the information collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply-for example, by Using automated or other technological information collection and transmission techniques.
OSHA is requesting that OMB extend its approval of the information collection requirements contained in the Portable Fire Extinguishers Standard (Annual Maintenance Certification Record) (29 CFR 1910.157(e)(3)). OSHA is requesting an adjustment increase of 4,489,161 responses (from 1,380,750 to 5,869,911), and an increase of 224,458 burden hours (from 69,038 to 293,496 burden hours). The increased estimate for the number of responses stems from a reconsideration of how this figure should be calculated. Prior estimates fully accounted for all time and cost burden but only counted responses imposing a time burden as a response for reginfo.gov database purposes. Employers who contract for an inspection also are making a response under the PRA, and this ICR adjusts the analysis. This ICR's adjustment increase is also a result of the number of portable fire extinguishers increasing from 1,380,750 to 5,869,911 (see explanation under Item 12). In addition, there is an increase in the cost under Item 13 from $8,583,559 to $9,538,604 (an increase of $955,045). This cost increase is the result of updated data indicating a decrease in the number of establishments; thus, the Agency estimates an increase in the number of portable fire extinguishers inspected by outside contractors. The Agency will summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice and will include this summary in the request to OMB.
You may submit comments in response to this document as follows: (1) Electronically at
The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments by your name, date, and the docket number so the Agency can attach them to your comments. Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand, express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-2350, (TTY (877) 889-5627).
Comments and submissions are posted without change at
Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about materials not available through the Web site, and for assistance in using the Internet to locate docket submissions.
Dorothy Dougherty, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Request for public comments.
OSHA solicits public comments concerning its proposal to extend the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the collections of information contained in the OSHA-7 Form.
Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent or received) by June 23, 2017.
Theda Kenney or Todd Owen, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3609, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-2222.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (
Under paragraphs (a) and (c) of 29 CFR 1903.11 (“Complaints by employees”), employees and their representatives may notify the OSHA area director or an OSHA compliance officer of safety and health hazards regulated by the Agency that they believe exist in their workplaces at any time. These provisions state further that this notification must be in writing and “shall set forth with reasonable particularity the grounds for the notice, and shall be signed by the employee or representative of the employee.”
In addition to providing specific hazard information to the Agency, paragraph (a) permits employees/employee representatives to request an inspection of the workplace. Paragraph (c) also addresses situations in which employees/employee representatives may provide the information directly to the OSHA compliance officer during an inspection. An employer's former employees may also submit complaints to the Agency.
To address the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (c), especially the requirement that the information be in writing, the Agency developed the OSHA-7 Form; this form standardized and simplified the hazard reporting process. For paragraph (a), they may complete an OSHA-7 Form obtained
The information on the hard copy version of the OSHA-7 Form includes information about the employer and alleged hazards, including: The establishment's name; the site's address and telephone and facsimile numbers; the name and telephone number of the management official; the type of business; a description and the specific location of the hazards, including the approximate number of employees exposed or threatened by the hazards; and whether or not the employee/employee representative informed another government agency about the hazards (and the name of the agency if so informed).
Additional information on the hard copy version of the form concerns the complainant, including: Whether or not the complainant is an employee or an employee representative, or for information provided orally, a member of a federal safety and health committee or another party (with space to specify the party); the complainant's name, telephone number, and address; and the complainant's signature attesting that they believe a violation of an OSHA standard exists at the named establishment; and the date of the signature. An employee representative must also provide the name of the organization they represent and their title.
The information contained in the online version of the OSHA-7 Form is similar to the hard copy version. However, the online version requests the complainant's email address, and does not ask for the site's facsimile number or the complainant's signature and signature date.
The Agency uses the information collected on the OSHA-7 Form to determine whether reasonable grounds exist to conduct an inspection of the workplace. The description of the hazards, including the number of exposed employees, allows the Agency to assess the severity of the hazards and the need to expedite the inspection. The completed form also provides the employer with notice of the complaint and may serve as the basis for obtaining a search warrant if the employer denies the Agency access to the workplace.
OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
• Whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for proper performance of the Agency's functions, including whether the information is useful;
• The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the collections of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply—for example, by using automated or other technological information collection and transmission techniques.
OSHA is requesting that OMB extend its approval of the collections of information relating to the OSHA-7 Form. The Agency is requesting an increase in burden hours from 13,659 to 19,258 (a total increase of 5,599 burden hours). The difference is the result of an overall increase in complaints received annually from 50,641 complaints estimated in the previous ICR to 70,976 complaints. There was also an increase in operation and maintenance costs from $532 to $701. The increase occurred due to an increase in the estimated number of written OSHA-7 forms received, from 1,208 to 1,430 forms. The Agency will summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice and will include this summary in the request to OMB to extend the approval of the collections of information.
You may submit comments in response to this document as follows: (1) Electronically at
Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand, express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-2350, (TTY (877) 889-5627).
Comments and submissions are posted without change at
Dorothy Dougherty, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Request for public comments.
OSHA solicits public comments concerning its proposal to extend the OMB approval of the information collection requirements contained in paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(6)(i), (b)(6)(ii), (c)(15)(ii), (e)(1)(i), (ii), and (iii) and (f)(2) of the Standard on Rigging Equipment for Material Handling. These paragraphs require affixing identification tags or markings on rigging equipment, developing and maintaining inspection records, and retaining proof-testing certificates.
Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by June 23, 2017.
Theda Kenney or Todd Owen, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3609, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-2222.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (
Paragraph (b)(1) of the Standard 29 CFR 1926.251 requires that alloy steel chains have permanently affixed, durable identification tags stating size, grade, rated capacity and sling manufacturer. Paragraph (b)(6)(i) requires the employer to make a thorough periodic inspection of alloy steel chain slings in use on a regular basis, but at least once a year. Paragraph (b)(6)(ii) requires the employer to make and maintain a record of the most recent month in which each alloy steel chain was inspected and make the record available for examination.
Paragraph (c)(15)(ii) requires that all welded end attachments of wire rope slings be proof tested by the manufacturer at twice their rated capacity prior to initial use, and that the employer retain a certificate of the proof test and make it available for examination.
Paragraphs (e)(1)(i), (ii), and (iii) require that synthetic web slings be marked or coded to show the manufacturer's name or trademark, the rated capacity for the type of hitch and the type of synthetic webbing material.
Paragraph (f)(2) requires that all hooks for which no applicable manufacturer's recommendations are available be tested twice before they are put into use. The employer shall maintain a record of the dates and results of the tests.
OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
• Whether the proposed information collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions, including whether the information is useful;
• The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the information collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must-comply for example, by using automated or other technological information collection and transmission techniques.
OSHA is requesting that OMB extend its approval of the information collection requirements contained in the Standard on Rigging Equipment for Material Handling (29 CFR 1926.251). The Agency is requesting an increase in the burden hours from 51,815 burden hours to 52,428 hours. This increase is due to the additional marking requirements for wire rope slings.
You may submit comments in response to this document as follows: (1) Electronically at
Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand, express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-2350, (TTY (877) 889-5627).
Comments and submissions are posted without change at
Dorothy Dougherty, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506
Wage and Hour Division, Department of Labor.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is soliciting comments concerning a proposed extension of the information collection request (ICR) titled, “Nondisplacement of Qualified Workers Under Service Contracts.” This comment request is part of continuing Departmental efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501
This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. A copy of the proposed information request can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the
You may submit comments identified by Control Number 1235-0025, by either one of the following methods:
Robert Waterman, Compliance Specialist, Division of Regulations, Legislation, and Interpretation, Wage and Hour Division, U.S. Department of Labor, Room S-3502, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-0406 (this is not a toll-free number). Copies of this notice may be obtained in alternative formats (Large Print, Braille, Audio Tape, or Disc), upon request, by calling (202) 693-0023 (not a toll-free number). TTY/TTD callers may dial toll-free (877) 889-5627 to obtain information or request materials in alternative formats.
I.
II.
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
• 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;
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
III.
National Endowment for the Arts, National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities.
Notice
The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This program helps to ensure that requested data is provided in the desired format; reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized; collection instruments are clearly understood; and the impact of collection requirements on respondents is properly assessed. Currently, the National Endowment for the Arts is soliciting comments concerning the proposed information collection for applications from students for Agency Initiatives Poetry Out Loud or the Musical Theater Songwriting Challenge for High School Students. A copy of the information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the address section of this notice.
