83_FR_27
Page Range | 5521-5679 | |
FR Document |
Page and Subject | |
---|---|
83 FR 5646 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
83 FR 5647 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
83 FR 5674 - Technical Corrections to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States | |
83 FR 5675 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Renewal, Agricultural Aircraft Operator Certificate Application | |
83 FR 5536 - Certifications and Exemptions Under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 | |
83 FR 5628 - Information Collections Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority | |
83 FR 5543 - Deletion of Rules Made Obsolete by the Digital Television Transition | |
83 FR 5627 - National Environmental Justice Advisory Council; Notification of Public Teleconference and Public Comment | |
83 FR 5623 - Assignment and Application of the “Unique Identifier” Under TSCA Section 14; Notice of Additional Information and Opportunity To Comment | |
83 FR 5625 - Proposed Information Collection Request (EPA ICR No. 1204.13); Comment Request; Submission of Unreasonable Adverse Effects Information Under FIFRA Section 6(a)(2) | |
83 FR 5649 - New Postal Products | |
83 FR 5571 - Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Region; Commercial Trip Limit Increase in the Atlantic Southern Zone | |
83 FR 5658 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing of Advance Notice, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Enhance the Calculation of the Volatility Component of the Clearing Fund Formula That Utilizes a Parametric Value-at-Risk Model and Eliminate the Market Maker Domination Charge | |
83 FR 5626 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Application for Reference and Equivalent Method Determination (Renewal) | |
83 FR 5674 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Executive Air Charter of Boca Raton, Inc., dba Fair Wind Air Charter | |
83 FR 5675 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Minnesota Department of Natural Resources | |
83 FR 5677 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Request for Renewal of a Previously Approved Information Collection | |
83 FR 5638 - List of Vessels Prohibited From Entering or Operating Within the Navigable Waters of the United States, Pursuant to the Ports and Waterways Safety Act, as Amended by the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act | |
83 FR 5621 - BP Products North America, Inc., Trafigura Trading LLC, TCPU Inc. v. Colonial Pipeline Company; Notice of Complaint | |
83 FR 5622 - Notice of Commission Staff Attendance | |
83 FR 5616 - Commission Information Collection Activities; (FERC-582); Comment Request; Extension | |
83 FR 5621 - James M. Knott; Notice Soliciting Scoping Comments | |
83 FR 5617 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
83 FR 5616 - Reform of Affected System Coordination in the Generator Interconnection Process; EDF Renewable Energy, Inc. v. Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Southwest Power Pool, Inc., and PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; Notice of Technical Conference | |
83 FR 5622 - Iridium Energy, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
83 FR 5615 - All American Power and Gas, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
83 FR 5619 - Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Sierrita Gas Pipeline LLC Sierrita Compressor Expansion Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues | |
83 FR 5678 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Request for Extension of Currently Approved Information Collection | |
83 FR 5676 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for Comments for a New Information Collection | |
83 FR 5629 - Notice of Agreement Filed | |
83 FR 5609 - Silicomanganese From the People's Republic of China and Ukraine: Final Results of Expedited Fourth Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders | |
83 FR 5633 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; JUBLIA | |
83 FR 5604 - Aluminum Extrusions From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Rescission of Review in Part; 2016-2017 | |
83 FR 5646 - Discount Rates for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Federal Programs | |
83 FR 5608 - Quarterly Update to Annual Listing of Foreign Government Subsidies on Articles of Cheese Subject to an In-Quota Rate of Duty | |
83 FR 5612 - Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From India: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2015 | |
83 FR 5630 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request | |
83 FR 5611 - Glycine From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the Changed Circumstances Review | |
83 FR 5604 - Foreign-Trade Zone 44-Morris County, New Jersey; Application for Subzone; Distrilogik US Ltd.; Dayton, New Jersey | |
83 FR 5545 - Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Testing and Training Activities Conducted in the Eglin Gulf Test and Training Range in the Gulf of Mexico | |
83 FR 5638 - Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee | |
83 FR 5614 - Western Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings | |
83 FR 5614 - Marine Mammals; File No. 21371 | |
83 FR 5645 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Certification and Noncoal Reclamation | |
83 FR 5644 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Permanent Regulatory Program-Small Operator Assistance Program | |
83 FR 5644 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Areas Designated by Act of Congress | |
83 FR 5592 - Regulated Navigation Areas; Harbor Entrances Along the Coast of Northern California | |
83 FR 5649 - Proposed Submission of Information Collection for OMB Review; Comment Request; Survey of Nonparticipating Single Premium Group Annuity Rates | |
83 FR 5650 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 3 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 3, To Amend Section 102.01B of the NYSE Listed Company Manual To Provide for the Listing of Companies That List Without a Prior Exchange Act Registration and That Are Not Listing in Connection With an Underwritten Initial Public Offering and Related Changes to Rules 15, 104, and 123D | |
83 FR 5603 - Notice of Public Meetings of the Kansas Advisory Committee | |
83 FR 5603 - Notice of Public Meetings of the Texas Advisory Committee | |
83 FR 5665 - Order Extending Until February 5, 2019 Certain Temporary Exemptions Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in Connection With the Revision of the Definition of “Security” To Encompass Security-Based Swaps and Request for Comment | |
83 FR 5615 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
83 FR 5631 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request; Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Performance Measures and Additional Data Collection (Part of the Fatherhood and Marriage Local Evaluation and Cross-Site (FaMLE Cross-Site) Project)-Extension | |
83 FR 5637 - National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Notice of Meeting | |
83 FR 5635 - National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
83 FR 5635 - Center for Scientific Review Notice of Closed Meetings | |
83 FR 5673 - Meetings of the United States-Peru Environmental Affairs Council, Environmental Cooperation Commission, and Sub-Committee on Forest Sector Governance | |
83 FR 5573 - General Administrative Regulations; Subpart L-Reinsurance Agreement-Standards for Approval; Regulations for the 2019 and Subsequent Reinsurance Years | |
83 FR 5648 - Notice of Availability and Notice of Public Meeting for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Sacramento Peak Observatory, Sunspot, New Mexico | |
83 FR 5641 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Fire Management Assistance Grant Program | |
83 FR 5640 - Technical Mapping Advisory Council | |
83 FR 5671 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Certain Changes Regarding the U.S. Equity Cumulative Dividends Fund-Series 2027 and the U.S. Equity Ex-Dividend Fund-Series 2027 | |
83 FR 5655 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Investors Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Modify the Default Handling of Market Orders Entered With a Time-in-Force of DAY | |
83 FR 5668 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Flexibly Structured Options | |
83 FR 5642 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection: Interagency Record of Request-A, G, or NATO Dependent Employment Authorization or Change/Adjustment To/From A, G, or NATO Status | |
83 FR 5643 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection: Application for Employment Authorization | |
83 FR 5646 - Lined Paper School Supplies From China and India; Determinations | |
83 FR 5629 - Notice of Agreements Filed | |
83 FR 5634 - Agency Information Collection Request. 30-Day Public Comment Request | |
83 FR 5609 - North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Article 1904 Binational Panel Review: Notice of Request for Panel Review | |
83 FR 5612 - North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Article 1904 Binational Panel Review: Notice of Request for Panel Review | |
83 FR 5537 - Air Plan Approval; OR, Oakridge; PM2.5 | |
83 FR 5593 - Air Plan Approval; KY; Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone NAAQS Revisions | |
83 FR 5540 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; West Virginia; Removal of Clean Air Interstate Rule Trading Programs Replaced by Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Trading Programs | |
83 FR 5598 - Modification of Significant New Use of a Certain Chemical Substance | |
83 FR 5525 - Final 2020 Census Residence Criteria and Residence Situations | |
83 FR 5543 - Issuance of Guidance Memorandum, “Reclassification of Major Sources as Area Sources Under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act” | |
83 FR 5594 - Air Plan Approval; AL; Section 128 Board Requirements for Infrastructure SIPs | |
83 FR 5523 - Amendment of Class E Airspace; Fort Scott, KS; and Phillipsburg, KS | |
83 FR 5524 - Modification of Air Traffic Service (ATS) Routes; Western United States | |
83 FR 5587 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes | |
83 FR 5576 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
83 FR 5579 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
83 FR 5584 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
83 FR 5521 - Airworthiness Directives; 328 Support Services GmbH (Type Certificate Previously Held by AvCraft Aerospace GmbH; Fairchild Dornier GmbH; Dornier Luftfahrt GmbH) Airplanes |
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation
Census Bureau
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Navy Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 328 Support Services GmbH Model 328-300 airplanes. This AD requires contacting the FAA to obtain instructions for addressing the unsafe condition on these products, and doing the actions specified in those instructions. This AD was prompted by a determination that incomplete inspection instructions exist for the skin under outer and inner doublers left installed after the removal of a certain data link system. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD becomes effective February 23, 2018.
We must receive comments on this AD by March 26, 2018.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1175; fax: 425-227-1149.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2016-0155, dated August 2, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain 328 Support Services GmbH Model 328-300 airplanes. The MCAI states:
The Teledyne Telelink System, installed in accordance with FAA Supplemental Type certificate (STC) SA09839S, has been removed from Dornier 328-300 aeroplanes. After removal, the outer and inner doubler, installed per STC instructions, have been left installed. These structural parts, not being part of the original aeroplane design, are not addressed by the aeroplane Instructions for Continued Airworthiness, and no specific inspections instructions for the skin under the doublers are available. Consequently, a crack under the installed doublers cannot be detected as per standard maintenance program.
This condition could lead to undetected skin cracks that, if not corrected, could lead to skin failure, possibly resulting in a rapid depressurization of the aeroplane and consequently injury to occupants or loss of structural integrity of the aeroplane.
To address this unsafe condition, 328 Support Services issued Service Bulletin SB-328J-53-320 that introduces a repetitive inspection, and defines as well maintenance requirements due to differences to the original Type Certificate-configuration.
For the reason stated above, this [EASA] AD requires repetitive inspection of skin doublers and structural members and, depending on findings, accomplishment of structural repair.
You may examine the MCAI on the internet at
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
Since there are currently no domestic operators of this product, we find good cause that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary. In addition, for the reason(s) stated above, we find that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
Currently, there are no affected U.S.-registered airplanes. This AD requires contacting the FAA to obtain instructions for addressing the unsafe condition, and doing the actions specified in those instructions. Based on the actions specified in the MCAI AD, we are providing the following cost estimates for an affected airplane that is placed on the U.S. Register in the future:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for any on-condition actions.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD becomes effective February 23, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to 328 Support Services GmbH Model 328-300 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 3145, 3149, 3161, 3171, 3181, and 3185.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by a determination that incomplete inspection instructions exist for the skin under outer and inner doublers left installed after the removal of a certain data link system. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct skin cracks that could lead to skin failure and possible rapid depressurization and the subsequent loss of structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, request instructions from the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, to address the unsafe condition specified in paragraph (e) of this AD; and accomplish the action(s) at the times specified in, and in accordance with, those instructions. Guidance can be found in Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2016-0155, dated August 2, 2016.
The Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (i)(2) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(1) Refer to MCAI EASA AD 2016-0155, dated August 2, 2016, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1175; fax: 425-227-1149.
None.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Fort Scott Municipal Airport, Fort Scott, KS, and Phillipsburg Municipal Airport, Phillipsburg, KS. This action is required due to the decommissioning of the Fort Scott non-directional radio beacon (NDB) and the Phillipsburg NDB, and the cancellation of the associated instrument approach procedures. This action enhances the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at these airports.
Effective 0901 UTC, May 24, 2018. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.
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 extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Fort Scott Municipal Airport, Fort Scott, KS, and Phillipsburg Municipal Airport, Phillipsburg, KS, to support IFR operations at these airports.
The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the
This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface:
Within a 6.4-mile radius (reduced from a 7-mile radius) of Fort Scott Municipal Airport, Fort Scott, KS; removing the Fort Scott NDB from the legal description; and removing the extension north of the NDB;
And within a 6.5-mile radius (reduced from a 7.6-mile radius) of Phillipsburg Municipal Airport, Phillipsburg, KS; removing the Phillipsburg NDB from the legal description; and removing the extension southeast of the NDB.
Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Fort Scott NDB and the Phillipsburg NDB, the cancellation of the associated instrument approach procedures, and to bring the airspace in compliance with FAA Order 7400.2L, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters. Controlled airspace is necessary for safety and the management of IFR operations at these airports.
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 5-6.5.a. 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 6.4-mile radius of Fort Scott Municipal Airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Phillipsburg Municipal Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action modifies VOR Federal Airways V-113 and V-244 which caused navigational aid gaps due to the decommissioning of Manteca and Maxwell VORs.
Effective date 0901 UTC, March 29, 2018. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA, Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Kenneth Ready, Airspace Policy Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
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 the 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 modifies the air traffic service route structure in the western United States to maintain the efficient flow of air traffic.
The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the
The commenter wrote that V-113 should be further revised to remove the Priest, CA, VOR from the route because that VOR is decommissioned.
FAA response: The Priest VOR is in a shutdown status pending formal decommissioning. This rule, in part, corrects the coordinates defining the PATYY intersection in V-113, while further amendment of V-113 is being developed for a later date. In the interim, RNAV-equipped aircraft can continue to navigate along V-113,
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11B, airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as
Subsequent to publication of the NPRM, the FAA identified an error within a set of True (T) and Magnetic (M) coordinates along V-113. The intersection coordinates “INT Modesto 208°(T) 19(M) and El Nido 277°(T) 262°(M) radials” were misidentified as PATYY intersection in the NPRM; when in fact these coordinates are for WINDY intersection. The FAA is changing the coordinates to “INT Modesto 208° (T) 191° (M) and El Nido 298° (T) 283° (M)” as the correct coordinates for PATYY intersection.
The FAA is amending Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to amend VOR Federal Airways V-113 and V-244 in the western United States due to the scheduled decommissioning of the Manteca and Maxwell VOR facilities. The routes are outlined below.