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the address section below within 60 days from the date of this publication 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
• Can help the agency minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the electronic submission of responses.
Send comments to Jillian Miller, Director, Office of Guidelines and Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts, at
Weeks of April 24, May 1, 8, 15, 22, 29, 2017.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and Closed.
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 May 1, 2017.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of May 15, 2017.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of May 22, 2017.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of May 29, 2017.
The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Denise McGovern at 301-415-0681 or via email at
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
Members of the public may request to receive this information electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969), or email
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License amendment application; opportunity to request a hearing and to petition for leave to intervene.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received an application from GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy, LLC (GEH) for an amendment to Materials License No. SNM-2500, which authorizes the storage of spent nuclear fuel and associated liquid and solid waste treatment products. The amendment would revise the license to provide clarifying administrative changes related to the specific storage of liquid and solid waste treatment products allowed to be at the site.
A request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene must be filed by June 23, 2017.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0103 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:
•
•
•
Christian Jacobs, Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-6825, email:
The NRC received, by letter dated February 15, 2017 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17046A072, as supplemented March 9, 2017, ADAMS Accession No. ML17072A381) GEH's license amendment request (LAR) No. 15 for Materials License No. SNM-2500 (LAR 2500-15) for the GEH Facility at Morris, Illinois in accordance with 10 CFR 72.56. The amendment, if approved, would provide clarifying administrative changes to the current SNM 2500 license. The proposed changes add descriptions of authorized materials and physical forms currently onsite in order to be consistent with the approved Consolidated Safety Analysis Report (CSAR) sections. The amendment requests no changes in the scope or type of operations presently authorized by the license.
An NRC administrative completeness review found the application acceptable for a technical review (ADAMS Accession No. ML17086A009). Prior to approving LAR 2500-15, the NRC will need to make the findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as amended (the Act), and the NRC's regulations. The NRC's findings will be documented in a safety evaluation report and an environmental assessment. The environmental assessment will be the subject of a subsequent notice 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
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.
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 June 23, 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. 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 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License renewal application; opportunity to request a hearing and to petition for leave to intervene.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received an application from Water Remediation Technology, LLC for renewal of Materials License No. SUC-1591, which authorizes the licensee to offer a water treatment program to remove uranium from drinking water at community water systems. Water Remediation Technology, LLC has also requested authorization to expand the scope of its licensed activities to include treatment of uranium in groundwater and surface water resources not used for drinking water. If approved, the license renewal would allow Water Remediation Technology, LLC to offer water treatment programs to remove uranium from community drinking water systems and water resources not used for drinking water for a 10-year period following renewal and authorization.
A request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene must be filed by June 23, 2017.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0105 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:
•
•
•
Christopher Grossman, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-0140, email:
By letter dated December 21, 2016, Water Remediation Technology, LLC submitted an application to renew Materials License No. SUC-1591 for a performance-based, multi-site service provider license (ADAMS Accession No. ML16358A447). This license was issued under part 40 of title 10 of the
In addition to seeking renewal of its existing license for conducting uranium water treatment operations at community water systems, Water Remediation Technology, LLC has
An NRC administrative completeness review, dated February 8, 2017, found the application acceptable to begin a technical review (ADAMS Accession No. ML17032A052). Prior to approving the license renewal application, the NRC will need to make the findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the NRC's regulations. The NRC's findings will be documented in a safety evaluation report and an environmental assessment. The environmental assessment will be the subject of a subsequent notice 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 a petition to intervene (petition) with respect to the application to renew Materials License No. SUC-1591. 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. Failure to satisfy these requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(f) will result in an inadmissible contention. Without at least one admissible contention, a petitioner 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.
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 June 23, 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. 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 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
On February 15, 2017, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE” or “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 that it is 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 March 9, 2017, ISE Mercury, LLC (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) a proposed minor rule violation plan (“MRVP” or “Plan”) pursuant to Section 19(d)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange's MRVP specifies the rule violations which will be included in the Plan and will have sanctions not exceeding $2,500. Any violations which are resolved under the MRVP would not be subject to the provisions of Rule 19d-1(c)(1) of the Act,
The Exchange proposed to include in its MRVP the procedures and violations currently included in Exchange Rule 1614 (“Imposition of Fines for Minor Rule Violations”), which had been incorporated by reference from the International Securities Exchange's rule book.
Once the Exchange's MRVP is effective, the Exchange will provide to the Commission a quarterly report for any actions taken on minor rule violations under the MRVP. The quarterly report will include: The Exchange's internal file number for the case, the name of the individual and/or organization, the nature of the violation, the specific rule provision violated, the sanction imposed, the number of times the rule violation occurred, and the date of the disposition.
The Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with the public interest, the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as required by Rule 19d-1(c)(2) under the Act,
In declaring the Exchange's MRVP effective, the Commission in no way minimizes the importance of compliance with Exchange rules and all other rules subject to the imposition of sanctions under Exchange Rule 1614. The Commission believes that the violation of an SRO's rules, as well as Commission rules, is a serious matter. However, Exchange Rule 1614 provides a reasonable means of addressing violations that do not rise to the level of requiring formal disciplinary proceedings, while providing greater flexibility in handling certain violations. The Commission expects that the Exchange will continue to conduct surveillance and make determinations based on its findings, on a case-by-case basis, regarding whether a sanction under the MRVP is appropriate, or whether a violation requires formal disciplinary action.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the fee schedule applicable to Members
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule applicable to its equities trading platform (“BZX Equities”) to: (i) Add new tiers under footnotes 1 and 4; and (ii) eliminate tier 4 under footnote 3.
The Exchange currently offers nine Add Volume Tiers under footnote 1, which provide an enhanced rebate of $0.0025 to $0.0032 per share for qualifying orders which yield fee codes B, V, or Y.
• Under the proposed Non-Displayed Add Volume Tier 1, a Member may receive an enhanced rebate of $0.0020 per share where they add an ADV greater than or equal to 0.09% of the TCV, as Non-Displayed orders that yield fee codes HA or HI.
• Under the proposed Non-Displayed Add Volume Tier 2, a Member may receive an enhanced rebate of $0.0025 per share where they add an ADV greater than or equal to 0.18% of the TCV, as Non-Displayed orders that yield fee codes HA or HI.
The Exchange currently offers one Single MPID Investor Tier under footnote 4, which provides an enhanced rebate of $0.0031 per share for qualifying orders which yield fee codes B, V, or Y. The distinction between the existing tier under footnote 4 and other tiers offered by the Exchange, is that the volume measured to determine whether a Member qualifies is performed on an MPID by MPID basis. The Exchange now proposes to add an additional single MPID tier which will provide an enhanced rebate per share for qualifying orders which yield fee codes B, V, or Y. Under the proposed Step-Up Add Tier under footnote 4, a Member may receive an enhanced rebate of $0.0027 per share where the MPID has a Step-Up ADAV from November 2016, greater than or equal to 500,000 shares.
The Exchange currently offers five Cross-Asset Step-Up Tiers under footnote 3, which provide an enhanced rebate per contract ranging from $0.0027 to $0.0032 per share for qualifying orders. Tiers 1 through 4 apply to orders which yield fee codes B, V, or Y. Tier 5 applies to orders which yield fee codes BB, N, or W.
The Exchange proposes to implement these amendments to its fee schedule immediately.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes are consistent with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed modifications to the tiered pricing structure are reasonable, fair and equitable, and non-discriminatory. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants may readily send order flow to many competing venues if they deem fees at the Exchange to be excessive or incentives provided to be insufficient. The proposed structure remains intended to attract order flow to the Exchange by offering market participants a competitive pricing structure. The Exchange believes it is reasonable to offer and incrementally modify incentives intended to help to contribute to the growth of the Exchange.
Volume-based pricing such as that proposed herein have been widely adopted by exchanges, including the Exchange, and are equitable because they are open to all Members on an equal basis and provide additional benefits or discounts that are reasonably related to: (i) The value to an exchange's market quality; (ii) associated higher levels of market activity, such as higher levels of liquidity provisions and/or growth patterns; and (iii) introduction of higher volumes of orders into the price and volume discovery processes.
The Exchange believes that the proposed modifications to eliminate Tier 4 under footnote 3 is reasonable, fair, and equitable because the current tier was not providing the desired result of incentivizing Members to increase their participation in BZX Equities and in the Exchange's equity options platform (“BZX Options”). Therefore, eliminating this tier will have a negligible effect on order flow and market behavior. The Exchange believes the proposed change is not unfairly discriminatory because it will apply equally to all participants.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that any of the proposed change to the Exchange's tiered pricing structure burden competition, but instead, that they enhance competition as they are intended to increase the competitiveness of BZX by modifying pricing incentives in order to attract order flow and incentivize participants to increase their participation on the Exchange. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee structures to be unreasonable or excessive. The proposed changes are generally intended to enhance the rebates for liquidity added to the Exchange, which is intended to draw additional liquidity to the Exchange, and to eliminate a rebate that has not achieved its desired result. The Exchange does not believe the proposed amendments would burden intramarket competition as they would be available to all Members uniformly.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from Members or other interested parties.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
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 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Section 17A(c)(4)(B) of the Exchange Act authorizes transfer agents registered with an appropriate regulatory agency (“ARA”) to withdraw from registration by filing a written notice of withdrawal with the ARA and by agreeing to such terms and conditions as the ARA deems necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or in the furtherance of the purposes of Section 17A.
In order to implement Section 17A(c)(4)(B) of the Exchange Act, the Commission promulgated Rule 17Ac3-1(a) (17 CFR 240.17Ac3-1(a)) and accompanying Form TA-W (17 CFR 249b.101) on September 1, 1977. Rule 17Ac3-1(a) provides that notice of withdrawal from registration as a transfer agent with the Commission shall be filed on Form TA-W. Form TA-W requires the withdrawing transfer agent to provide the Commission with certain information, including: (1) The locations where transfer agent activities are or were performed; (2) the reasons for ceasing the performance of such activities; (3) disclosure of unsatisfied judgments or liens; and (4) information regarding successor transfer agents.
The Commission uses the information disclosed on Form TA-W to determine whether the registered transfer agent applying for withdrawal from registration as a transfer agent should be allowed to deregister and, if so, whether the Commission should attach to the granting of the application any terms or conditions necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or in furtherance of the purposes of Section 17A of the Exchange Act. Without Rule 17Ac3-1(a) and Form TA-W, transfer agents registered with the Commission would not have a means to voluntarily deregister when it is necessary or appropriate to do so.
On average, respondents have filed approximately 17 TA-Ws with the Commission annually from 2014 to 2017. A Form TA-W filing occurs only once, when a transfer agent is seeking to deregister. Approximately 80 percent of Form TA-Ws are completed by the transfer agent or its employees and approximately 20 percent of Form TA-Ws are completed by an outside filing agent that is hired by the registrant to prepare the form and file it electronically. In view of the readily-available information requested by Form TA-W, its short and simple presentation, and the Commission's experience with the filers, we estimate that approximately 30 minutes is required to complete and file Form TA-W. For transfer agents that complete Form TA-W themselves, we estimate the internal labor cost of compliance per filing is $25 (0.5 hours × $50 average hourly rate for clerical staff time). We estimate that outside filing agents charge $100 to complete and file at TA-W on behalf of a registrant, reflecting an external labor cost to respondents. The total annual time burden to the transfer agent industry is approximately 9 hours (17 filings × 0.5 hours). The total annual external labor cost to respondents is $340 (17 annual forms × $100 × 20%).
Written comments are invited on: (a) 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; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimates of the burden of the proposed 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.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
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) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
The Exchange proposes to amend the Rulebook and Schedule of Fees to incorporate certain names changes that became operative on April 3, 2017. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to: (i) Amend references to ISE Gemini to Nasdaq GEMX in the Schedule of Fees, which references were overlooked in a prior filing;
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Schedule of Fees to correct references “ISE Gemini” which should have been changed to “Nasdaq GEMX” in a prior rule change.
This proposed rule change amends corporate names referred to in the GEMX rules which are already operative and currently in effect. This proposed rule change also proposes to amend references to Nasdaq ISE to make them accurate as of April 3, 2017.
Finally, a non-substantive formatting rule change is proposes to the Supplementary Material to Rule 804.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impact the intense competition that exists in the options market. The amendment to references to name changes, which are already in effect, will accurately reflect the current ownership structure of Nasdaq, Inc.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
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 necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
In accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations 13—Business Credit and Assistance § 123.512, the following interest rate is effective for Military Reservist Economic Injury Disaster Loans approved on or after April 14, 2017.
Surface Transportation Board.
Notice of modifications to annual and quarterly reporting forms.
The Surface Transportation Board (STB or Board) is revising certain schedules in the Annual Report for Class I railroads (R-1 or Form R-1) and quarterly operating reports. These revisions are needed to correct certain accounting and reporting changes the Board enacted in 2016 and to better meet accounting and reporting requirements and industry needs.
This decision is effective on May 24, 2017. These modifications will apply beginning with the annual R-1 reports for the year ending December 31, 2017, and the quarterly operating reports for the second calendar quarter of 2017.
Pedro Ramirez at (202) 245-0333. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
The Board is authorized, under 49 U.S.C. 11142, to prescribe a uniform accounting system for rail carriers subject to its jurisdiction and, under 49 U.S.C. 11161, to maintain cost accounting rules for rail carriers.
In
To avoid confusion, ensure proper reporting, and promote uniformity with the USOA, the Board has determined that certain technical and formatting modifications to the Form R-1 and the quarterly reports are necessary. These minor changes, which are detailed below, are not substantive and fall into one of the following categories: (1) Correcting the Form R-1 to fully implement the changes in accounting and reporting requirements already made through notice and comment rulemaking in Docket No. EP 720; (2) applying the accounting and reporting changes in Docket No. EP 720 to the quarterly reports; and (3) making minor clarifications, formatting, and grammatical changes. Accordingly, for good cause shown, the Board finds that notice and comment on these revisions are unnecessary.
Accordingly, the quarterly CBS report will be revised to include a line for the reporting of account 799, Accumulated
•
•
•
•
These and other minor changes (except for non-substantive formatting changes) are highlighted and annotated in appendices attached to the Board's served decision.
In sum, the modifications discussed in this notice will correct certain accounting and reporting changes the Board enacted in 2016 and provide clarification and improve usability of the Form R-1 and quarterly operating reports to better meet accounting and reporting requirements and industry needs. Appendix A to the Board's served decision includes annotated copies of the revised Form R-1 Table of Contents, schedules 210A and 510, and the impacted pages of schedules 200, 210, 245, and 342. Appendix B to the Board's served decision includes annotated copies of the revised CBS and RE&I quarterly reports. The served decision is available on the Board's Web site at
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, generally requires a description and analysis of new rules that would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In drafting a rule, an agency is required to: (1) Assess the effect that its regulation will have on small entities; (2) analyze effective alternatives that may minimize a regulation's impact; and (3) make the analysis available for public comment. 5 U.S.C. 601-604. Under section 605(b), an agency is not required to perform an initial or final regulatory flexibility analysis if it certifies that the proposed or final rules will not have a “significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.”
Because the goal of the RFA is to reduce the cost to small entities of complying with federal regulations, the RFA requires an agency to perform a regulatory flexibility analysis of small entity impacts only when a rule directly regulates those entities. In other words, the impact must be a direct impact on small entities “whose conduct is circumscribed or mandated” by the proposed rule.
The reporting requirements modified here will not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the RFA. The reporting requirements will apply only to Class I rail carriers. 49 CFR 1241.1. Accordingly, there will be no impact on small railroads (small entities).
49 U.S.C. 11142 and 11164.
1. The modifications set forth in this decision are adopted and will be effective beginning with the annual R-1 reports for the year ending December 31, 2017, and the quarterly operating reports for the second calendar quarter of 2017. Notice of the modifications adopted here will be published in the
2. A copy of this decision will be served upon the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration.
3. This decision is effective on May 24, 2017.
By the Board, Board Members Begeman, Elliott, and Miller.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Request for public comment.
The Federal Aviation Administration is requesting public comment on a request by the Collier County Airport Authority to change a portion of airport property from aeronautical to non-aeronautical use at the Immokalee Regional Airport, Immokalee, Florida. The request consists of approximately 5,200 square feet of warehouse space.
Documents reflecting the Sponsor's request are available, by appointment only, for inspection at the Immokalee Regional Airport and the FAA Airports District Office.
Comments are due on or before May 24, 2017.