All radials in the regulatory text route descriptions below are stated in True degrees.
VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a), of FAA Order 7400.11B dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The VOR Federal airways listed in this document will be subsequently published 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. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (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 modifying VOR Federal airways V-113 and V-244 qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act and its agency-specific implementing regulations in FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” regarding categorical exclusions for procedural actions at paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from full environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points. Therefore, this airspace action is not expected to result in any significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, this action has been reviewed for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis, and it is determined that 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.
From Morro Bay, CA; Paso Robles, CA; Priest, CA; Panoche, CA; INT Modesto 208° and El Nido 298° radials; Modesto, CA; Linden, CA; INT Linden 046° and Mustang, NV, 208° radials; Mustang; 42 miles, 24 miles, 115 MSL, 95 MSL, Sod House, NV; 67 miles, 95 MSL, 85 MSL, Rome, OR; 61 miles, 85 MSL, Boise, ID; Salmon, ID; Coppertown, MT; Helena, MT; to Lewistown, MT
From Oakland, CA; INT Oakland 077° and Linden, CA, 246° radials; Linden; 30 miles, 153 MSL, INT Linden 094° and Hangtown, CA, 157° radials; 58 miles, 153 MSL, INT Coaldale, CA, 267° and Friant, CA, 022° radials; 23 miles, 153 MSL, INT Coaldale 267° and Bishop, CA, 337° radials; 43 miles, 125 MSL, Coaldale, NV; Tonopah, NV; 40 miles, 115 MSL, Wilson Creek, NV; 28 miles, 115 MSL, Milford, UT; Hanksville, UT; 63 miles, 13 miles, 140 MSL, 36 miles, 115 MSL, Montrose, CO; Blue Mesa, CO; 33 miles, 122 MSL, 27 miles, 155 MSL, Pueblo, CO; 18 miles, 48 miles, 60 MSL, Lamar, CO; 20 miles, 116 miles, 65 MSL, Hays, KS; to Salina, KS. The airspace within R-2531A and R-2531B is excluded.
Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce.
Final criteria.
The Bureau of the Census (U.S. Census Bureau) is providing notification of the Final 2020 Census Residence Criteria and Residence Situations. In addition, this document contains a summary of comments received in response to the June 30,
The final criteria in this document are effective on March 12, 2018.
Jason Devine, Population and Housing Programs Branch, U.S. Census Bureau, 6H173, Washington, DC 20233, telephone (301) 763-2381; or Email [
The U.S. Census Bureau is committed to counting every person in the 2020 Census once, only once, and in the right place. The fundamental reason that the decennial census is conducted is to fulfill the Constitutional requirement (Article I, Section 2) to apportion the seats in the U.S. House of Representatives among the states.
The residence criteria are used to determine where people are counted during each decennial census. Specific residence situations are included with the criteria to illustrate how the criteria are applied.
The Census Bureau's enumeration procedures are guided by the constitutional and statutory mandates to count all residents of the several states. [U.S. Const. Art. 1, Section 2, cl.3, Title 13, United States Code, Section 141.] The state in which a person resides and the specific location within that state is determined in accordance with the concept of “usual residence,” which is defined by the Census Bureau as the place where a person lives and sleeps most of the time. This is not always the same as a person's legal residence, voting residence, or where they prefer to be counted. This concept of “usual residence” is grounded in the law providing for the first census, the Act of March 1, 1790, expressly specifying that persons be enumerated at their “usual place of abode.”
Determining usual residence is straightforward for most people. However, given our nation's wide diversity in types of living arrangements, the concept of usual residence has a variety of applications. Some examples of these living arrangements include people experiencing homelessness, people with a seasonal/second residence, people in group facilities,
Every decade, the Census Bureau undertakes a review of the Residence Criteria and Residence Situations to ensure that the concept of usual residence is interpreted and applied, consistent with the intent of the Census Act of 1790, which was authored by a Congress that included many of the framers of the U.S. Constitution and directed that people were to be counted at their usual residence. This review also serves as an opportunity to identify new or changing living situations resulting from societal change, and to address those situations in the guidance in a way that is consistent with the concept of usual residence.
This decade, as part of the review, the Census Bureau requested public comment on the “2010 Census Residence Rule and Residence Situations” through the
On June 30, 2016, the Census Bureau published the “Proposed 2020 Census Residence Criteria and Residence Situations” in the
Section C of this document provides the Final 2020 Census Residence Criteria and Residence Situations.
On June 30, 2016, the Census Bureau published a document in the
Of the 77,887 comments pertaining to prisoners, 77,863 suggested that prisoners should be counted at their home or pre-incarceration address. The rationales included in these comments were as follows.
• Almost all commenters either directly suggested, or alluded to the view, that counting prisoners at the prison inflates the political power of the area where the prison is located, and deflates the political power in the prisoners' home communities. These commenters stated that this distorts the redistricting process by allowing officials to count prisoners as “residents” of the districts where they are imprisoned, even though the prisoners are not allowed to vote during the time that they are confined in that district.
○ Similarly, many commenters suggested that counting prisoners away from their home address goes against the principle of equal representation. Some commenters more specifically suggested that the practice potentially violates the Voting Rights Act and/or the U.S. constitutional commitment to one person, one vote. A couple of commenters stated that the practice differs from certain international guidelines.
○ A few commenters stated that counting prisoners at the correctional facilities can also negatively impact the communities in which the prisons are located by distorting and/or complicating the redistricting process at the local level (
○ Some commenters stated that the current residence criteria for prisoners are inconsistent with certain states' laws regarding residency for elections (
○ Some commenters stated that some states and many local governments already adjust their population data to remove prisoners when drawing their districts. However, these commenters also suggested that this “piecemeal” approach at the local level is inefficient and cannot fully resolve the issues associated with where prisoners are counted.
• Most commenters suggested that counting prisoners at the prison inaccurately represents the population counts and demographic characteristics of prisoners' home communities, as well as the communities where the prisons are located. These commenters stated that prisoners typically come from urban, underserved communities whose populations are disproportionately African-American and Latino, while prisons are more likely to be located in largely White (non-Hispanic) rural communities, far from the actual homes of the prisoners. Therefore, most commenters also suggested that counting prisoners at the prisons disproportionally harms communities with high proportions of minorities, by preventing their home communities from receiving their fair share of representation and funding.
• Many commenters stated that the incarcerated population has increased significantly in recent decades. Some commenters also stated that, throughout the long history of the decennial census, the Census Bureau has previously evolved and reevaluated its residence criteria in response to other historical changes in demographics and normative living situations (
• Some commenters suggested that the Census Bureau should change its interpretation of the concept of “usual residence” (
○ Some commenters suggested that prisoners do not have enduring social ties or allegiance to the community where they are incarcerated. To explain this, some commenters more specifically stated that prisoners cannot interact with the community where they are incarcerated, are there involuntarily, and generally do not plan to remain in that community upon their release. A few commenters also stated that the governmental representatives of the community where the prison is located do not serve the prisoners, or they stated that prisoners are not constituents of the community where the prison is located. These commenters further stated that prisoners rely, instead, on the representative services of the legislators in their pre-incarceration communities.
○ Some commenters suggested that the correctional facility where a prisoner is located on Census Day is not where a prisoner spends most of their time.
Some supported this suggestion by stating that counting incarcerated people at the facility in which they are housed on Census Day ignores the transient and temporary nature of incarceration. These commenters stated that incarcerated people are typically transferred multiple times between various correctional facilities during the time between when they are arrested and when they are released.
Some supported this suggestion by focusing on local jails. They stated that, while the length of incarceration for prison inmates is typically more than one year, about a third of all inmates (in prisons and jails) are jail inmates, and the typical length of incarceration for jail inmates is much shorter than one year (
A few supported this suggestion by stating that, if your measuring stick is the 10-year period for which the decennial census counts affect representation, funding, and policies, most prisoners are incarcerated for less than 10 years.
○ A few commenters suggested that multiple factors must be considered together when determining the correct place to count certain types of people, such as prisoners, who do not easily align with the standard definition of usual residence. Therefore, they stated that a one-size-fits-all approach of focusing solely on where people live and sleep most of the time is not appropriate for determining where to count prisoners.
○ A few commenters suggested that only prisoners who are serving long-term sentences, such as longer than six months or a year, should be counted at the facility, and that prisoners serving shorter terms should be counted at their usual residence outside of the facility.
• Some commenters suggested that the treatment of prisoners is inconsistent with the treatment of other residence situations in which people are temporarily living or staying away from their permanent address (
• Some commenters suggested that the number/proportion of comments submitted on this issue indicates that there is an overwhelming consensus urging a change to how prisoners are counted in the census.
• A few commenters suggested that the Census Bureau has acknowledged the need to correct its own data by proposing to help states with post-census population adjustments.
○ Some of these commenters suggested that “this ad hoc approach is neither efficient nor universally implementable.” Some also stated that many states have laws that would prevent them from using such alternative data to adjust their Census counts for redistricting, and that many states may not have the resources to gather the necessary data to provide to the Census Bureau. Some also expressed concerns about the states' inability to provide data on federal prisoners and prisoners who are incarcerated in another state.
○ Therefore, some of these commenters suggested that the only way to implement a consistent solution for the entire United States is for the Census Bureau to change the way it counts prisoners. A few also suggested that the Census Bureau would be best able to accomplish this change if all correctional facilities (local, state, and federal) and/or all state and federal corrections departments were required to collect and maintain accurate records on each prisoner's home/pre-incarceration address.
Four comments were in support of counting prisoners at the correctional facility. All of these commenters suggested that the correctional facility is the prisoner's usual residence, or where they live and sleep most of the time (
One commenter suggested that counting prisoners at their “home address” would create unreasonable burden on the census process because of the considerable time and effort that would be necessary, both on the part of the facility administrators who would need to research and maintain the address records, and on the census enumerators who would need to collect and ensure the accuracy of the addresses. One commenter stated that any approach that would count prisoners somewhere other than the prison would likely result in a national undercount due to the difficulty in tracking inmates in transit. One commenter stated that it is not the Census Bureau's responsibility to facilitate states' redistricting activities beyond their currently proposed activities (
Twenty comments were neutral regarding where to count prisoners, in that they did not state whether they thought that prisoners should be counted at the facility or at some other address. Many of these commenters stated the importance of equal representation for all. Some stated that prisoners should have the right to vote. A few further clarified that prisoners should have the right to vote if they are going to be counted as residents (of any place) for redistricting purposes, or vice versa (
States are responsible for legislative redistricting. The Census Bureau works closely with the states and recognizes that some states have decided, or may decide in the future, to `move' their prisoner population back to the prisoners' pre-incarceration addresses for redistricting and other purposes. Therefore, following the 2020 Census, the Census Bureau plans to offer a product that states can request, in order to assist them in their goals of reallocating their own prisoner population counts. Any state that requests this product will be required to submit a data file (indicating where each prisoner was incarcerated on Census Day, as well as their pre-incarceration address) in a specified format. The Census Bureau will review the submitted file and, if it includes the necessary data, provide a product that contains supplemental information the state can use to construct alternative within-state tabulations for its own purposes. However, the Census Bureau will not use the state-provided data in this product to make any changes to the official decennial census counts.
The Census Bureau also plans to provide group quarters data after the 2020 Census sooner than it was provided after the 2010 Census. For the 2010 Census, the Census Bureau released the
Of the 44 comments received pertaining to the military overseas, 40 supported the Census Bureau proposal
Many commenters stated that counting deployed military personnel at their usual residence (where they are stationed) in the United States would more accurately reflect the social and economic impact that these personnel members have on the communities where they usually work, recreate, and reside. Many commenters similarly stated that deployed personnel should be counted at their usual residence in the United States in order to ensure that the communities surrounding military bases are able to obtain the necessary resources and funding to support the soldiers who serve our country and their families, as well as accurate data to inform community planning. These commenters stated that the aforementioned planning, funding, and other resources would support community services such as police and fire departments, schools, roads, parks, utilities, and other infrastructure and amenities.
Some commenters stated that deployments from specific military bases typically happen in surges to support specific events, such as combat missions or natural disasters. Therefore, these commenters suggested that, if an event like this happens around the time of the census enumeration, then the population of the community surrounding that military base would be grossly undercounted if the deployed personnel were not counted there. One commenter suggested that counting deployed personnel at their usual residence would produce more consistent results than counting them at their home of record because the Department of Defense records on military personnel members' home of record
Some commenters suggested that the military member's permanent duty station from which they were deployed is their usual residence (
Some commenters stated that many of the family members of deployed military were confused during the 2010 Census about whether they should count themselves at their usual residence because they were instructed that their deployed family member would be counted through administrative records, and they assumed the same would be true for them as well. One of these commenters stated that proposed residence guidance for how deployed personnel would be counted in the 2020 Census should reduce some of this confusion. However, all of these commenters encouraged the Census Bureau to conduct a strong communication and outreach program to ensure that all family members of deployed personnel are made aware of the fact that they still need to complete the census questionnaire for themselves.
One commenter expressed concern about footnote 5 in the proposed residence criteria documentation, which said: “The ability to successfully integrate the DOD data on deployed personnel into the resident population counts must be evaluated and confirmed prior to the 2020 Census.” The commenter was worried that the proposed change for counting deployed military might not be implemented if the research and evaluations are not completed before final decisions must be made, and they suggested that such research is not necessary because the Census Bureau already uses data from the Defense Manpower Data Center when producing annual population estimates at the national, state, and county levels. This commenter also recommended that if the proposed change for counting deployed military is implemented for the 2020 Census, then the Census Bureau should also ensure that the methodology used to produce the annual population estimates is revised accordingly.
One commenter expressed support for the proposal to include military and civilian employees of the U.S. government who are deployed or stationed/assigned overseas and are not U.S. citizens (but must be legal U.S. residents to meet the requirements for federal employment) in the Federally Affiliated Overseas Count, because these people have met the requirements to qualify for federal employment and have pledged to serve our country. They also stated that this proposal would be consistent with the fact that citizenship status is not a requirement for determining a person's residence.
Three comments opposed the proposal to count deployed military at their usual residence in the United States from which they were deployed. One commenter suggested that all overseas military personnel should be counted in the same way, and that there is not a good reason to treat deployed personnel as a separate category from personnel who are stationed overseas. One commenter suggested that the Census Bureau should continue to count all overseas military personnel, including those who are deployed, in the state where they lived when they enlisted (
One comment was neutral regarding where to count overseas military personnel, in that they did not state where they thought deployed personnel should be counted. They simply stated that it appeared that not all of the locally stationed military personnel and their dependents were being counted, and asked for more information on whether this was true and/or how to ensure they were counted in the future.
The Census Bureau will use administrative data from the Department of Defense to count deployed personnel at their usual residence in the United States for apportionment purposes and for inclusion in the resident population counts. The Census Bureau will count military and civilian employees of the U.S. government who are stationed or assigned outside the United States, and their dependents living with them, in their home state, for apportionment purposes only, using administrative data provided by the Department of Defense and the other federal agencies that employ them.
The Census Bureau has been communicating with stakeholders from various military communities and plans to work closely with military stakeholders to plan and carry out the enumeration of military personnel. As the planning process moves forward, there will be continued testing of our process for integrating DOD data on deployed personnel into the resident population counts.
Four comments were related to health care facilities. One commenter simply stated that they agree with the Census Bureau's proposal regarding how to count people in health care facilities. One commenter suggested that the Census Bureau add residence guidance specifically regarding memory care centers as a separate category from nursing facilities because the nature of Alzheimer's disease and Dementia necessitates that these patients be enumerated through administrative records in order to ensure the accuracy of the data. One commenter suggested that people in psychiatric facilities should be counted at the residence where they were living before they entered the facility because they will most likely return to their prior community, which is where they would normally vote. This commenter also stated that these people should be counted in their prior communities in order to ensure that those communities receive the proper allocation of representatives and resources.
One commenter similarly suggested that people living in psychiatric hospitals on Census Day should be counted at the residence where they sleep most of the time, and only counted at the facility if they do not have a usual home elsewhere. They stated that the Census Bureau misunderstands the functioning of state and private psychiatric hospitals, which today provide primarily acute and short term treatment (
Three comments were related to foreign citizens in the United States. One commenter simply stated that they agree with the Census Bureau's proposal regarding how foreign citizens are counted. One commenter suggested that the Census Bureau should add wording to clarify whether foreign “snowbirds” (
Three comments were related to juvenile facilities. One commenter simply stated that they agree with the Census Bureau's proposal regarding how to count juveniles in non-correctional residential treatment centers. One commenter stated that
Three comments were related to people in shelters and people experiencing homelessness. One expressed agreement with the Census Bureau's proposal regarding how to count people in all of the subcategories of this residence situation except for the subcategory of people in domestic violence shelters. This commenter suggested that people in domestic violence shelters should be allowed to be counted at their last residence address prior to the shelter, due to the temporary nature of their stay and the confidentiality of that shelter's location. One commenter suggested that the Census Bureau add residence guidance specifically regarding “temporarily moved persons due to emergencies” (
The proposed residence guidance already allows people who are temporarily displaced by natural disasters to be counted at their usual residence to which they intend to return. People in temporary group living quarters established for victims of natural disasters will be counted where they live and sleep most of the time (or at the facility if they do not report a usual home elsewhere). In addition, people who are temporarily displaced or experiencing homelessness, and are staying in a residence for a short or indefinite period of time, will be counted at the residence where they live and sleep most of the time. If they cannot determine a place where they live most of the time, they will be counted where they are staying on Census Day.
Two comments were related to boarding school students, and two comments were related to college students. One commenter simply stated that they agree with the Census Bureau's proposal regarding how to count boarding school students and college students. One commenter suggested that they agree with counting college students at their college residence because that would better ensure that all college students are counted in the census. One commenter suggested that boarding school students should be counted at the school because that is where they live and sleep most of the time, and they participate in (and consume the resources of) the community where the school is located. This commenter also stated that counting boarding school students at their parental home is inconsistent with the fact that college students are counted at their college residence, considering that college students are often just as dependent on their parents as boarding school students.
Two comments were related to adult group homes and residential treatment centers. One commenter suggested that all people in adult group homes and adult residential treatment centers should be counted at their usual residence other than the facility, because counting them at the facility is not consistent with their state's definition of residence. One commenter stated that the Census Bureau's proposal for how to count people in adult group homes does not best capture the experience of people with disabilities who are in the process of transitioning from group housing to more independent housing. Therefore, the commenter suggested that the Census Bureau should alter the proposed guidance in order to allow people in adult group homes to be counted at a residence to which they are actively preparing to transition. The same commenter also requested that the Census Bureau publish national and/or state level population counts for the subcategories of people in adult group homes and adult residential treatment centers. This commenter stated that these data are important to both housing advocates trying to assess the housing needs of people with disabilities, and to legal advocates working to enforce the community integration mandates of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The residence guidance for people in adult group homes will not be revised to allow some people to be counted at a residence to which they are actively preparing to transition because people must be counted at their current usual residence, rather than a future usual residence. Comments on non-correctional adult group homes and residential treatment centers not addressed in this section were considered out of scope for this document.
Two comments were related to transitory locations. One commenter simply stated that they agree with the Census Bureau's proposal regarding how to count people in transitory locations. One commenter stated that the proposed residence guidance for transitory locations is acceptable because it is consistent with the concept of usual residence. However, they were concerned that the procedures used in the 2010 Census may have caused certain types of people to not be counted in the census because these people typically move seasonally from one transitory location (
Two comments were related to visitors on Census Day. One commenter simply stated that they agree with the Census Bureau's proposal regarding how to count visitors on Census Day. One commenter asked whether the Census Bureau would count all vacationers in a specific state as residents of that state.
Two comments were related to people who live or stay in more than one place. One commenter simply stated that they agree with the Census Bureau's proposal regarding how to count people who live or stay in more than one place. One commenter suggested that the Census Bureau add more clarification to the residence guidance regarding where “snowbirds” (
Two comments were related to merchant marine personnel, and both commenters simply stated that they agree with the Census Bureau's proposal regarding how to count merchant marine personnel.
Two comments were related to religious group quarters. One commenter simply stated that they agree with the Census Bureau's proposal regarding how to count people in religious group quarters. One commenter expressed agreement with the proposal because most religious group quarters are long-term residences that align with the concept of usual residence.
There was one letter that included a comment on every residence situation, and each of those topic-specific comments was included as appropriate among the comments regarding the corresponding residence situations discussed above. However, for each of the other residence situations not already discussed above, the commenter stated that they agreed with how the Census Bureau proposed to count people in the following residence situations.
• People away from their usual residence on Census Day (
• People living outside the United States (Section C.4).
• People moving into or out of a residence around Census Day (Section C.6).
• People who are born or who die around Census Day (Section C.7).
• Relatives and nonrelatives (Section C.8).
• Residential schools for people with disabilities (Section C.9.b-c).
• Housing for older adults (Section C.12).
• Stateside military personnel (Section C.13.a-e).
• Workers' residential facilities (Section C.19).
There was one comment on the concept of usual residence, in which the commenter expressed agreement with
There were seven comments on the general residence criteria. One commenter simply supported the entire residence criteria and residence situations documentation. Two commenters stated that they specifically agree with the three main principles of the residence criteria. One commenter disagreed with “this method of tallying the U.S. population,” but did not refer to any specific residence situation. One commenter stated that every resident should be counted in the census. One commenter stated that every citizen should be counted in the census. One commenter suggested that the Census Bureau count people who are away from their home at the time of the census using a code to indicate the reason why they are away (
There were 18 comments that did not directly address the residence criteria or any particular residence situation.
The Residence Criteria are used to determine where people are counted during the 2020 Census. The Criteria say:
• Count people at their usual residence, which is the place where they live and sleep most of the time.
• People in certain types of group facilities on Census Day are counted at the group facility.
• People who do not have a usual residence, or who cannot determine a usual residence, are counted where they are on Census Day.
The following sections describe how the Residence Criteria apply to certain living situations for which people commonly request clarification.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a) People deployed outside the United States
(b)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Final rule.
The Department of the Navy (DoN) is amending its certifications and exemptions under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS), to reflect that the Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (DAJAG) (Admiralty and Maritime Law) has determined that USS THOMAS HUDNER (DDG 116) is a vessel of the Navy which, due to its special construction and purpose, cannot fully comply with certain provisions of the 72 COLREGS without interfering with its special function as a naval ship . The intended effect of this rule is to warn mariners in waters where 72 COLREGS apply.
This rule is effective February 8, 2018 and is applicable beginning January 25, 2018.
Lieutenant Commander Kyle Fralick, (Admiralty and Maritime Law), Office of the Judge Advocate General, Department of the Navy, 1322 Patterson Ave. SE, Suite 3000, Washington Navy Yard, DC 20374-5066, telephone 202-685-5040.
Pursuant to the authority granted in 33 U.S.C. 1605, the DoN amends 32 CFR part 706.
This amendment provides notice that the DAJAG (Admiralty and Maritime Law), under authority delegated by the secretary of the Navy, has certified that USS THOMAS HUDNER (DDG 116) is a vessel of the Navy which, due to its special construction and purpose, cannot fully comply with the following specific provisions of 72 COLREGS without interfering with its special function as a naval ship: Annex I, paragraph 2(f)(i), pertaining to the placement of the masthead light or lights above and clear of all other lights and obstructions; Annex I, paragraph 2(f) (ii), pertaining to the vertical placement of task lights; Rule 23(a), the requirement to display a forward and aft masthead light underway, and Annex I, paragraph 3(a), pertaining to the location of the forward masthead light in the forward quarter of the ship, and the horizontal distance between the forward and after masthead lights; and Annex I, paragraph 3(c), pertaining to placement of task lights not less than two meters from the fore and aft centerline of the ship in the athwartship direction. The DAJAG (Admiralty and Maritime Law) has also certified that the lights involved are located in closest possible compliance with the applicable 72 COLREGS requirements.
Moreover, it has been determined, in accordance with 32 CFR parts 296 and 701, that publication of this amendment for public comment prior to adoption is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to public interest since it is based on technical findings that the placement of lights on this vessel in a manner differently from that prescribed herein will adversely affect the vessel's ability to perform its military functions.
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Vessels.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the DoN amends part 706 of title 32 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1605.
The additions read as follows:
15. * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing a finding of attainment by the attainment date and a clean data determination (CDD) for the Oakridge-Westfir (Oakridge), Oregon fine particulate matter nonattainment area (Oakridge NAA). The finding is based upon quality-assured, quality-controlled, and certified ambient air monitoring data showing the area has monitored attainment of the 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter (PM
The EPA is also finalizing approval of the revisions to Oregon's State Implementation Plan (SIP) consisting of the updated Oakridge-Westfir PM
This final rule is effective March 12, 2018.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2017-0051. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Christi Duboiski at (360) 753-9081,
Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.
On October 21, 2016, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized a partial approval and partial disapproval of the 2012 Oakridge Attainment Plan (81 FR 72714) which started a sanction clock for the imposition of offset sanctions and highway sanctions, 18 months and 24 months respectively, after the November 21, 2016 effective date, pursuant to section 179(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and our regulations at 40 CFR 52.31. In addition to sanctions, the EPA is required to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) no later than two years from the date of the finding if the deficiency has not been corrected within that time period.
On January 20, 2017, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) submitted the Oakridge Update to correct the deficiencies identified in the 2012 Oakridge Attainment Plan. On November 14, 2017, (82 FR 52683) the EPA proposed to approve the finding of attainment by the attainment date, the clean data determination (CDD) for the Oakridge-Westfir (Oakridge), Oregon fine particulate matter nonattainment area (Oakridge NAA), and the Oregon's State Implementation Plan (SIP) consisting of the updated Oakridge-Westfir PM
The EPA believes the Oakridge Update corrects the deficiencies identified in our October 21, 2016, partial approval and partial disapproval action. Therefore, we are taking final action to make an attainment finding and approve the Oakridge Update as discussed in our notice of proposed rulemaking, and all sanctions and sanction clocks related to the 2012 Oakridge Attainment Plan, partial approval and partial disapproval action will be permanently terminated on the effective date of this final approval. The public comment period for the proposed rule ended on December 14, 2017. The EPA received no comments on the proposal.
Neither the finding of attainment by the attainment date nor CDD is equivalent to the redesignation of the area to attainment. This action does not constitute a redesignation to attainment under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, because the state must have an approved maintenance plan for the area as required under section 175A of the CAA, and a determination that the area has met the other requirements for redesignation in order to be redesignated to attainment. The designation status of the area will remain nonattainment for the 2006 PM
The EPA is finalizing approval of the following items:
• The determination that the Oakridge area attained the 2006 24-hour PM
• The Oakridge NAA achieved a clean data determination (CDD) in accordance with the EPA's clean data policy.
• The Oakridge Update as meeting the requirements of section 110(k) of the CAA. Specifically, the EPA has determined the Oakridge Update meets the substantive statutory and regulatory requirements for base year and projected emissions inventories for the nonattainment area, and an attainment demonstration with modeling analysis and imposition of RACM/RACT level emission controls, RFP plan, QMs, and contingency measures.
• The EPA is approving, and incorporating by reference, the following sections in the City of Oakridge Ordinance 920: Section 1 Definitions; Section 2(1) Curtailment; Section 2(2) Prohibited materials; Section 3 Solid Fuel Burning Devices Upon Sale of the Property; Section 4 Solid Fuel Burning Devices Prohibited; Section 5 Solid Fuel Burning Devices Exemptions; Section 7 Contingency Measures.