Documents are available for review at Immokalee Regional Airport, and the FAA Airports District Office, 5950 Hazeltine National Drive, Suite 400, Orlando, FL 32822. Written comments on the Sponsor's request must be delivered or mailed to: Pedro Blanco, Community Planner, Orlando Airports District Office, 5950 Hazeltine National Drive, Suite 400, Orlando, FL 32822-5024.
Pedro Blanco, Community Planner, Orlando Airports District Office, 5950 Hazeltine National Drive, Suite 400, Orlando, FL 32822-5024. Telephone number (407) 812-6331.
Section 125 of The Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR-21) requires the FAA to provide an opportunity for public notice and comment prior to the “waiver” or “modification” of a sponsor's Federal obligation to use certain airport land for non-aeronautical purposes.
The following is a brief overview of the request:
The Collier County Airport Authority is proposing to release approximately 5,200 square feet of warehouse space, owned by the authority, located at 170 Airpark Blvd., Units A & B at Immokalee Regional Airport. This project will allow Collier County to receive grant funding from the US Economic Development Administration (EDA) to renovate and improve both an existing and currently vacant warehouse for culinary-related businesses. The Collier County Airport Authority has approved of this action and has agreed to rent payments set at Fair Market Value of $6 per square foot annually, plus fees at $2,637.00 per month.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 14 individuals from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various reasons. The exemptions will enable these individuals to operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without meeting the prescribed vision requirement in one eye. The Agency has concluded that granting these exemptions will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions for these CMV drivers.
The exemptions were granted April 6, 2017. The exemptions expire on April 6, 2019.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at
On March 6, 2017, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of exemption applications from certain individuals, and requested comments from the public (82 FR 12678). That notice listed 14 applicants' case histories. The 14 individuals applied for exemptions from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), for drivers who operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption for a
2-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated the 14 applications on their merits and made a determination to grant exemptions to each of them.
The vision requirement in the FMCSRs provides:
A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle if that person has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen) in both eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least 70° in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing red, green, and amber (49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)).
FMCSA recognizes that some drivers do not meet the vision requirement but have adapted their driving to accommodate their limitation and demonstrated their ability to drive safely. The 14 exemption applicants listed in this notice are in this category. They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various reasons, including amblyopia, cataract, complete loss of vision, macular hole, optic atrophy, poor vision, prosthetic eye, and retinal detachment. In most cases, their eye conditions were not recently developed. Twelve of the applicants were either born with their vision impairments or have had them since childhood.
The 2 individuals that sustained their vision conditions as adults have had it for a range of 5 to 13 years.
Although each applicant has one eye which does not meet the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), each has at least 20/40 corrected vision in the other eye, and in a doctor's opinion, has sufficient vision to perform all the tasks necessary to operate a CMV. Doctors' opinions are supported by the applicants' possession of valid commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) or non-CDLs to operate CMVs. Before issuing CDLs, States subject drivers to knowledge and skills tests designed to evaluate their qualifications to operate a CMV.
All of these applicants satisfied the testing requirements for their State of residence. By meeting State licensing requirements, the applicants demonstrated their ability to operate a CMV, with their limited vision, to the satisfaction of the State.
While possessing a valid CDL or non-CDL, these 14 drivers have been authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate commerce, even though their vision disqualified them from driving in interstate commerce. They have driven CMVs with their limited vision in careers ranging from 3 to 26 years. In the past three years, no drivers were involved in crashes and 1 driver was convicted of a moving violation in a CMV.
The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the March 6, 2017 notice (82 FR 12678).
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption. Without the exemption, applicants will continue to be restricted to intrastate driving. With the exemption, applicants can drive in interstate commerce. Thus, our analysis focuses on whether an equal or greater level of safety is likely to be achieved by permitting each of these drivers to drive in interstate commerce as opposed to restricting him or her to driving in intrastate commerce.
To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA considered the medical reports about the applicants' vision as well as their driving records and experience with the vision deficiency.
To qualify for an exemption from the vision requirement, FMCSA requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he/she has driven a commercial vehicle safely with the vision deficiency for the past 3 years. Recent driving performance is especially important in evaluating future safety, according to several research studies designed to correlate past and future driving performance. Results of these studies support the principle that the best predictor of future performance by a driver is his/her past record of crashes and traffic violations. Copies of the studies may be found at Docket Number FMCSA-1998-3637.
FMCSA believes it can properly apply the principle to monocular drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) former waiver study program clearly demonstrate the driving performance of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better than that of all CMV drivers collectively (See 61 FR 13338, 13345, March 26, 1996). The fact that experienced monocular drivers demonstrated safe driving records in the waiver program supports a conclusion that other monocular drivers, meeting the same qualifying conditions as those required by the waiver program, are also likely to have adapted to their vision deficiency and will continue to operate safely.
The first major research correlating past and future performance was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies, building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary only slightly (See Bates and Neyman, University of California Publications in Statistics, April 1952). Other studies demonstrated theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with other factors. These factors—such as age, sex, geographic location, mileage driven and conviction history—are used every day by insurance companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict the probability of an individual experiencing future crashes (See Weber, Donald C., “Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple Regression Analysis of a Poisson Process,” Journal of American Statistical Association, June 1971). A 1964 California Driver Record Study prepared by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded that the best overall crash predictor for both concurrent and nonconcurrent events is the number of single convictions. This study used 3 consecutive years of data, comparing the experiences of drivers in the first 2 years with their experiences in the final year.
Applying principles from these studies to the past 3-year record of the 14 applicants, no drivers were involved in crashes and 1 driver was convicted of a moving violation in a CMV. All the applicants achieved a record of safety while driving with their vision impairment, demonstrating the likelihood that they have adapted their driving skills to accommodate their condition. As the applicants' ample driving histories with their vision deficiencies are good predictors of future performance, FMCSA concludes their ability to drive safely can be projected into the future.
We believe that the applicants' intrastate driving experience and history provide an adequate basis for predicting their ability to drive safely in interstate commerce. Intrastate driving, like interstate operations, involves substantial driving on highways on the interstate system and on other roads built to interstate standards. Moreover, driving in congested urban areas exposes the driver to more pedestrian and vehicular traffic than exists on interstate highways. Faster reaction to traffic and traffic signals is generally required because distances between them are more compact. These conditions tax visual capacity and driver response just as intensely as interstate driving conditions. The veteran drivers in this proceeding have operated CMVs safely under those conditions for at least 3 years, most for much longer. Their experience and driving records lead us to believe that each applicant is capable of operating in interstate commerce as safely as he/she has been performing in intrastate commerce. Consequently, FMCSA finds that exempting these applicants from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption. For this reason, the Agency is granting the exemptions for the 2-year period allowed by 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to the 14 applicants listed in the notice of March 6, 2017 (82 FR 12678).
We recognize that the vision of an applicant may change and affect his/her ability to operate a CMV as safely as in the past. As a condition of the exemption, therefore, FMCSA will impose requirements on the 14 individuals consistent with the grandfathering provisions applied to drivers who participated in the Agency's vision waiver program.
Those requirements are found at 49 CFR 391.64(b) and include the following: (1) That each individual be physically examined every year (a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must have a copy of the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.
FMCSA received one comment in this proceeding. An anonymous commenter stated that they disagree with granting the exemptions, citing safety concerns. FMCSA has evaluated the medical records and driving histories of all 14 drivers included in this document and has determined that granting the exemptions will create an equal or greater level of safety as restricting them to driving in intrastate commerce.
Based upon its evaluation of the 14 exemption applications, FMCSA exempts the following drivers from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10):
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in effect at that time.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions of 152 individuals from its prohibition in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) against persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce. The exemptions enable these individuals with ITDM to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Each group of renewed exemptions was effective on the dates stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates stated in the discussions below.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, 202-366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at:
On March 7, 2017, FMCSA published a notice announcing its decision to renew exemptions for 152 individuals from the insulin-treated diabetes mellitus prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) to operate a CMV in interstate commerce and requested comments from the public (82 FR 12886). The public comment period ended on April 6, 2017, and no comments were received.
As stated in the previous notice, FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and determined that renewing these exemptions would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3).
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding diabetes found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring insulin for control.
FMCSA received no comments in this preceding.
Based upon its evaluation of the 152 renewal exemption applications and that no comments were received, FMCSA confirms its' decision to exempt the following drivers from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3).