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 regulations 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 CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
• 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 the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The 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 April 9, 2018. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
For the reasons stated in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The additions read as follows:
(c) * * *
(e) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving state implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of West Virginia. These revisions pertain to two West Virginia regulations that established trading programs under the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). The EPA-administered trading programs under CAIR were discontinued on December 31, 2014 upon the implementation of the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), which was promulgated by EPA to replace CAIR. CSAPR established federal trading programs for sources in multiple states, including West Virginia, that replace the CAIR state and federal trading programs. The submitted SIP revisions request removal of state regulations that implemented the CAIR annual nitrogen oxide (NO
This final rule is effective on March 12, 2018.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0574. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Marilyn Powers, (215) 814-2308, or by email at
In 2005, EPA promulgated CAIR (70 FR 25162, May 12, 2005) to address transported emissions that significantly contributed to downwind states' nonattainment and interfered with maintenance of the 1997 ozone and fine particulate matter (PM
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) initially vacated CAIR in 2008, but ultimately remanded the rule to EPA without vacatur to preserve the environmental benefits provided by CAIR.
On August 8, 2011 (76 FR 48208), acting on the D.C. Circuit's remand, EPA promulgated CSAPR to replace CAIR in order to address the interstate transport of emissions contributing to nonattainment and interfering with maintenance of the two air quality standards covered by CAIR as well as the 2006 PM
Throughout the initial round of D.C. Circuit proceedings and the ensuing Supreme Court proceedings, the stay on CSAPR remained in place, and EPA continued to implement CAIR. Following the April 2014 Supreme Court decision, EPA filed a motion asking the D.C. Circuit to lift the stay in order to allow CSAPR to replace CAIR in an equitable and orderly manner while further D.C. Circuit proceedings were held to resolve remaining claims from petitioners.
Additionally, EPA's motion requested delay, by three years, of all CSAPR compliance deadlines that had not passed as of the approval date of the stay. On October 23, 2014, the D.C. Circuit granted EPA's request, and on December 3, 2014 (79 FR 71663), in an interim final rule, EPA set the updated effective date of CSAPR as January 1, 2015 and delayed the implementation of CSAPR Phase I to 2015 and CSAPR Phase 2 to 2017. In accordance with the interim final rule, EPA stopped administering the CAIR state and federal trading programs with respect to emissions occurring after December 31, 2014, and EPA began implementing CSAPR on January 1, 2015.
In October 2016, EPA promulgated the CSAPR Update (81 FR 74504, Oct. 26, 2016). In the CSAPR Update, EPA responded to the remand of West Virginia's Phase 2 ozone season NO
As noted above, starting in January 2015, the CSAPR federal trading programs for annual NO
On July 13, 2016, the State of West Virginia, through the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP), submitted three SIP revisions requesting EPA to remove from its SIP three regulations that implemented the CAIR state trading programs: Regulation 45CSR39—Control of Annual Nitrogen Oxides Emissions, Regulation 45CSR40—Control of Ozone Season Nitrogen Oxides Emissions, and Regulation 45CSR41—Control of Annual Sulfur Dioxide Emissions. On September 25, 2017 (41 FR 44525), EPA published a direct final rulemaking notice (DFRN) for the State of West Virginia. In the DFRN, EPA approved the West Virginia SIP submittals requesting removal of Regulation 45CSR39 and Regulation 45CSR41 from the West Virginia SIP, and explained that it would take separate action on Regulation 45CSR40 at a future date. On the same date (41 FR 44544), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the removal action. EPA published the DFRN without prior proposal because the Agency viewed the submittals as noncontroversial and anticipated no adverse comments. EPA explained that if adverse comments were received during the comment period, the DFRN would be withdrawn and all public comments received would be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the September 25, 2017 proposed rule. EPA received an adverse comment, and on December 12, 2017 (82 FR 58341), withdrew the DFRN.
WVDEP submitted two SIP revisions on July 13, 2016 that requested the removal from the West Virginia SIP of the State's regulations (45CSR39 and 45CSR41) which implemented respectively West Virginia's state CAIR annual NO
One commenter submitted two comments on the proposed approval of WVDEP's July 13, 2016 submittals requesting removal of Regulations 45CSR39 and 45CSR41 from the West Virginia SIP.
EPA is approving the two July 13, 2016 West Virginia SIP revision submissions which seek removal from the West Virginia SIP of Regulation 45CSR39 that implemented the CAIR annual NO
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866.
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule removing West Virginia regulations 45CSR39 and 45CSR41 from the West Virginia SIP does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 9, 2018. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action removing West Virginia regulations 45CSR39 and 45CSR41 may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Issuance and withdrawal of guidance memorandums.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is notifying the public that it has issued the guidance memorandum titled “Reclassification of Major Sources as Area Sources Under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act”. The EPA is also withdrawing the memorandum titled “Potential to Emit for MACT Standards—Guidance on Timing Issues.”
Effective on February 8, 2018.
You may view this guidance memorandum electronically at:
Ms. Elineth Torres or Ms. Debra Dalcher, Policy and Strategies Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D205-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number: (919) 541-4347 or (919) 541-2443, respectively; and email address:
On January 25, 2018, the EPA issued a guidance memorandum that addresses the question of when a major source subject to a maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standard under CAA section 112 may be reclassified as an area source, and thereby avoid being subject thereafter to major source MACT and other requirements applicable to major sources under CAA section 112. As is explained in the memorandum, the plain language of the definitions of “major source” in CAA section 112(a)(1) and of “area source” in CAA section 112(a)(2) compels the conclusion that a major source becomes an area source at such time that the source takes an enforceable limit on its potential to emit (PTE) hazardous air pollutants (HAP) below the major source thresholds (
A prior EPA guidance memorandum had taken a different position.
The guidance signed on January 25, 2018, supersedes that which was contained in the May 1995 Seitz Memorandum.
The EPA anticipates that it will soon publish a
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) eliminates rules that have been made obsolete by the digital television transition.
These rule revisions are effective on February 8, 2018.
For additional information on this proceeding, contact Raelynn Remy of the Policy Division, Media Bureau at
This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order (Order), FCC 18-3, adopted and released on January 24, 2018. The full text is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. This document will also be available via ECFS at
This document does not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002.
1. In this Order, we make non-substantive, editorial revisions to parts 27, 54, 73, 74, and 76 of the Commission's rules as part of our continuing efforts to modernize our media regulations and eliminate unnecessary rules.
2. We delete rules that impose consumer notification and station interference protection obligations relating to the analog-to-digital transition for full power television broadcast stations (DTV transition), which concluded on June 12, 2009. In particular, we delete §§ 27.20, 54.418, 73.616(a) and the accompanying Note, 73.674, 73.3526(e)(11)(iv), 73.3527(e)(13) and 76.1630 of the Commission's rules, which are without current legal effect and obsolete. We also delete the Note to § 73.625(a)(1), which sets forth outdated DTV principal community coverage minimum field strength requirements applicable to certain television broadcast licensees.
3. In addition, we delete rules that were adopted in conjunction with full power analog television broadcasting, which is no longer permitted. Specifically, we delete §§ 73.607, 73.610, 73.611, 73.671(d), 73.6011, 73.6016, and 74.705 of the Commission's rules, which are without current legal effect and obsolete. In addition, we amend § 73.606 of our rules by deleting the Table of Allotments applicable to full power analog television broadcast service and cross-referencing § 73.622(i), which sets forth the Post-Transition Table of DTV Allotments and is the “successor regulation” to § 73.606.
4. The rule revisions adopted in this Order are non-substantive, editorial revisions. Because these revisions merely eliminate provisions that are no longer effective and thus obsolete, we find good cause to conclude that notice and comment procedures are unnecessary and would not serve any useful purpose. For the same reason, and to expedite the elimination of such obsolete references for the benefit of the public, we find good cause to make these rule revisions effective upon publication in the
5. Because these rule changes do not require notice and comment, the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply.
6. The Commission will send a copy of the Order in a report to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.
7. Accordingly,
Communications, Communications common carriers, Telecommunications.
Communications, Television.
Cable television, Communications, Television.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 27, 54, 73, 74, and 76 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302a, 303, 307, 309, 332, 336, 337, 1403, 1404, 1451, and 1452, unless otherwise noted.
47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 155, 201, 205, 214, 219, 220, 254, 303(r), 403, and 1302 unless otherwise noted.
47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 309, 310, 334, 336, and 339.
The table of allotments set forth in § 73.622(i) contains the channels designated for the listed communities in the United States, its Territories, and possessions. Channels designated with an asterisk are assigned for use by noncommercial educational broadcast stations only.
47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, 307, 309, 310, 336 and 554.
47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154, 301, 302, 302a, 303, 303a, 307, 308, 309, 312, 315, 317, 325, 338, 339, 340, 341, 503, 521, 522, 531, 532, 534, 535, 536, 537, 543, 544, 544a, 545, 548, 549, 552, 554, 556, 558, 560, 561, 571, 572, 573.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
Upon application from the United States Air Force (USAF), 96th Civil Engineer Group/Environmental Planning Office (96 CEG/CEIEA) at Eglin Air Force Base (hereafter referred to as Eglin AFB), NMFS is issuing regulations under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) for the taking of marine mammals incidental to conducting testing and training activities in the Eglin Gulf Test and Training Range (EGTTR) in the Gulf of Mexico over the course of five years. These regulations allow NMFS to issue a Letter of Authorization (LOA) for the incidental take of marine mammals during the specified testing and training activities carried out during the rule's period of effectiveness, set forth the permissible methods of taking, set forth other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat, and set forth requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of the incidental take. The specific activities are classified as military readiness activities.
Effective February 13, 2018 through February 12, 2023.
To obtain an electronic copy of the USAF 96 CEG/CEIEA's LOA application or other referenced documents, visit the internet at:
Rob Pauline, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
A copy of the 96 CEG/CEIEA's application, NMFS proposed rule (82 FR 61372; December 27, 2017), the USAF's
Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(A)) directs the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region for up to five years if, after notice and public comment, the agency makes certain findings and issues regulations that set forth permissible methods of taking pursuant to that activity, as well as monitoring and reporting requirements. Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA and the implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 216, subpart I provide the legal basis for issuing this rule and any subsequent LOA pursuant to those regulations. As directed by this legal authority, this final rule contains mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements.
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the Secretary sets forth permissible methods of taking and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on the species or stock and its habitat. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.”
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Section 319, Pub. L. 108-136, November 24, 2003) (NDAA of 2004) removed the “small numbers” and “specified geographical region” limitations indicated earlier and amended the definition of harassment as it applies to a “military readiness activity” to read as follows (Section 3(18)(B) of the MMPA, 16 U.S.C. 1362(18)(B)): (i) Any act that injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A Harassment); or (ii) any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly altered (Level B Harassment).
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
Accordingly, NMFS has adopted the USAF's
On September 16, 2015, NMFS received a request for regulations from Eglin AFB for the taking of marine mammals incidental to testing and training activities in the EGTTR (defined as the area and airspace over the Gulf of Mexico controlled by Eglin AFB, beginning at a point three nautical miles (NM) off the coast of Florida) for a period of five years. Eglin AFB worked with NMFS to revise the model used to calculate take estimates and submitted a revised application on April 15, 2017. The application was considered adequate and complete on October 30, 2017.
On August 24, 2017, we published a notice of receipt of Eglin AFB's application in the
NMFS previously issued incidental take authorizations for activities taking place in the EGTTR. On April 23, 2012, NMFS promulgated rulemaking and issued an LOA for takes of marine mammals incidental to Eglin AFB's Naval Explosive Ordnance Disposal School (NEODS) training operations at Eglin AFB. This rule expired on April 24, 2017 (77 FR 16718; March 22, 2012). On March 5, 2014, NMFS promulgated rulemaking and issued an LOA for takes of marine mammals incidental to Eglin AFB's Special Operations Command (AFSOC) precision strike weapons (PSW) and air-to-surface (AS) gunnery activities in the EGTTR, which is valid through March 4, 2019 (79 FR 13568; March 11, 2014). In addition to these rules and LOAs, NMFS has issued Incidental Harassment Authorizations (IHA) for take of marine mammals incidental to Eglin AFB's Maritime Strike Operations (78 FR 52135; August 22, 2013; valid August 19, 2013 through August 18, 2014) and Maritime Weapons Systems Evaluations Program (WSEP) annually in 2015 (80 FR 17394), 2016 (81 FR 7307), and 2017 (82 FR 10747) which currently expires on February 3, 2018. Eglin AFB complied with all conditions of the LOAs and IHAs issued, including submission of final reports. Information regarding their monitoring results may be found in the Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals and their Habitat section. Based on these reports, NMFS has determined that impacts to marine mammals were not beyond those anticipated. Eglin AFB's current LOA would supersede the existing PSW and AS gunnery rule that is in effect until March 4, 2019, and would include all of Eglin AFB's testing and training activities, including WSEP activities, into one new rule with the exception of NEODS training activities. Eglin AFB has never conducted any NEODS training activities and is not including these activities as part of the new rulemaking.
Following is a summary of some of the major provisions applicable to Eglin AFB's Testing and training missions in the EGTTR. We have determined that Eglin AFB's adherence to the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures included in this rule would achieve the least practicable adverse impact on the affected marine mammals. The provisions, which are generally designed to minimize the duration and total volume of explosive detonations, include:
• Monitoring will be conducted by personnel who have completed Eglin's Marine Species Observer Training Course, which was developed in cooperation with the National Marine Fisheries Service;
• For each live mission, at a minimum, pre- and post-mission monitoring will be required. Monitoring will be conducted from a given platform depending on the specific mission. The purposes of pre-mission monitoring are to (1) evaluate the mission site for environmental suitability and (2) verify that the zone of influence (ZOI) is free of visually detectable marine mammals and potential marine mammal indicators. Post-mission monitoring is designed to determine the effectiveness of pre-mission mitigation by reporting sightings of any dead or injured marine mammals;
• Mission delay will be implemented during live ordnance mission activities if protected species, large schools of fish, or large flocks of birds are observed feeding at the surface within the ZOI. Mission activities may not resume until the animals are observed moving away from the ZOI or 30 minutes have passed;
• Mission delay will be implemented if daytime weather and/or sea conditions preclude adequate monitoring for detecting marine mammals and other marine life. EGTTR missions may not resume until adequate sea conditions exist for monitoring;
• If unauthorized takes of marine mammals (
• Aerial-based monitoring will be employed which provides an excellent viewing platform for detection of marine mammals at or near the surface;
• Video-based monitoring via live high-definition video feed will be employed which facilitates data collection for the mission but can also allow remote viewing of the area for determination of environmental conditions and the presence of marine species up to the release time of live munitions;
• Vessel-based monitoring will be employed; and
• Ramp-up procedures will be implemented during gunnery operations.
The proposed rule (82 FR 61372; December 27, 2017) and the 96 CEG/CEIEA's EA include a complete description of the USAF's specified training activities for which NMFS is authorizing incidental take of marine mammals in this final rule. Surface and sub-surface detonations are the stressors most likely to result in impacts on marine mammals that could rise to the level of harassment. The aforementioned documents can be found at
Eglin AFB will conduct military aircraft missions within the EGTTR that involve the employment of multiple types of live (explosive) and inert (non-explosive) munitions against various surface targets. Munitions may be delivered by multiple types of aircraft including, but not limited to, fighter jets, bombers, and gunships. Munitions consist of bombs, missiles, rockets, and gunnery rounds. The targets may vary, but primarily consist of stationary, towed, or remotely controlled boats, inflatable targets, or marking flares. Detonations may occur in the air, at the water surface, or approximately 10 feet (ft) below the surface. Absent mitigation, mission activities planned in the EGTTR have the potential to expose cetaceans to sound or pressure levels
Testing and training missions would be conducted during any time of the year. Missions that involve inert munitions and in-air detonations may occur anywhere in the EGTTR. Aside from gunnery operations, mission activities that release live ordnance resulting in surface or subsurface detonations would be conducted at a pre-determined location approximately 17 miles offshore of Santa Rosa Island, in a water depth of about 35 meters (m) (115 ft).
All activities will take place within the EGTTR, which is defined as the airspace over the Gulf of Mexico controlled by Eglin AFB, beginning at a point 3 NM from shore. The EGTTR is subdivided into blocks consisting of Warning Areas W-155, W-151, W-470, W-168, and W-174, as well as Eglin Water Test Areas 1 through 6 (See Figure 1-2 in Application). Most of the blocks are further sub-divided into smaller airspace units for scheduling purposes (for example, W-151A, B, C, and D). However, most of the activities will occur in W-151, and the great majority will occur specifically in sub-area W-151A due to its proximity to shore (Figure 1-3 in Application). Descriptive information for all of W-151 and for W-151A specifically is provided below.
Eglin AFB plans to conduct the following actions in the EGTTR: (1) 86th Fighter Weapons Squadron (86 FWS) Maritime Weapons System Evaluation Program (WSEP) test missions that involve the use of multiple types of live and inert munitions (bombs and missiles) detonated above, at, or slightly below the water surface; (2) Advanced Systems Employment Project actions that involve deployment of a variety of pods, air-to-air missiles, bombs, and other munitions (all inert ordnances in relation to EGTTR); (3) Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) training, including air-to-surface gunnery missions involving firing live gunnery rounds at targets on the water surface in EGTTR, small diameter bomb (SDB) and Griffin/Hellfire missile training involving the use of live missiles and SDBs in the EGTTR against small towed boats, and CV-22 tiltrotor aircraft training involving the firing of 0.50 caliber (cal.)/7.62 mm ammunition at flares floating on the EGTTR water surface; (4) 413th Flight Test Squadron (FLTS) Precision Strike Program (PSP) activities involving firing munitions at flare targets on the EGTTR water surface and Stand-Off Precision Guided Munitions (SOPGM) testing involving captive-carry, store separation, and weapon employment tests; (5) 780th Test Squadron (TS) activities involving precision strike weapon (PSW) test missions (launch of munitions against targets in the EGTTR) and Longbow Littoral Testing (data collection on tracking and impact ability of the Longbow missile on small boats); (6) 96th Test Wing Inert Missions (developmental testing and evaluation for wide variety of air-delivered weapons and other systems using inert bombs); and (7) 96 Operations Group (OG) missions, which involve the support of air-to-surface missions for several user groups within EGTTR.
During these activities, ordnances may be delivered by multiple types of aircraft, including bombers and fighter aircraft. The actions include air-to-ground missiles (AGM); air intercept missiles (AIM); bomb dummy units (BDU); guided bomb units (GBU); projectile gun units (PGU); cluster bomb units (CBU); wind-corrected munitions dispensers (WCMD); small-diameter bombs (SDB) and laser small diameter bombs (LSDB); high explosive incendiary units (HEI); joint direct attack munitions (JDAM) and laser joint direct attack munitions (LJDAM); research department explosives (RDX); joint air-to-surface stand-off missiles (JASSM); high altitude anti-submarine warfare weapons (inert); high-speed maneuverable surface targets; and gunnery rounds. Net explosive weight (NEW) of the live munitions ranges from 0.1 to 945 pounds (lb).
The EGTTR testing and training missions are classified as military readiness activities and involve the firing or dropping of air-to-surface weapons. Depending on the requirements of a given mission, munitions may be inert (contain no or very little explosive charges) or live (contain explosive charges). Live munitions may detonate above, at, or slightly below the water surface. In most cases, missions consisting of live bombs, missiles, and rockets that detonate at or below the water surface will occur at a site in W-151A that has been designated specifically for these types of activities. Typically, test data collection is conducted from an instrumentation barge known as the Gulf Range Armament Test Vessel (GRATV) anchored on-site, which provides a platform for cameras and weapon-tracking equipment. Therefore, the mission area is referred to as the GRATV target location. Alternative site locations may be selected, if necessary, within a 5-mile radius around the GRATV point. Missions that involve inert munitions and in-air detonations may occur anywhere in the EGTTR but are typically conducted in W-151.
For this LOA, descriptions of mission activities that involve in-water detonations include a section called Mission-Day Categorization. This subsection describes the mission-day scenario used for acoustic modeling and is based on the estimated number of weapons released per day. This approach is meant to satisfy NMFS' requests to analyze and assess acoustic impacts associated with accumulated energy from multiple detonations occurring over a 24-hour timeframe. Eglin AFB used all available information to develop each mission-day scenario, including historical release records; however, these scenarios may not represent exact weapon releases because military needs and requirements are in a constant state of flux. The mission-day categorizations provide high-, medium-, and low-intensity mission-day scenarios for some groups and an average scenario for other groups. Mission-day scenarios vary for each user group and are described in the following sections.
Note that additional testing and training activities are planned for the EGTTR that will not result in any acoustic impacts to marine mammals and, therefore, not require any acoustic analyses. Examples include the firing of 0.50 caliber and 7.62 gunnery rounds that do not contain explosives, use of airburst-only detonations, and operations involving simulated weapons delivery. Those activities are described in detail in the Application but are not discussed here.
The 86 FWS would continue to use multiple types of live and inert munitions in the EGTTR against small boat targets for the Maritime WSEP Operational Testing Program. The purpose of the testing is to continue the development of tactics, techniques and procedures (TTP) for USAF strike aircraft to counter small maneuvering surface vessels in order to better protect vessels or other assets from small boat threats.
Proposed aircraft and munitions associated with Maritime WSEP activities are shown in Table 1. Because the focus of the tests would be weapon/target interaction, no particular aircraft would be specified for a given test as long as it met the delivery requirements.
Live munitions would be set to detonate either in the air, instantaneously upon contact with a target boat, or after a slight delay (up to 10 millisecond) after impact, which would correspond to a water depth of about 5 to 10 ft. The annual number, height or depth of detonation, explosive material, and net explosive weight (NEW) of each live munition associated with Maritime WSEP is provided in Table 2. The quantity of live munitions tested is considered necessary to provide the intended level of tactics and weapons evaluation, including a number of replicate tests sufficient for an acceptable confidence level regarding munitions capabilities.
Mission-day categorizations of weapon releases listed in Table 3 were developed based on historical mission data, project engineer input, and future Maritime WSEP requirements. Categories of missions were grouped first using historical weapon releases per day (refer to Maritime Strike and Maritime WSEP annual reports for 2015 and 2016). Next, the most recent weapons evaluation needs and requirements were considered to develop three different scenarios: Categories A, B, and C. Mission-day Category A represents munitions with larger NEW (192 to 945 pounds) with both surface and subsurface detonations. This category includes future requirements and provides flexibility for the military mission. To date, Category A levels of activity have not been conducted under the 86 FWS Maritime WSEP missions and is considered a worst-case scenario. Category B represents munitions with medium levels of NEW (20 to 86 pounds) including surface and subsurface detonations. Category B was developed using actual levels of weapon releases during Maritime WSEP missions (refer to Maritime WSEP annual reports for 2015 and 2016). Category C represents munitions with smaller NEW (0.1 to 13 pounds) and includes surface detonations only.
The planned Advanced Systems Employment Project (ASEP) action includes evaluating upgrades to numerous research and development, as well as USAF hardware and software, initiatives. F16, F15E, and BAC1-11 aircraft would be used to deploy a variety of pods, air-to-air missiles, bombs, and other munitions. Many of the missions are conducted over Eglin land ranges. However, inert instrumented MK-84 Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) bombs would be expended in W-151 under the planned action. Bombs would be dropped on target boats located 20 to 25 miles offshore. A maximum of 12 over-water missions could be conducted annually, although the number could be as low as 4. There would be no live ordnance associated with ASEP actions in the EGTTR.
The USAF Special Operations Command (AFSOC) conducts various training activities with multiple types of munitions in nearshore waters of the EGTTR (W-151). Training activities include air-to-surface gunnery and small diameter bomb/Griffin/Hellfire missile proficiency training. The following subsections describe the planned actions included in Eglin AFB's LOA request.
Air-to-surface gunnery missions involve firing of live gunnery rounds from the AC-130 aircraft at targets on the water surface in the EGTTR.
After target deployment, the firing sequence is initiated. A typical gunship mission lasts approximately five hours without air-to-air refueling, and six hours when refueling is accomplished. A typical mission includes 1.5 to 2 hours of live fire. This time includes clearing the area and transiting to and from the range. Actual firing activities typically do not exceed 30 minutes. The number and type of munitions deployed during a mission varies with each type of mission flown. The 105-mm TR variants are used during nighttime training. Live fire events are continuous, with pauses during the firing usually well under a minute and rarely from two to five minutes.
Gunnery missions could occur any season of year, during daytime or nighttime hours. The quantity of live rounds expended is based on estimates provided by AFSOC regarding the annual number of missions and number of rounds per mission. The 105 mm FU rounds would typically be used during daytime missions, while the 105 mm TR variants would be used at night.
On March 5, 2014, NMFS issued a 5-year LOA in accordance with the MMPA for AFSOC's air-to-surface gunnery activities which is currently valid through March 4, 2019. This LOA request would supersede that authorization for AC-130 air-to-surface gunnery activities for another five years (2018-2023); it incorporates the updated approach to analysis requested by NMFS. No significant changes to these mission activities are anticipated in the foreseeable future. Table 4 shows the annual number of missions and gunnery rounds currently authorized under the existing LOA which will be carried forward for this LOA request.
Two mission-day scenarios were developed to represent the average number of gunnery rounds expended during daytime and nighttime AC-130 air-to-surface gunnery missions; category D for daytime missions and category E for nighttime missions. The mission-day scenarios developed for AC-130 air-to-surface gunnery missions are shown in Table 5.
The United States Special Operations Command (SOCOM) has requested the 413th Flight Test Squadron (413 FLTS) to demonstrate the feasibility and capability of the Precision Strike Package and the Stand-Off Precision Guided Munitions (SOPGM) missile system on the AC-130 aircraft. SOCOM, in conjunction with A3 Operations at Wright-Patterson AFB, is fielding the new AC-130J for flight characterization, as well as testing and evaluation. AFSOC is integrating some of the same weapons on the AC-130W. Therefore, the activities described below for the 413 FLTS may involve either of these aircraft variants.
413 FLTS mission day scenarios were developed based on the number of mission days planned annually. Up to eleven mission days are planned for 413 FLTS operations annually. The total number of munitions were averaged over each day and are shown in Table 6. All missions would be conducted shoreward of the continental shelf break/200 m isobath as shown in Figure 1-7 in the Application).
Stand off precision guided missiles (SOPGMs) are planned for use in testing feasibility of these missiles on AC-130 aircraft. Weapon employment missions would be flown using any combination of inert and/or live weapons for a final end-to-end check of the system. Table 7 shows the mission-day scenarios and annual number of munitions expended annually for SOPGM testing. The 413 FLTS provided the number of munitions required over a span of four years. The numbers in the table represent the average per year (total number of munitions divided by four).
Testing activities conducted by the 780th Test Squadron (780 TS) include Precision Strike Weapon, Longbow missile littoral testing, and several other various future actions.
The U.S. Air Force Life Cycle Management Center and U.S. Navy, in cooperation with the 780 TS, conducts Precision Strike Weapon (PSW) test missions utilizing resources within the Eglin Military Complex, including sites in the EGTTR. The weapons used in testing are the AGM-158 A and B (Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM), and the GBU-39/B (SDB I). PSW munitions are shown in Table 8.
In addition to the above description, future (Phase 2) testing of the SDB is planned by the Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center (AFOTEC) as shown in Table 9.
The 780 TS/OGMT missions have been categorized based on the number of weapons released per day, assuming three mission days are planned annually. Representative mission days are shown in Table 10.