As of February 1, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 10 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (72 FR 69280; 73 FR 6247):
The drivers were included in docket No. FMCSA-2007-29286. Their exemptions are effective as of February
As of February 4, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 5 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (77 FR 78271; 78 FR 7855):
The drivers were included in docket No. FMCSA-2012-0349. Their exemptions are effective as of February 4, 2017, and will expire on February 4, 2019.
As of February 6, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 19 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (71 FR 74986; 72 FR 5492):
The drivers were included in docket No. FMCSA-2006-26321. Their exemptions are effective as of February 6, 2017, and will expire on February 6, 2019.
As of February 9, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 33 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (73 FR 75794; 74 FR 6451):
The drivers were included in docket No. FMCSA-2008-0341. Their exemptions are effective as of February 9, 2017, and will expire on February 9, 2019.
As of February 10, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 7 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (75 FR 80889; 76 FR 7625):
The drivers were included in docket No. FMCSA-2010-0414. Their exemptions are effective as of February 10, 2017, and will expire on February 10, 2019.
As of February 22, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 7 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (76 FR 1496; 76 FR 9867):
The drivers were included in docket No. FMCSA-2010-0427. Their exemptions are effective as of February 22, 2017, and will expire on February 22, 2019.
As of February 24, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 48 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (80 FR 3724; 80 FR 19732):
The drivers were included in docket No. FMCSA-2014-0312. Their exemptions are effective as of February 24, 2017, and will expire on February 24, 2019.
As of February 25, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 11 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule
The drivers were included in docket No. FMCSA-2012-0351. Their exemptions are effective as of February 25, 2017, and will expire on February 25, 2019.
As of February 26, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 12 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (78 FR 1923; 78 FR 12821):
The drivers were included in docket No. FMCSA-2012-0350. Their exemptions are effective as of February 26, 2017, and will expire on February 26, 2019.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315, each exemption will be valid for two years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 28 individuals from its rule prohibiting persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce. The exemptions enable these individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The exemptions were effective on April 7, 2017. The exemptions expire on April 7, 2019.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at:
On March 7, 2017, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of Federal diabetes exemption applications from 28 individuals and requested comments from the public (82 FR 12881). The public comment period closed on April 6, 2017, and no comments were received.
FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of the 28 applicants and determined that granting the exemptions to these individuals would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3).
The Agency established the current requirement for diabetes in 1970 because several risk studies indicated that drivers with diabetes had a higher rate of crash involvement than the general population. The diabetes rule provides that “A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring insulin for control” (49 CFR 391.41(b)(3)).
FMCSA established its diabetes exemption program, based on the Agency's July 2000 study entitled “A Report to Congress on the Feasibility of a Program to Qualify Individuals with Insulin-Treated Diabetes Mellitus to Operate in Interstate Commerce as Directed by the Transportation Act for the 21st Century.” The report concluded that a safe and practicable protocol to allow some drivers with ITDM to operate CMVs is feasible. The September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441),
These 28 applicants have had ITDM over a range of 1 to 22 years. These applicants report no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness or seizure, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning symptoms, in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the past 5 years. In each case, an endocrinologist verified that the driver has demonstrated a willingness to properly monitor and manage his/her diabetes mellitus, received education related to diabetes management, and is on a stable insulin regimen. These drivers report no other disqualifying conditions, including diabetes-related complications. Each meets the vision requirement at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
The qualifications and medical condition of each applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the March 7, 2017,
FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows the applicants to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA considered medical reports about the applicants' ITDM and vision, and reviewed the treating endocrinologists' medical opinion related to the ability of the driver to safely operate a CMV while using insulin.
Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these applicants from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
The terms and conditions of the exemption will be provided to the applicants in the exemption document and they include the following: (1) That each individual submit a quarterly monitoring checklist completed by the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual checklist with a comprehensive medical evaluation; (2) that each individual reports within 2 business days of occurrence, all episodes of severe hypoglycemia, significant complications, or inability to manage diabetes; also, any involvement in an accident or any other adverse event in a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or not it is related to an episode of hypoglycemia; (3) that each individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (4) that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.
Based upon its evaluation of the 28 exemption applications, FMCSA exempts the following drivers from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3):
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 each exemption is valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315. If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in effect at that time.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of applications for exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 10 individuals for exemption from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various reasons. The exemptions will enable these individuals to operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without meeting the prescribed vision requirement in one eye. If granted, the exemptions would enable these individuals to qualify as drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce.
Comments must be received on or before May 24, 2017. All comments will be investigated by FMCSA. The exemptions will be issued the day after the comment period closes.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0016 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for a 2-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” FMCSA can renew exemptions at the end of each 2-year period. The 10 individuals listed in this notice have each requested such an exemption from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce. Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting an exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by statute.
Mr. Dixon, 50, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/200. Following an examination in 2017, his ophthalmologist stated, “I certify that Mr. Dixon has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required for operating a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Dixon reported that he has driven straight trucks for 35 years, accumulating 1.85 million miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 26 years, accumulating 416,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Virginia. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and one conviction for a moving violation in a CMV; he was cited for failure to pay full-time attention.
Mr. Fasset, 51, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/25, and in his left eye, 20/200. Following an examination in 2016, his optometrist stated, “In my medical opinion, Mr. Fasset has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Fasset reported that he has driven straight trucks for 5 years, accumulating 125,000 miles. He holds a Class CB CDL from Michigan. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Hanes, 56, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/800. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “I do believe Mr. Hanes has sufficient vision to perform the essential tasks for operating a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Hanes reported that he has driven straight trucks for 37 years, accumulating 2.2 million miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 3 years, accumulating 150,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Ohio. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Lambert, 37, has had complete loss of vision in his right eye due to glaucoma in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is no light perception, and in his left eye, 20/15. Following an examination in 2016, his optometrist stated, “Ryan Lambert has sufficient vision to perform the driving tests required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Lambert reported that he has driven straight trucks for 19 years, accumulating 950,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from Utah. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Patterson, 60, has had glaucoma in his right eye since 2005. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/40, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2016, his ophthalmologist stated, “In my opinion, Mr. Patterson has sufficient vision in his left eye to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Robinson reported that he has driven straight trucks for 32 years, accumulating 4 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Tennessee. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Pryor, 34, has an enucleation of his right eye due to a fungal infection in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is no light perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2017, his ophthalmologist stated, “In my medical opinion, Mr. Pryor has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Pryor reported that he has driven straight trucks for 14 years, accumulating 60,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from Oklahoma. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Silva, 50, has a prosthetic in his left eye due to a traumatic incident in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, no light perception. Following an examination in 2016, his optometrist stated, “Patient was blinded by trauma in this eye at age 10. He is well adapted, and should be considered to be save [sic] to drive commercially, as he has for many years.” Mr. Silva reported that he has driven straight trucks for 10 years, accumulating 8,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from New Mexico. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Spence, 72, has had amblyopia in his right eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/400, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2016, his optometrist stated, “Mr. Spence has normal visual acuity in his left eye and has lived with low vision in his right eye his entire life . . . It seems reasonable that he should be able to operate a commercial vehicle as long as his current level of physical and mental health does not decline.” Mr. Spence reported that he has driven straight trucks for 52 years, accumulating 780,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 52 years, accumulating 2.6 million miles. He holds an enhanced driver's license from Washington. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Ulm, 72, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/400. Following an examination in 2017, his ophthalmologist stated, “Mr. Ulm has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Ulm reported that he has driven straight trucks for 30 years, accumulating 90,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from Ohio. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
Mr. Warner, 61, has had a prosthetic left eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, no light perception. Following an examination in 2017, his optometrist stated, “Mr. Warner had been driving commercial vehicles for almost 40 years, he is completely adapted to his eye injury many years ago and I have no visual concerns regarding his safe operation of a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Warner reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 17 years, accumulating 467,500 miles. He holds a Class AM CDL from Virginia. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.
FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and related materials.
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. 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 will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. FMCSA may issue a final determination at any time after the close of the comment period.
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 17 individuals from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various reasons. The exemptions will enable these individuals to operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without meeting the prescribed vision requirement in one eye. The Agency has concluded that granting these exemptions will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions for these CMV drivers.
The exemptions were granted April 8, 2017. The exemptions expire on April 8, 2019.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at
On March 8, 2017, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of exemption applications from certain individuals, and requested comments from the public (82 FR 13045). That notice listed 17 applicants' case histories. The 17 individuals applied for exemptions from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), for drivers who operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption for a2-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated the 17 applications on their merits and made a determination to grant exemptions to each of them.