The 780 TS plans to conduct other various testing activities that involve targets on the water surface in the EGTTR. Many of the missions would target small boats or barges. Weapons would primarily be delivered by aircraft, although a rail gun would be used for one test. Live warheads would be used for some missions, while others would involve inert warheads with a live fuse (typically contains a very small NEW). Total future munitions for 780 TS are listed in Table 11.
The 780 TS/OGMT future missions primarily consist of one-day test events for each type of munition. Inert munitions and munitions being detonated as airbursts were not included in the development of these scenarios because no in-water acoustic impacts are anticipated. Therefore representative mission days were developed for live munitions resulting in surface detonations, as shown in Table 12.
The 96 Operations Group (OG), which conducts the 96 TW's primary missions of developmental testing and evaluation of conventional munitions, and command and control systems, anticipates support of air-to-surface missions for several user groups on an infrequent basis. As the organization that oversees all users of Eglin ranges, they have the authority to approve new missions that could be conducted in the EGTTR. Specific details on mission descriptions under this category have not been determined, as this is meant to capture future unknown activities. Sub-surface detonations would be at 5 to 10 ft below the surface. Projected annual munitions expenditures and detonation scenarios are listed in Table 13.
The 96 OG future missions have been categorized based on the number of weapons released per day, instead of treating each weapon release as a separate event. This approach is meant to satisfy NMFS requests for analysis and modeling of accumulated energy from multiple detonations over a 24-hour timeframe. Eglin AFB used all available information to determine these daily estimates, including historic release reports; however, these scenarios may not represent exact weapon releases because military needs and requirements are in a constant state of flux. The mission day scenarios for 96 OG annually are shown in Table 14.
Categories of missions for 96 OG were grouped (similar to Maritime WSEP) first using historical weapon releases per day. Next, the most recent weapons evaluation needs and requirements were considered to develop three different
Planned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are described in detail later in this document (please see Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting).
A notice of receipt of Eglin AFB's application published in the
Even if vocalization data were able to be collected in real time in order to determine presence/absence of marine mammals, a decision to delay or stop a mission without knowing where the animals are in relation to the hydrophones and weapon impact location further contributes to the operational constraints for implementing PAM as mitigation. A vocalizing marine mammal could be detected by the hydrophone while outside any zones of impact. Furthermore, the time it would take to collect and transmit vocalization data to remote computers, run the software to localize vocalizations and estimate the location of the animals has not been tested or verified. With high-priority military missions, the USAF cannot jeopardize Department of Defense objectives on unproven methods and unknown procedures. Therefore, a simplified presence/absence of vocalizations as mitigation strategy would not be considered appropriate for these mission activities. Based on other consultations associated with the 86 FWS for activities in Hawaii, where Navy range assets and expertise are far more developed than in the EGTTR, using PAM for real-time mitigation was determined to not be feasible because of the high level of uncertainty with localizing marine mammals using multiple hydrophones, and making mission-critical decisions to delay or cease activities.
The USAF is supportive of PAM and will conduct a NMFS-approved PAM study as an initial step towards understanding acoustic impacts from underwater detonations. However, given the level of success with current mitigation procedures and the high level of unknowns associated with implementing PAM as part of mitigation procedures for EGTTR activities, the USAF does not believe that using PAM as a real-time mitigation measure is practicable at this time.
After careful analysis, NMFS has determined that serious injury is unlikely to result from this activity.
There are 21 marine mammal species with potential or confirmed occurrence in the planned activity area. Not all of these species occur in this region during the project timeframe, or the likelihood of occurrence is very low. The “Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activities” section included in the proposed rule (82 FR 61372; December 12, 2018) and sections 3 and 4 of the USAF's application summarize available information regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and behavior and life history, of the potentially affected species. These descriptions have not changed and are incorporated here by reference. Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be found in NMFS' Stock Assessment Reports (SAR;
Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals underwater and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine mammals are able to hear. Current data indicate that not all marine mammal species have equal hearing capabilities (
• Low-frequency cetaceans (mysticetes): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 7 Hz and 35 kHz, with best hearing estimated to be from 100 Hz to 8 kHz;
• Mid-frequency cetaceans (larger toothed whales, beaked whales, and most delphinids): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz, with best hearing from 10 to less than 100 kHz;
• High-frequency cetaceans (porpoises, river dolphins, and members of the genera Kogia and Cephalorhynchus; including two members of the genus Lagenorhynchus, on the basis of recent echolocation data and genetic data): generalized hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 275 Hz and 160 kHz.
• Pinnipeds in water; Phocidae (true seals): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 50 Hz to 86 kHz, with best hearing between 1-50 kHz;
• Pinnipeds in water; Otariidae (eared seals): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur between 60 Hz and 39 kHz, with best hearing between 2-48 kHz.
The pinniped functional hearing group was modified from Southall
Two marine mammal species (common bottlenose and Atlantic spotted dolphins) have the reasonable potential to co-occur with the planned survey activities. Both species are classified as mid-frequency cetaceans.
In the
NMFS has previously issued IHAs and an LOA to cover mission activities in the EGTTR. For these missions, Eglin AFB conducted required monitoring activities and submitted monitoring reports. Between August 2013 and March 2014 nine maritime strike operations testing missions were conducted in the EGTTR and no takes were recorded. In calendar year 2014, ten air-to-surface (A-S) gunnery missions were conducted with no recorded takes. During 2015, eight A-S gunnery missions, and eight WSEP missions were conducted (only 4 of these missions used live munitions). No takes of protected species were recorded. For calendar year 2016, two air-to-surface (A-S) gunnery missions, eight WSEP missions, and two PSW missions were conducted with no takes recorded by observers. A report on 2017 EGTTR monitoring activities is currently under development.
While no mortality, injury or take of marine mammals was recorded during these exercises, animals were occasionally observed during pre-
This section provides the number of incidental takes, by stock, authorized through this final rule, which informs both NMFS' consideration of the negligible impact determination.
For this military readiness activity, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: (i) Any act that injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A Harassment); or (ii) Any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly altered (Level B Harassment).
Authorized takes would primarily be by Level B harassment, as use of explosive sources has the potential to result in disruption of behavioral patterns and TTS for individual marine mammals. There is also some potential for auditory injury and tissue damage (Level A harassment) to result. The planned mitigation and monitoring measures are expected to minimize the severity of such taking to the extent practicable. As described previously, no mortality is anticipated or authorized for this activity. Below we describe how the take is estimated.
Described in the most basic way, we estimate take by considering: (1) Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available science indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur some degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of water that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and, (4) and the number of days of activities. Below, we describe these components in more detail and present the authorized take estimate.
Based on the best available science, NMFS used the acoustic and pressure thresholds indicated in Table 16 to predict the onset of behavioral harassment, PTS, tissue damage, and mortality.
Using the best available science, NMFS has developed acoustic thresholds that identify the received level of underwater sound above which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur PTS of some degree (equated to Level A harassment). Thresholds have also been developed to identify the pressure levels above which animals may incur different types of tissue damage from exposure to pressure waves from explosive detonation.
The criteria and thresholds used to estimate potential pressure and energy impacts to marine mammals resulting from detonations were obtained from Finneran and Jenkins (2012). Criteria used to analyze impacts to marine mammals include mortality, harassment that causes or is likely to cause injury (Level A) and harassment that disrupts or is likely to disrupt natural behavior patterns (Level B). Each category is discussed below with additional details provided in Appendix A of the application.
Mortality risk assessment may be considered in terms of direct injury, which includes primary blast injury and barotrauma. The potential for direct injury of marine mammals has been inferred from terrestrial mammal experiments and from post-mortem examination of marine mammals believed to have been exposed to underwater explosions (Finneran and Jenkins, 2012; Ketten
Primary blast injuries result from the initial compression of a body exposed to a blast wave, and is usually limited to gas-containing structures (
Whereas a single mortality threshold was previously used in acoustic impacts analysis, species-specific thresholds are currently required. Thresholds are based on the level of impact that would cause extensive lung injury to one percent of exposed animals (
For the actions described in this LOA, two species are expected to occur within the EGTTR Study Area: The bottlenose dolphin and the Atlantic spotted dolphin. Finneran and Jenkins (2012) provide known or surrogate masses for newborn calves of several cetacean species. For the bottlenose dolphin, this value is 14 kilograms (kg) (31 pounds). Values are not provided for the Atlantic spotted dolphin and, therefore, a surrogate species, the striped dolphin (
Potential injuries that may occur to marine mammals include blast related injury: Gastrointestinal (GI) tract injury and slight lung injury, and irrecoverable auditory damage. These injury categories are all types of Level A harassment as defined in the MMPA.
Two categories of Level B harassment are currently recognized: temporary threshold shift (TTS) and behavioral impacts. Although TTS is a physiological impact, it is not considered injury because auditory structures are temporarily fatigued instead of being permanently damaged.
Behavioral impacts refer to disturbances that may occur at sound levels below those considered to cause TTS in marine mammals, particularly in cases of multiple detonations. During an activity with a series of explosions (not concurrent multiple explosions shown in a burst), an animal is expected to exhibit a startle reaction to the first detonation followed by a behavioral response after multiple detonations. At close ranges and high sound levels, avoidance of the area around the explosions is the assumed behavioral response in most cases. Other behavioral impacts may include decreased ability to feed, communicate, migrate, or reproduce, among others. Such effects, known as sub-TTS Level B harassment, are based on observations of behavioral reactions in captive dolphins and beluga whales exposed to pure tones, a different type of noise than that produced from an underwater detonation (Finneran and Schlundt, 2004; Schlundt
Table 16 outlines the explosive thresholds, based on the best available science, used by NMFS to predict the onset of disruption of natural behavior patterns, PTS, tissue damage, and mortality.
Bottlenose and Atlantic spotted dolphin density estimates used in this document were obtained from Duke University Marine Geospatial Ecology Lab Reports (Roberts
Two marine mammal density estimates were calculated for this LOA. One density estimate is considered a large-scale estimate and is used for missions that could occur anywhere in W-151A, shoreward of the 200-m isobath. The mission sets that utilize the entire W-151A area include AFSOC's Air-to-Surface Gunnery Training Operations and 413 FLTS's AC-130J Precision Strike Package Gunnery Testing (Scenarios D, E, F, G, and H). The other density estimate is considered a fine-scale estimate and is used for missions that are planned specifically around the GRATV target area. The mission sets that utilize the nearshore GRATV target location are 86th FWS Maritime WSEP, 413 FLTS AC-130J and AC-130W Stand-Off Precision Guided Munitions Testing, 780th TS Precision Strike Weapons, 780 TS/OGMT future missions, and 96th OG future missions (Scenarios A, B, C, and I through T). Using two different density estimates based on the mission locations accounts for the differences between inshore and offshore distribution of bottlenose and Atlantic spotted dolphins, and provides more realistic take calculations.
Raster data provided online from the Duke University Marine Geospatial Ecology Lab Report was imported into ArcGIS and overlaid onto the W-151A area. Density values for each species were provided in 10 x 10 km boxes. The large-scale estimates for W-151A were obtained by averaging the density values of these 100 km
Density estimates usually assume that animals are uniformly distributed within the prescribed area, even though this is likely rarely true. Marine mammals are often clumped in areas of greater importance, for example, in areas of high productivity, lower predation, safe calving, etc. Furthermore, assuming that marine mammals are distributed evenly within the water column does not accurately reflect behavior. Databases of behavioral and physiological parameters obtained through tagging and other technologies have demonstrated that marine animals use the water column in various ways. Some species conduct regular deep dives while others engage in much shallower dives, regardless of bottom depth. Assuming that all species are evenly distributed from surface to bottom can present a distorted view of marine mammal distribution in any region. Density is assumed to be two-dimensional, and exposure estimates are, therefore, simply calculated as the product of affected area, animal density, and number of events. The resulting exposure estimates are considered conservative, because all animals are presumed to be located at the same depth, where the maximum sound and pressure ranges would extend from detonations, and would, therefore, be exposed to the maximum amount of energy or pressure. In reality, it is highly likely that some portion of marine mammals present near the impact area at the time of detonation would be at various depths in the water column and not necessarily occur at the same depth corresponding to the maximum sound and pressure ranges.
A mission-day based analysis was utilized in order to model accumulated energy over a 24-hour timeframe where each mission-day scenario would be considered a separate event. As described previously, Eglin AFB developed multiple mission-day categories separated by mission groups and estimated the number of days each category would be executed annually. In total, there are 20 different mission-day scenarios included in the acoustic analysis Labeled A-T. Table 18 below summarizes the number of days each mission-day scenario, or event, would be conducted annually in the EGTTR.
Eglin AFB completed acoustic modeling to determine the distances from their explosive ordnance corresponding to NMFS' explosive thresholds. These distances were then used with each species' density to determine exposure estimates. Below is a summary of the methodology for those modeling efforts. Appendix A in the application provides additional details.
The maximum estimated range, or radius, from the detonation point to the point at which the various thresholds extend for all munitions planned to be released in a 24-hour time period was calculated based on explosive acoustic characteristics, sound propagation, and sound transmission loss in the EGTTR. Results are shown in Table 19. These calculations incorporated water depth, sediment type, wind speed, bathymetry, and temperature/salinity profiles. Transmission loss was calculated from the explosive source depth down to an array of water depth bins (0 to 160 m). Impact volumes were computed for each explosive source (based on the total number of munitions released on a representative mission day). The impact volume is a cylinder extending from surface to seafloor, centered at the sound source with a radius set equal to the maximum range, Rmx, across all depths and azimuths at which the particular metric is still above the threshold. The total energy for all weapons released as part of a representative mission day was calculated to assess impacts from the accumulated energy resulting from multiple weapon releases within a 24-hour period. The number of animals impacted is computed by multiplying the area of a circle with radius Rmax, by the original animal density given in animal per km
The ranges presented above were used to calculate the total area (circle) of the zones of influence for each criterion/threshold. To eliminate “double-counting” of animals, impact areas from higher impact categories (
Acoustic analysis results indicate the potential for injury and non-injurious harassment (including behavioral harassment) to marine mammals in the absence of mitigation measures. Mortality was calculated as one (1) for bottlenose dolphins and zero (0) for Atlantic spotted dolphin. However, the modeling is conservative and it did not include implementation of the mitigation and monitoring measures, and therefore we believe that mortality is unlikely. Further, the potential for Level A harassment takes would be significantly reduced. As such, NMFS is not authorizing any take due to mortality.
Animals from the Northern Gulf of Mexico stock of spotted dolphins and the Northern Gulf of Mexico Continental shelf stock of bottlenose dolphins are likely to be affected. There is also a chance that a limited number of bottlenose dolphins from the Gulf of Mexico Northern Coastal stock could be affected. Animals from this stock are known to occur in waters greater than 20 m in depth. Even though the 20 m isopleth delineates the stock's range, it is an artificial boundary used for management purposes and is not ecologically based. However, most of the bottlenose dolphins potentially affected would be part of the Northern Gulf of Mexico Continental shelf stock.
In order to issue an LOA under Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses (latter not applicable for this action).
The NDAA of 2004 amended the MMPA as it relates to military-readiness activities and the incidental take authorization process such that “least practicable adverse impact” shall include consideration of personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, we carefully consider two primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat. This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented (probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as planned) and the likelihood of effective implementation (probability of being implemented as planned); and
(2) the practicability of the measures for applicant implementation, which may consider such things as cost, impact on operations, and, in the case of a military readiness activity, personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
Eglin AFB will employ practicable and effective mitigation measures, which include a careful balancing of the likely benefit of any particular measure to the marine mammals with the likely effect of that measure on personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the military-readiness activity. Required mitigation measures include the following:
Monitoring will be conducted from a given platform depending on the specific mission. The purposes of pre-mission monitoring are to (1) evaluate the mission site for environmental suitability and (2) verify that the ZOI is free of visually detectable marine mammals and potential marine mammal indicators. USAF range clearing vessels and protected species survey vessels will be on-site at least two hours prior to the mission. Vessel-based surveys will begin approximately one and one-half hours prior to live weapon deployment. Surveys will continue for approximately one hour or until the entire ZOI has been adequately surveyed, whichever comes first. At approximately 30 minutes prior to live weapon deployment, marine species observers will be instructed to leave the mission site and remain outside the safety zone, which on average will be 15 miles from the detonation point.
The duration of pre-mission surveys will depend on the area required to be surveyed and survey platforms (vessels versus aircraft). All marine mammal sightings including the species (if possible), number, location, and behavior of the animals will be documented on report forms that will be submitted to Eglin AFB after each mission. Missions will be postponed, relocated, or cancelled based on the presence of protected species within the survey areas.
Post-mission monitoring is designed to determine the effectiveness of pre-mission mitigation by reporting sightings of any dead or injured marine mammals. Post-detonation monitoring surveys will commence once the mission has ended or, if required, as soon as the mission area is declared safe. Vessels will move into the survey area from outside the safety zone and monitor for at least 30 minutes. The duration of post-mission surveys will vary based on survey platform. Similar to pre-mission surveys, all sightings would be properly documented on report forms and submitted to Eglin AFB. Any marine mammals that are detected in the ZOI during post-mission surveys and for which takes are authorized will be counted as Level B takes. Furthermore, any marine mammal observed in the ZOI for which take is not authorized will be reported immediately to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS.
If any marine mammals are killed or injured as a result of the mission, Eglin AFB would be contacted immediately. Observers would document the species or description of the animal, location, and behavior and, if practicable, take pictures and maintain visual contact with the animal. Eglin AFB must notify the Director, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, or designee, by telephone (301-427-8401), and the Southeast Regional Office immediately and await further instructions or the arrival of a response team on-site, if feasible. Activities shall cease and not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take.
Visibility is also a critical factor for flight safety issues when aerial surveys are being conducted. Therefore, a minimum ceiling of 305 m (1,000 ft) and visibility of 5.6 km (3 nmi) is required to support monitoring efforts and flight safety concerns.
Some missions will be delayed to allow survey platforms to evacuate the human safety zone after pre-missions surveys are completed. For these delayed missions, Eglin proposes to include a buffer around the survey area that would extend to the TTS harassment zone for the corresponding mission-day scenario. This would double, and in some cases triple, the size of the survey area for the PTS zone. This buffer will mitigate for the potential that an animal outside the area during pre-mission surveys would enter the Level A harassment or mortality zones during a mission. However, missions that consist solely of gunnery testing and training operations will actually survey larger areas based on previously established safety profiles and the ability to conduct aerial surveys of large areas from mission aircraft. These ranges are shown in Table 22. Comparing the monitoring area below with behavioral harassment threshold radii for Atlantic spotted dolphins for mission-day categories D through H (between 0.4 km and 1.4 km (0.2 and 0.8 nmi)) shows that a much larger area will be covered by this monitoring procedure.
The largest type of ammunition used during gunnery missions is a 105-mm round, which contains 4.7 pounds of high explosive (HE). This is several times more HE than that found in the next largest round (40 mm). As a mitigation technique, the USAF developed a 105-mm TR that contains only 0.35 pounds of HE. The TR was developed to substantially reduce the risk of harassment during nighttime operations, when visual surveying for
Ramp-up procedures refer to the process of beginning with the least impactive action and proceeding to more impactive actions. In the case of gunnery activities, ramp-up procedures entail beginning a mission with the lowest caliber munition and proceeding to the highest, which means the munitions would be fired in the order of 25 mm, 40 mm, and 105 mm. The rationale for the procedure is that this process may allow marine species to perceive steadily increasing noise levels and to react, if necessary, before the noise reaches a threshold of significance.
If use of gunship weapons is interrupted for more than 10 minutes, Eglin AFB would be required to reinitiate applicable protected species surveys in the ZOI to ensure that no marine mammal species entered into the ZOI during that time.
The AC-130 gunship weapons are used in two phases. First, the guns are checked for functionality and calibrated. This step requires an abbreviated period of live fire. After the guns are determined ready for use, the aircraft deploys a flare onto the surface of the water as a target, and the mission proceeds under various test and training scenarios. This second phase involves a more extended period of live fire and can incorporate use of one or any combination of the munitions available (25-mm, 40-mm, and 105-mm rounds).
A ramp-up procedure will be required for the initial calibration phase and, after this phase, the guns may be fired in any order. Eglin AFB believes this process will allow marine species the opportunity to respond to increasing noise levels. If an animal leaves the area during ramp-up, it is unlikely to return during the live-fire mission. This protocol provides a more realistic training experience for aircrews. In combat situations, gunship crews would not necessarily fire the complete ammunition load of a given caliber gun before proceeding to another gun. Rather, a combination of guns might be used as required by real-time situations. An additional benefit of this protocol is that mechanical or ammunition problems with an individual gun can be resolved while live fire continues with functioning weapons. This diminishes the possibility of pause in live fire lasting 10 minutes or more, which would necessitate reinitiation of protected species surveys.
Based on our evaluation of Eglin AFB's planned measures, NMFS has determined that the mitigation measures provide the means effecting the least practicable impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, while also considering personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and the impact of effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
In order to issue an incidental take authorization for an activity, Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth, “requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.” The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the action area. Effective reporting is critical to compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the required monitoring.
Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
• Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area in which take is anticipated (
• Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment (
• Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;
• How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) populations, species, or stocks;
• Effects on marine mammal habitat (
• Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
The following monitoring options have been developed to support various types of air-to-surface mission activities that may be conducted in the EGTTR. Eglin AFB users covered by this LOA must meet specific test or training objectives and safety requirements and have different assets available to execute the pre- and post-mission surveys. The monitoring options and mitigation measures described in the subsections below balance all mission-essential parameters with measures that will support adequate protection to marine mammals. Monitors will search for any marine mammal, including species for which takes have been and have not been authorized. Monitors will be instructed to be extra vigilant in ensuring that species of concern, including the sperm whale (listed as endangered under the ESA) and Bryde's whale (proposed for listing under the ESA) are clear of the ZOI during testing and training activities.
Survey vessels will run pre-determined line transects, or survey routes, that will provide sufficient coverage of the survey area. Monitoring activities will be conducted from the highest point feasible on the vessels. There will be at least two dedicated observers on each vessel, and they will utilize optical equipment with sufficient magnification to allow observation of surfaced animals.
All sighting information from pre-mission surveys will be communicated to the Lead Biologist on a pre-determined radio channel to reduce overall radio chatter and potential confusion. After compiling all the sighting information from the other survey vessels, the Lead Biologist will inform Tower Control on Santa Rosa Island on whether the area is clear of
The Eglin Safety Officer, in cooperation with the Tower Control on Santa Rosa Island will coordinate and manage all range clearing efforts and be in direct communication with the survey vessel team, typically through the Lead Biologist. All support vessels will be in radio contact with one another and with Tower Control. The Safety Officer will monitor all radio communications, but Tower Control will relay messages between the vessels and the Safety Officer. The Safety Officer and Tower Control will also be in continual contact with the Test Director throughout the mission and will convey information regarding range clearing progress and protected species survey status. Final decisions regarding mission execution, including possible mission delay or cancellation based on protected species sightings or civilian boat traffic interference, will be the responsibility of the Safety Officer, with concurrence from the Test Director.
For non-mission aircraft, the pilot will be instructed in protected marine species survey techniques and will be familiar with marine species expected to occur in the area. One person in the aircraft will act as data recorder and is responsible for relaying the location, species (if possible), direction of movement, and number of animals sighted to the Lead Biologist. The aerial team will also identify protected species indicators such as large schools of fish and large, active groups of birds. Pilots will fly the aircraft in such a manner that the entire ZOI (and a buffer, if required) is monitored. Marine mammal sightings from the aerial survey team will be compiled by the Lead Biologist and communicated to the Test Director or Safety Officer. Similar to survey vessel requirements, all non-mission personnel will be required to exit the human safety zone before the mission can commence. As a result, the ZOI may not be monitored up to immediate deployment of live weapons. Due to this fact, the aerial team may be required to survey an additional buffer zone unless other monitoring assets, such as live video monitoring, can be employed.
Some mission aircraft have the capability to conduct aerial surveys immediately prior to releasing munitions. In those instances, aircrews that have completed the marine species observer training will make several passes over the target area to ensure the area is clear of all protected species. For mission aircraft in this category, aircrews will operate at reasonable and safe altitudes (dependent on the aircraft) appropriate to either visually scan the sea surface or utilize available instrumentation and sensors to detect protected species. Typical missions in this category are air-to-surface gunnery operations from AC-130 and CV-22 gunships. In some cases, other aerial platforms may be available to supplement monitoring activities for pre-mission surveys and during the missions.
The primary platform for video monitoring would be through the GRATV. Four video cameras are typically positioned on the GRATV (anchored on-site) to allow for real-time monitoring and data collection during the mission. The cameras will also be used to monitor for the presence of protected species. All cameras have a zoom capability of up to at least a 300-mm equivalent. At this setting, when targets are at a distance of 2 nmi from the GRATV, the field of view would be 195 ft by 146 ft. Video observers can detect an item with a minimum size of 1 square foot up to 4,000 m away. The GRATV will typically be located about 183 m (600 ft) from the target area; this range is well within the zooming capability of the video cameras.
Supplemental video monitoring can also be accomplished through the employment of additional aerial assets, when available. Eglin's aerostat balloon provides aerial imagery of weapon impacts and instrumentation relay. When utilized, it is tethered to a boat anchored near the GRATV but outside weapon impact areas. The balloon can be deployed to an altitude up to 2,000 ft above sea level. It is equipped with a high-definition camera system that is remotely controlled to pivot and focus on a specific target or location within the mission site. The video feed from the camera system is transmitted to CCF. Eglin may also employ other assets such as intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance aircraft to provide real-time imagery or relay targeting pod videos from mission aircraft. Unmanned aerial vehicles may also be employed to provide aerial video surveillance. While each of these platforms may not be available for all missions, they typically can be used in combination with each
Even with a variety of platforms potentially available to supply video feeds to CCF, the entire ZOI may not be visible for the entire duration of the mission. However, the targets and immediately surrounding areas will typically be in the field of view of the GRATV cameras and the observer will be able to identify any protected species that may enter the target area before weapon releases. In addition, the observer will be able to determine if any animals were injured immediately following the detonations. Should a protected marine species be detected on the live video, the weapon release can be stopped almost immediately because the video camera observer is in direct contact with Test Director and Safety Officer at CCF.
As previously described in the response to Comment #2, Eglin AFB and NMFS have discussed the possibility of employing PAM as a required mitigation measure during EGTTR activities. However, human safety concerns and the inability to make mission go/no-go decisions in a timely manner are the most immediate obstacles for Eglin AFB implementing real-time PAM during live weapon missions in the EGTTR.
As noted previously, Eglin's current boat and aerial pre- and post-mission visual surveys have been successful in preventing impacts to marine mammals because no unauthorized takes have occurred as a result of these procedures under previous incidental take authorizations. Until Eglin AFB is confident that this first step toward a rudimentary PAM study is successfully implemented, the USAF cannot commit to PAM as a mitigation measure, which would add multiple layers of complexities required to detect and localize marine mammals during a live mission event. Furthermore, Eglin would need to gain better understanding of PAM capabilities so mission-appropriate procedures could be developed for making go/no-go decisions in a timely manner. Given the level of success with current mitigation procedures and the high level of unknowns associated with implementing PAM as part of mitigation procedures for USAF activities, Eglin AFB and NMFS agreed that using PAM as a real-time mitigation measure is not practicable at this time.