The vision requirement in the FMCSRs provides:
A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle if that person has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen) in both eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least 70° in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing red, green, and amber (49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)).
FMCSA recognizes that some drivers do not meet the vision requirement but have adapted their driving to accommodate their limitation and demonstrated their ability to drive safely. The 17 exemption applicants listed in this notice are in this category. They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various reasons, including amblyopia, cataract, central retinal vein occlusion, complete loss of vision, corneal scar, phthisis bulbi, prosthetic eye, retinal scar, and toxoplasmosis scar. In most cases, their eye conditions were not recently developed. Eleven of the applicants were either born with their vision impairments or have had them since childhood.
The six individuals that sustained their vision conditions as adults have had it for a range of 11 to 42 years.
Although each applicant has one eye which does not meet the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), each has at least 20/40 corrected vision in the other eye, and in a doctor's opinion, has sufficient vision to perform all the tasks necessary to operate a CMV. Doctors' opinions are supported by the applicants' possession of valid commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) or non-CDLs to operate CMVs. Before issuing CDLs, States subject drivers to knowledge and skills tests designed to evaluate their qualifications to operate a CMV.
All of these applicants satisfied the testing requirements for their State of residence. By meeting State licensing requirements, the applicants demonstrated their ability to operate a CMV, with their limited vision, to the satisfaction of the State.
While possessing a valid CDL or non-CDL, these 17 drivers have been authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate commerce, even though their vision disqualified them from driving in interstate commerce. They have driven CMVs with their limited vision in careers ranging from 3 to 46 years. In the past three years, two drivers were involved in crashes and no drivers were convicted of moving violations in a CMV.
The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the March 8, 2017 notice (82 FR 13045).
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption. Without the exemption, applicants will continue to be restricted to intrastate driving. With the exemption, applicants can drive in interstate commerce. Thus, our analysis focuses on whether an equal or greater level of safety is likely to be achieved by permitting each of these drivers to drive in interstate commerce as opposed to restricting him or her to driving in intrastate commerce.
To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA considered the medical reports about the applicants' vision as well as their driving records and experience with the vision deficiency.
To qualify for an exemption from the vision requirement, FMCSA requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he/she has driven a commercial vehicle safely with the vision deficiency for the past 3 years. Recent driving performance is especially important in evaluating future safety, according to several research studies designed to correlate past and future driving performance. Results of these studies support the principle that the best predictor of future performance by a driver is his/her past record of crashes and traffic violations. Copies of the studies may be found at Docket Number FMCSA-1998-3637.
FMCSA believes it can properly apply the principle to monocular drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) former waiver study program clearly demonstrate the driving performance of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better than that of all CMV drivers collectively (See 61 FR 13338, 13345, March 26, 1996). The fact that experienced monocular drivers demonstrated safe driving records in the waiver program supports a conclusion that other monocular drivers, meeting the same qualifying conditions as those required by the waiver program, are also likely to have adapted to their vision deficiency and will continue to operate safely.
The first major research correlating past and future performance was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies, building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary only slightly (See Bates and Neyman, University of California Publications in Statistics, April 1952). Other studies demonstrated theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with other factors. These factors—such as age, sex, geographic location, mileage driven and conviction history—are used every day by insurance companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict the probability of an individual experiencing future crashes (See Weber, Donald C., “Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple Regression Analysis of a Poisson Process,” Journal of American Statistical Association, June 1971). A 1964 California Driver Record Study prepared by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded that the best overall crash predictor for both concurrent and nonconcurrent events is the number of single convictions. This study used 3 consecutive years of data, comparing the experiences of drivers in the first 2 years with their experiences in the final year.
Applying principles from these studies to the past 3-year record of the 17 applicants, two drivers were involved in crashes and no drivers were convicted of moving violations in a CMV. All the applicants achieved a record of safety while driving with their vision impairment, demonstrating the likelihood that they have adapted their driving skills to accommodate their condition. As the applicants' ample driving histories with their vision deficiencies are good predictors of future performance, FMCSA concludes their ability to drive safely can be projected into the future.
We believe that the applicants' intrastate driving experience and history provide an adequate basis for predicting their ability to drive safely in interstate commerce. Intrastate driving, like interstate operations, involves substantial driving on highways on the interstate system and on other roads built to interstate standards. Moreover, driving in congested urban areas exposes the driver to more pedestrian and vehicular traffic than exists on interstate highways. Faster reaction to traffic and traffic signals is generally required because distances between them are more compact. These
We recognize that the vision of an applicant may change and affect his/her ability to operate a CMV as safely as in the past. As a condition of the exemption, therefore, FMCSA will impose requirements on the 17 individuals consistent with the grandfathering provisions applied to drivers who participated in the Agency's vision waiver program.
Those requirements are found at 49 CFR 391.64(b) and include the following: (1) That each individual be physically examined every year (a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must have a copy of the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.
FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.
Based upon its evaluation of the 17 exemption applications, FMCSA exempts the following drivers from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10):
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in effect at that time.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice and comment request.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), this notice announces that FRA is forwarding the new Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICR describes the information collection and its expected burden. On November 2, 2016, FRA published a notice providing a 60-day period for public comment on the ICR.
Comments must be submitted on or before May 24, 2017.
Mr. Robert Brogan, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Railroad Safety, Regulatory Analysis Division, RRS-21, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Mail Stop 25, Washington, DC 20590 (Telephone: (202) 493-6292); or Ms. Kim Toone, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Administration, Office of Information Technology, RAD-20, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Mail Stop 35, Washington, DC 20590 (Telephone: (202) 493-6132). (These telephone numbers are not toll free.)
The PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to issue two notices seeking public comment on information collection activities before OMB may approve paperwork packages. 44 U.S.C. 3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.5, 1320.8(d)(1), and 1320.12. On November 2, 2016, FRA published a 60-day notice in the
Comments were received from the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET), the SMART Transportation Division (SMART-TD), and the Association of American Railroads (AAR). FRA has contacted all three organizations to address any comments and concerns, and will be working with these organizations to help facilitate the research study. All three commenting organizations were open to participation in the design or execution of the study.
• BLET is supportive of FRA's efforts to study distraction, and suggests getting feedback from locomotive engineers as a method to gauge the degree of distraction that exists within the locomotive cab;
• BLET is concerned the FRA study is limited to the craft of locomotive engineer; and
• BLET is also concerned the FRA study is not addressing other sources of distraction, such as Trip Optimizer or Leader. BLET encourages FRA to follow up with a study that captures Trip Optimizer or Leader experiences in conjunction with the other potential distractors.
• FRA will seek feedback from multiple locomotive engineers
• FRA will consider conducting a follow-on study related to cab distraction and its impact on crew-interaction; and
• FRA acknowledges this study will not address any potentially distracting effects from Trip Optimizer or Leader. FRA has conducted prior studies of Trip Optimizer and continues to investigate Trip Optimizer and Leader systems' safety-related issues as they are brought to FRA's attention.
• SMART-TD is concerned the Head-Up Display (HUD) will be another electronic device that takes crew members' eyes off the tracks; and
• SMART-TD recommends the following alternative ways to deal with in-cab distractions: Issuing train crew size rules; limiting access by others to radio channels trains use; limiting use of defect detectors; investigating distractive effects of Leader and Trip Optimizer; and increasing implementation of positive train control (PTC).
• FRA will consider initiating future studies into other potential in-cab issues. In the meantime, FRA is reviewing SMART-TD's concerns and is working with the railroads to review their locomotive engineer certification programs to ensure the programs include training on Leader and Trip Optimizer systems or other new technology, if utilized. Each railroad's certification program must address how the railroad responds to changes such as the introduction of new technology, new operating rule books, or significant changes in operations—including alteration of the territory over which engineers are authorized to operate. FRA has done, and will do further, onboard observation inspections regarding Leader and Trip Optimizer interaction.
• AAR recommends their member railroads be included as active participants in the design and execution of the study.
• FRA communicated with AAR after receiving its written response to the 60-day
Before OMB decides whether to approve the proposed collection of information, it must provide 30 days for public comment. 44 U.S.C. 3507(b); 5 CFR 1320.12(d). Federal law requires OMB to approve or disapprove paperwork packages between 30 and 60 days after the 30-day notice is published. 44 U.S.C. 3507(b)-(c); 5 CFR 1320.12(d);
The summary below describes the ICR and its expected burden. FRA is submitting the new request for clearance by OMB as the PRA requires.
FRA seeks to understand how the dispatch radio could potentially lead to human-performance degradation for a locomotive engineer, and if a HUD would be an alternative and superior technology to communicating information usually conveyed over the dispatch radio.
HUDs have been incorporated and researched extensively in aviation and motor vehicle applications because of their relative advantage over head-down displays (HDD). Research in the CTIL, FRA's locomotive simulator at Volpe, The National Transportation Systems Center in Cambridge, MA, has shown that in-cab displays, such as moving maps, can lead to prolonged heads-down time (Young, et al., 2015). Additionally, research done in the field in naturalistic studies using passenger vehicles has also shown that looking inside a vehicle for interface control features increases the risk of an accident/incident (Liang, Lee, & Yekhsatyan, 2012). Thus, a HUD has real advantages over a HDD. FRA believes investigating alternative technologies that increase forward-track viewing time is worth pursuing.
To test the hypothesis that display communications on a HUD can reduce workload and distractions while increasing the time locomotive engineers keep their eyes on the forward track, an experiment will be run in the CTIL with four different conditions: HUD presence (present or absent) will be crossed with radio communications (present or absent). Forty locomotive engineers will participate in the simulator study and survey data collection. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology will develop and install the HUD.
FRA will use a subjective measure of workload, such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index (NASA-TLX), in this study and provide it to the locomotive engineers after the simulator experiment. In addition, locomotive engineers will rate the usability of the system with a usability scale. Analysis of the simulator data, workload data, and usability survey data will allow FRA to assess whether a HUD has a relative advantage over a HDD in rail, and if it could mitigate any radio-distraction related performance declines.
A comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication of this notice in the
44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.
Notice of availability of final guidebooks.
FTA has placed in the docket and on its Web site guidance in the form of two guidebooks to assist grantees in complying with FTA's Transit Asset Management program. The purpose of the guidebooks is to inform the transit community of calculation methodologies for state of good repair (SGR) performance measures for infrastructure and facilities.
Reporting the performance measures discussed in these guidebooks will be optional in NTD report year 2017 with full implementation required in report year 2018.
For access to DOT Docket Number FTA-2016-0030 to read background documents and comments received, go to
For program matters, contact John Giorgis, FTA Office of Budget and Policy, at (202) 366-5430, or
This notice provides a summary of the final changes to the “TAM Infrastructure Performance Measure Reporting Guidebook: Performance Restriction (Slow Zone) Calculation” and the “TAM Facility Performance Measure Reporting Guidebook: Condition Assessment Calculation.” FTA requested comments on both proposed guidebooks in a
The guidebooks discussed in this notice incorporate changes to FTA's programs due to the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21); the publication of the final rule for FTA's National Transit Asset Management (TAM) System and amendments to the National Transit Database (NTD) regulations; and changes in terminology used in the 2012 Asset Management Guide.
FTA issued its final rule for the National Transit Asset Management (TAM) System and the final notice for the National Transit Database Asset Inventory Module in the
The final rule includes performance measures for infrastructure and facilities categories; however, it was silent with regard to calculation methodologies. To that end, FTA proposed guidebooks that provided both standard terminology and calculation options for transit providers to conform to the proposed SGR performance measures for infrastructure and facilities. The proposed guidebooks specifically describe how to measure and report the infrastructure and facility performance measures to the NTD and were published in the
The final guidebooks are not included in this notice; instead, electronic versions are available on FTA's Web site, at
FTA proposed guidebooks are intended to aid compliance with the Transit Asset Management Subpart D Performance Management requirements of 49 CFR part 625
The comments and FTA responses are organized as follows (1) facility condition assessments, and (2) guideway performance restriction calculations.
Another commenter requested clarity on how facilities that are under construction should be reported; and, if whether a facility should be distinguished as individual buildings or a compound. Two other commenters questioned how equipment located in a facility should be inventoried. Another commenter also recommended that the guidebook photos used to indicate examples of condition ratings should better represent the condition levels they are supposed to exemplify.
Several commenters strongly recommended that FTA offer flexibility to agencies that have well-developed and mature approaches for measuring SGR. A commenter noted that such flexibility can be offered without compromising FTA's ability to calculate SGR needs at the national level based on a consistent set of underlying data.
In response to recommendations to clarify whether a facility is assessed as individual or multiple buildings; FTA clarifies that a single facility is defined as one building, so for example, a compound with four buildings would be four facilities. Further, FTA recommends agencies review the 2017 Asset Inventory Module (AIM) Manual,
With regard to equipment located in facilities, a transit agency should use their best judgement to determine whether or not it's administrative and maintenance facility equipment should be inventoried as an equipment category asset or as a facility category asset. If the asset is likely to be moved from one location to another, including at such time when the building is replaced, then it should be inventoried as an equipment asset and not as part of the facility. Likewise, if the asset is integral to the building, then it should be inventoried as a part of the administrative and maintenance facility. However, if factored within the facility it should be included in the facility condition assessment for as long as it is in use in the facility. FTA notes the agency will continue to refine the glossary of terms and definitions used in the NTD as appropriate to improve clarity. In addition, FTA has revised the introduction section of the guidebook to address the relationship between requirements for TAM and NTD.
With regard to those commenters who expressed concern about the procedures and equal weighting factors proposed in the guidebook, FTA notes that each agency has discretion to determine importance within its systems. However, FTA has simplified the equation for aggregation calculations and revised the guidebook accordingly. FTA also notes the revised guidebook does not have photos of each condition for every rating level referenced. The photos were included as an example, but the examples may not be representative of all types.
As for flexibility, FTA notes that a transit agency can customize its approach as long as it is documented and convertible to the TERM scale for reporting purposes (1 to 5). Transit agencies with more advanced and sophisticated processes are encouraged to apply those methodologies beyond the minimum standards required by the final rule. Furthermore, we note that throughout the TAM rulemaking process, FTA solicited feedback regarding performance measures and methodologies and the final rule requirements are a result of this effort.
FTA has revised each of the guidebooks to incorporate recommendations and edits as noted above. The revised guidebooks are located at the following Web site:
Issued in Washington, DC, pursuant to authority under 49 CFR 1.91.
Federal Transit Administration, DOT.
Notice of request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the intention of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve the revisions of the following information collection: Charter Service Operations.
Comments must be submitted before June 23, 2017.
To ensure that your comments are not entered more than once into the docket, submit comments identified by the docket number by only one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Bruce Walker, Office of the Chief Counsel, (202) 366-9109, or email at
Interested parties are invited to send comments regarding any aspect of this information collection, including: (1) The necessity and utility of the information collection for the proper performance of the functions of the FTA; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the collected information; and (4) ways to minimize the collection burden without reducing the quality of the collected information. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection.
(
The requirements of 49 U.S.C. 5323(d) are implemented in FTA's charter regulation (Charter Service Rule) at 49 CFR part 604. Amended in 2008, the Charter Service Rule now contains five (5) provisions that impose information collection requirements on FTA recipients of financial assistance from FTA under Federal Transit Law.
First, 49 CFR 604.4 requires all applicants for Federal financial assistance under Federal Transit Law, unless otherwise exempted under 49 CFR 604.2, to enter into a “Charter Service Agreement,” contained in the Certifications and Assurances for FTA Assistance Programs. The Certifications and Assurances become a part of the Grant Agreement or Cooperative Agreement for Federal financial assistance upon receipt of Federal funds. The rule requires each applicant to submit one Charter Service Agreement for each year that the applicant intends to apply for the Federal financial assistance specified above.
Second, 49 CFR 604.14(3) requires a recipient of Federal funds under Federal Transit Law, unless otherwise exempt, to provide email notification to all registered charter providers in the recipient's geographic service area each time the recipient receives a request for charter service that the recipient is interested in providing.
Third, 49 CFR 604.12(c) requires a recipient, unless otherwise exempt under 49 CFR part 604.2, to submit on a quarterly basis records of all instances that the recipient provided charter service.
Fourth, 49 CFR 604.13 requires a private charter provider to register on FTA's Charter Registration Web site at
Lastly, 49 CFR 604.7 permits recipients to provide charter service to Qualified Human Service Organizations (QHSO) under limited circumstances. QHSOs that do not receive Federal funding under programs listed in Appendix A to part 604 and seek to receive free or reduced rate services from recipients must register on FTA's Charter Registration Web site (49 CFR 604.15(a)).
Maritime Administration (MARAD), Department of Transportation.
Notice and request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below is being forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comments. A
Comments must be submitted on or before May 24, 2017.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of the Secretary of Transportation, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Mr. Linden Houston, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W21-203, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: 202-366-4839; or email
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
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 collection is necessary for MARAD to evaluate the financial condition of entities borrowing funds from or receiving financial benefits from MARAD. We are required to publish this notice in the
Written comments should be submitted by June 23, 2017.
You may submit comments identified by Docket No. DOT-MARAD-2017-0078 through one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Daniel Ladd, Director, 202-366-1859, Office of Financial Approvals, Maritime Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice and request for comments.
The Maritime Administration (MARAD) invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
Written comments should be submitted by June 23, 2017.
You may submit comments [identified by Docket No. DOT-MARAD-2017-0077] through one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Russell Krause, 202-366-1031, Division of Sealift Operations and Emergency Response, Maritime Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
The agency will summarize and/or include your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information collection.
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice and request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below is being forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comments. A
Comments must be submitted on or before May 24, 2017.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of the Secretary of Transportation, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503.
Michael Pucci, Telephone: 202-366-5167; FAX: 202-366-7485, Office of Maritime Programs, Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W26-494, Washington, DC 20590.
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
Safety advisory notice, revised.
PHMSA is issuing this revised safety advisory notice to address concerns of offerors and users of DOT Specification 39 (DOT-39) cylinders that exceed 75 cubic inches (in
Refaat Shafkey, General Engineer, Engineering and Research Division, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-4545 or email:
PHMSA advises that DOT-39 cylinders having an internal volume exceeding 75 cubic inches (in
The release of a liquefied flammable compressed gas as result of the failure of a cylinder having an internal volume exceeding 75 in
This revised safety advisory notice is being issued in part because of safety concerns stemming from a past rulemaking action impacting DOT-39 cylinders used for certain liquefied flammable compressed gases. In an October 30, 1998 notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM),
On November 13, 2014, PHMSA accepted a petition for rulemaking (P-1622) from Worthington Cylinders to address this error. On July 26, 2016, PHMSA published in the
Given the known risks associated with cylinders that are filled with liquefied flammable compressed gases, PHMSA is issuing this revised safety advisory notice to advise offerors and transporters of DOT-39 cylinders that those with an internal volume greater than 75 in
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 VITA/TCE Volunteer Program.
Written comments should be received on or before June 23, 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.
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 United States Gift (and Generation-Skipping Transfer) Tax Return.
Written comments should be received on or before June 23, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Laurie E. Brimmer, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224. Requests for additional copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Martha R. Brinson, 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.
This document provides notice of the availability of Application Packages for the 2018 Tax Counseling for the Elderly (TCE) Program.
Application instructions are available electronically from the IRS on May 1, 2017 by visiting:
Internal Revenue Service, Grant Program Office, 5000 Ellin Road, NCFB C4-110, SE:W:CAR:SPEC:FO:GPO, Lanham, Maryland 20706.
For additional information please contact the Grant Program Office via their email address at
Authority for the Tax Counseling for the Elderly (TCE) Program is contained in Section 163 of the Revenue Act of 1978, Public Law 95-600, (92 Stat.12810), November 6, 1978. Regulations were published in the
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, Re-characterizing Financing Arrangements Involving Fast-Pay Stock.
Written comments should be received on or before June 23, 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 Ralph Terry, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington DC 20224, 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, Department of Treasury.
Request for Nominations.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) requests nominations of individuals to be considered for selection as members of the Internal Revenue Service Advisory Council (IRSAC). Nominations should describe and document the proposed member's qualification for IRSAC membership, including the applicant's knowledge of
The IRSAC provides an organized public forum for IRS officials and representatives of the public to discuss relevant tax administration issues, and it advises the IRS on issues that have a substantive effect on federal tax administration. As an advisory body designed to focus on broad policy matters, the IRSAC reviews existing tax policy and/or recommends policies with respect to emerging tax administration issues. The IRSAC suggests operational improvements, offers constructive observations regarding current or proposed IRS policies, programs, and procedures and advises the IRS with respect to issues having a substantive effect on federal tax administration.
Written nominations will be accepted from April 27 through June 16, 2017.
Applications should be submitted to: Anna Millikan, IRS National Public Liaison Office, CL:NPL:P, Room 7559, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, Attn: IRSAC Applications. Applications may also be submitted via fax to 855-811-8021. Applications are available on the IRS Web site at
Anna Millikan at 202-317-6851 (not a toll-free number), or send an email to
The IRSAC is authorized under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463. The first Advisory Group to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue—or the Commissioner's Advisory Group (“CAG”)—was established in 1953 as a “national policy and/or issue advisory committee.” Renamed in 1998, the Internal Revenue Service Advisory Council (IRSAC) reflects the agency-wide scope of its focus as an advisory body to the entire agency. The IRSAC's primary purpose is to provide an organized public forum for senior IRS executives and representatives of the public to discuss relevant tax administration issues.
Conveying the public's perception of IRS activities, the IRSAC is comprised of individuals who bring substantial, disparate experience and diverse backgrounds on the Council's activities. Membership is balanced to include representation from the taxpaying public, the tax professional community, small and large businesses, international, wage and investment taxpayers, digital services sector and knowledge of Treasury Circular 230.
The IRSAC members are appointed by the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service with the concurrence of the Secretary of the Treasury to serve a three-year term. The IRSAC may form subcommittees (or subgroups) for any purpose consistent with its charter. These subcommittees must report directly to the IRSAC parent committee.
Members are not paid for their services. However, travel expenses for working sessions, public meetings and orientation sessions, such as airfare, per diem, and transportation to and from airports, train stations, etc., are reimbursed within prescribed federal travel limitations.
All applicants will be sent an acknowledgment of receipt. In accordance with the Department of Treasury Directive 21-03, a clearance process, including annual tax checks and a practitioner check with the IRS Office of Professional Responsibility, will be conducted. In addition, all applicants deemed “Best Qualified” shall undergo a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) fingerprint check.
Equal opportunity practices will be followed for all appointments to the IRSAC in accordance with the Department of Treasury and IRS policies. The IRS has special interest in assuring that women and men, members of all races and national origins, and individuals with disabilities are adequately represented on advisory committees. Therefore, the IRS extends particular encouragement to nominations from such appropriately-qualified candidates.
Departmental Offices, U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection request(s) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. The public is invited to submit comments on the collection(s) listed below.
Comments should be received on or before May 24, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Treasury, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email at
Copies of the submissions may be obtained by emailing
44 U.S.C. 3501
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C., App. 2, that the Advisory Committee on Former Prisoners of War (FPOW) will meet May 17-19, 2017, from 9:00 a.m.-4:30 p.m. CST at the Southeast Louisiana VA Medical Center, 2400 Canal Street, New Orleans, LA 70119. Sessions are open to the public, except when the Committee is conducting a tour of VA facilities. Tours of VA facilities are closed, to protect Veterans' privacy and personal information, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6).
The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on the administration of benefits under Title 38 U.S.C., for Veterans who are
On Wednesday, May 17th, the Committee will convene an open session to recognize and hear briefings from 9:00 a.m. to 3:10 p.m. From 3:10 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., the Committee will convene a closed session in order to protect patient privacy as the Committee tours the Southeast Louisiana VA Medical Center.
On Thursday, May 18th, the Committee will assemble an open session from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. for discussion and briefings from Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) and Veterans Health Administration (VHA) officials. On Friday, May 19th, the Committee will conduct an open session from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. From 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., the Committee will convene a closed session for discussion of committee issues. At 12:00 p.m., the committee meeting will be formally adjourned.
Public participation will commence as follows:
FPOWs who wish to speak at the public forum are invited to submit a 1-2 page commentary for inclusion in official meeting records. Any member of the public may also submit a 1-2 page commentary for the Committee's review.
Any member of the public wishing to attend the meeting or seeking additional information should contact Ms. Leslie N. Williams, Designated Federal Officer, Advisory Committee on Former Prisoners of War at
Because the meeting is being held in a government building, a photo I.D. must be presented at the security desk as a part of the clearance process. Due to an increase in security protocols, and in order to prevent delays in clearance processing, you should allow an additional 15 minutes before the meeting begins.
| 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 |