During the low-altitude orbits and climb, the aircrew will visually scan the sea surface within the aircraft's orbit circle for the presence of marine mammals. The surface scan will primarily be conducted by the flight crew in the cockpit and personnel stationed in the tail observer bubble and starboard viewing window. During nighttime missions, crews will use night vision goggles during observation. In addition to visual surveys, aircraft optical and electronic sensors will also be used for site clearance. AC-130 gunships are equipped with low-light TV cameras and infrared detection sets (IDSs). The TV cameras operate in a range of visible and near-visible light. Infrared systems are capable of detecting differences in temperature from thermal energy (heat) radiated from living bodies or from reflected and scattered thermal energy. In contrast to typical night-vision devices, visible light is not necessary for object detection. Infrared systems are equally effective during day or night use. The IDS is capable of detecting very small thermal differences. CV-22 aircraft have similar visual scanners and operable sensors; however, they operate at much lower altitudes than the AC-130 gunships, and no HE rounds will be fired from these aircraft.
If any marine mammals are detected during pre-mission surveys or during the mission, activities will be immediately halted until the ZOI area is clear of all marine mammals, or the mission will be relocated to another target area. If the mission is relocated, the pre-mission survey procedures will be repeated. In addition, if multiple firing missions are conducted within the same flight, clearance procedures will precede each mission.
Gunship crews will conduct a post-mission survey beginning at the operational altitude and proceeding through a spiraling descent to the designated monitoring altitude. It is anticipated that the descent will occur over a three- to five-minute time period. During this time, aircrews will use similar equipment and instrumentation to scan the water surface for animals that may have been impacted during the gunnery mission. During daytime missions, visual scans will be used as well.
The following table lists known proponents and the monitoring platforms that may be employed for marine mammal monitoring before, during, and after live air-to-surface missions. As stated above, coordination with proponents before live missions will ensure these options are still available, as well as any changes to assets or mission capabilities for new proponents that would fall under this authorization. Eglin Natural Resources will ensure all practical measures will be implemented to the maximum extent possible to comply with the mitigation and monitoring requirements while meeting mission objectives.
In addition to monitoring for marine species before and after missions, the following monitoring and reporting measures will be required.
• Within a year before the planned missions, all protected species observers will receive the Marine Species Observer Training Course developed by Eglin in cooperation with NMFS.
• Eglin AFB will track use of the EGTTR and protected species observation results through the use of protected species observer report forms.
• A summary annual report of marine mammal observations and mission activities will be submitted to the NMFS Southeast Regional Office and the NMFS Office of Protected Resources 90 days after completion of mission activities each year or 60 days prior to the issuance of any subsequent LOA for projects at the EGTTR, whichever comes first. A final report shall be prepared and submitted within 30 days following resolution of comments on the draft annual reports from NMFS. This annual report must include the following information:
○ Date and time of each mission.
○ A complete description of the pre-mission and post-mission activities related to mitigating and monitoring the effects of mission activities on marine mammal populations.
○ Results of the visual monitoring, including numbers by species/stock of any marine mammals noted injured or killed as a result of the missions, and number of marine mammals (by species if possible) that may have been harassed due to presence within the activity zone.
○ If any dead or injured marine mammals are observed or detected prior to mission activities, or injured or killed during mission activities, a report must be made to the NMFS Southeast Region Marine Mammal Stranding Network at 877-433-8299, the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, at 301-427-8401 and the Florida Marine Mammal Stranding Hotline at 888-404-3922 immediately.
○ Any unauthorized impacts on marine mammals must be immediately reported to the National Marine Fisheries Service's Southeast Regional Administrator, at 727-842-5312, and the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, at 301-427-8401.
NMFS may modify (including augment) the existing mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures (after consulting with Eglin AFB regarding the practicability of the modifications) if doing so creates a reasonable likelihood of more effectively accomplishing the goals of the mitigation and monitoring measures for these regulations.
Possible sources of data that could contribute to the decision to modify the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures in an LOA include: (1) Results from Eglin AFB's acoustic monitoring study; (2) results from monitoring during previous year(s); (3) results from other marine mammal and/or sound research or studies; and (4) any information that reveals marine mammals may have been taken in a manner, extent or number not authorized by these regulations or subsequent LOAs.
If, through adaptive management, the modifications to the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures are substantial, NMFS will publish a notice of proposed LOA in the
NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (
To avoid repetition, the discussion of our analyses applies to bottlenose dolphins and Atlantic spotted dolphins, given that the anticipated effects of this activity on these different marine mammal stocks are expected to be similar. There is little information about the nature or severity of the impacts, or the size, status, or structure of these two species or stocks that would lead to a different analysis for this activity.
For reasons stated previously in this document and based on the following factors, Eglin AFB's specified activities are not likely to cause long-term behavioral disturbance, serious injury, or death. Because the exposure model was conservative and calculated a single bottlenose dolphin death, along with the fact that the required mitigation and monitoring measures were not incorporated into the model, NMFS does not anticipate or propose to authorize any take by mortality. The takes from Level B harassment would be due to disturbance of normal behavioral patterns and TTS, as duration of exposure is relatively short. The potential takes from Level A harassment would be due to PTS and slight lung injury (not gastrointestinal tract injury).
NMFS has determined that direct strike by ordnance is highly unlikely. Although strike from a munition at the surface of the water while the animals are at the surface is possible, the potential risk of a direct hit to an animal within the target area would be low. The USAF (2002 PEA) estimated that in the absence of mitigation a maximum of 0.2 marine mammals could potentially be struck by projectiles, falling debris, and inert munitions each year.
Disruption of normal behavioral patterns constituting Level B harassment would be limited to reactions such as startle responses, movements away from the area, and short-term changes to behavioral state. These impacts are expected to be temporary and of limited duration due to the likely avoidance of the action area by marine mammals, short period of individual explosions themselves (versus continual sound source operation), and relatively short duration of the EGTTR operations (
Level B harassment in the form of TTS was modeled to occur in both species for which take is authorized. If TTS occurs, it is expected to be at low levels and of short duration. As explained previously, TTS is temporary with no long-term effects to species. The modeled take numbers are expected to be overestimates because NMFS expects that successful implementation of the required aerial-based, vessel-based and video-based mitigation measures could avoid TTS. Furthermore, monitoring results from previous incidental take authorizations have demonstrated that it is uncommon to sight marine mammals within the ZOI, especially for prolonged durations. Results from monitoring programs associated with Eglin AFB's 2015 and 2016 Maritime WSEP activities have shown the absence of marine mammals within the ZOI during operations.
NMFS expects that successful implementation of the required aerial-based, vessel-based and video-based mitigation measures would avoid or reduce take by Level A harassment in some instances. Marine mammals would likely begin to move away from the immediate target area once bombing begins, decreasing exposure to the full amount of acoustic energy. There have also been no marine mammal observations in the ZOI according to monitoring reports from previous years. Therefore, we anticipate that, because of the mitigation measures, low observation rate of marine mammals in the target area, and the likely limited duration of exposures, any PTS incurred would be in the form of only a small degree of PTS, rather than total deafness.
Other than for mortality, the take numbers authorized by NMFS do not consider mitigation or avoidance. Therefore, NMFS expects that Level A harassment is unlikely to occur at the authorized numbers. However, since it is difficult to quantify the degree to which the mitigation and avoidance will reduce the number of animals that might incur Level A harassment (
Impacts to habitat are not anticipated. Noise and pressure waves resulting from live weapon detonations are not likely to result in long-term physical alterations of the water column or ocean floor. These effects are not expected to substantially affect prey availability, are of limited duration, and are intermittent. Impacts to marine fish were analyzed in the
While animals may be impacted in the immediate vicinity of the target area, because of the short duration of the actual individual explosions themselves (versus continual sound source operation) combined with the relatively short duration of daily operations (
In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily support our determination that the impacts resulting from this activity are not expected to adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
• No mortality is anticipated or authorized and only 11 instances of Level A harassment are authorized. Remaining impacts would be within the non-injurious TTS or behavioral effects zones (Level B harassment consisting of generally temporary modifications in behavior);
• Effectiveness of mitigation and monitoring requirements which are designed and expected to avoid exposures that may cause serious injury and minimize the likelihood of PTS, TTS, or more severe behavioral responses;
• Adverse impacts to habitat are not expected; and
• Results from previous monitoring reports did not record any marine mammal takes associated with military readiness activities occurring in the EGTTR.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from the planned activity will have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal species or stocks.
There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine mammal stocks or species implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 U.S.C. 1531
The Office of Management and Budget has determined that this final rule is not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. This rule is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration at the proposed rule stage that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Eglin AFB is the sole entity that would be affected by this rulemaking, and Eglin AFB is not a small governmental jurisdiction, small organization, or small business, as defined by the RFA. Because this action directly affects Eglin AFB and not a small entity, NMFS concluded the action will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. No comments were received regarding this certification. As a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries has determined that there is good cause under the Administrative Procedure Act to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3)) of the measures contained in the final rule. The USAF is the only entity subject to the regulations, and it has informed NMFS that it requests that this final rule take effect by February 13, 2018, to accommodate a USAF testing and training exercise planned for that day in the EGTTR. Any delay of enacting the final rule would result in either: (1) A suspension of planned naval training, which would disrupt vital training essential to national security; or (2) the USAF's procedural non-compliance with the MMPA (should the USAF conduct testing and training without an LOA), thereby resulting in the potential for unauthorized takes of marine mammals. Moreover, the USAF is ready to implement the rule immediately. For these reasons, the Assistant Administrator finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date.
Exports, Fish, Imports, Incidental take, Indians, Labeling, Marine mammals, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seafood, Transportation.
For reasons set forth in the preamble, 50 CFR part 218 is amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1361
(a) Regulations in this subpart apply only to Eglin Air Force Base (Eglin AFB) and those persons it authorizes to conduct activities on its behalf, for the taking of marine mammals as outlined in paragraph (b) of this section and incidental to testing and training missions in the Eglin Gulf Test and Training Range (EGTTR).
(b) The taking of marine mammals by Eglin AFB pursuant to a Letter of Authorization (LOA) is authorized only if it occurs at the EGTTR in the Gulf of Mexico.
Regulations in this subpart are effective February 13, 2018 through February 12, 2023.
Under a Letter of Authorization (LOA) issued pursuant to § 216.106 of this chapter and § 218.66, the Holder of the LOA (herein after Eglin AFB) may incidentally, but not intentionally, take marine mammals by Level A and Level B harassment associated with EGTTR activities within the area described in § 218.60 provided the activities are in compliance with all terms, conditions, and requirements of these regulations in this subpart and the appropriate LOA.
Notwithstanding takings contemplated in § 218.60 and authorized by an LOA issued under § 216.106 of this chapter and § 218.66, no person in connection with the activities described in § 218.60 may:
(a) Violate, or fail to comply with, the terms, conditions, and requirements of this subpart or an LOA issued under § 216.106 of this chapter and § 218.66.
(b) Take any marine mammal not specified in such LOAs;
(c) Take any marine mammal specified in such LOAs in any manner other than as specified;
(d) Take a marine mammal specified in such LOAs if NMFS determines such taking results in more than a negligible impact on the species or stocks of such marine mammal; or
When conducting activities identified in § 218.60, the mitigation measures contained in the LOA issued under § 216.106 of this chapter and § 218.66 must be implemented. These mitigation measures shall include but are not limited to the following general conditions:
(a) If daytime weather and/or sea conditions preclude adequate monitoring for detecting marine mammals and other marine life, EGTTR operations must be delayed until adequate sea conditions exist for monitoring to be undertaken.
(b) Restrictions on time of activities.
(1) Missions involving the use of live bombs, missiles and rockets shall only occur during daylight hours.
(2) Missions during daylight hours shall occur no earlier than two hours after sunrise and no later than two hours prior to sunset.
(c) Required delay of live ordnance mission activities shall occur if a protected species, large schools of fish or large flocks of birds feeding at the surface are observed within the ZOI. Mission activities cannot resume until one of the following conditions is met:
(1) Protected species marine mammal(s) is confirmed to be outside of the ZOI on a heading away from the target area; or
(2) Protected species marine mammal(s) is not seen again for 30 minutes and presumed to be outside the Level A harassment ZOI.
(3) Large groupings of fish or birds leading to required delay are confirmed outside of the ZOI.
(d) Gunnery operations shall require employment of the following mitigation measures.
(1) Use of 105-millimeter (mm) training rounds (TR) during nighttime missions.
(2) Ramp-up procedures requiring the use of the lowest caliber munition and proceeding to the highest, which means the munitions would be fired in the order of 25 mm, 40 mm, and 105 mm.
(3) Any pause in live fire activities greater than 10 minutes shall require reinitiation of protected species surveys.
(4) Missions shall be conducted within the 200-meter (m) isobaths to provide greater protection to several species.
(e) If one or more sperm or baleen whales are detected during pre-mission monitoring activities, mission activities shall be aborted/suspended for the remainder of the day.
(f) Additional mitigation measures as contained in an LOA.
(a) Holders of LOAs issued pursuant to § 218.66 for activities described in § 218.60(a) are required to cooperate with NMFS, and any other Federal, state, or local agency with authority to monitor the impacts of the activity on marine mammals. If the authorized activity identified in § 218.60(a) is thought to have resulted in the mortality or injury of any marine mammals or take of marine mammals not identified in § 218.60(b), then the Holder of the LOA must notify the Director, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, or designee, by telephone (301) 427-8401, and the Southeast Regional Office (phone within 24 hours of the injury or death).
(b) Monitoring shall be conducted by personnel who have completed Eglin's Marine Species Observer Training Course, which was developed in cooperation with the National Marine Fisheries Service.
(c) The Holder of the LOA shall use mission-reporting forms to track their use of the EGTTR for testing and training missions and to track marine mammal observations.
(d) Depending on the mission category, visual aerial-based, vessel-based, or video-based marine mammal surveys shall be conducted before and after live ordnance mission activities each day.
(e) Vessel-based surveys shall begin approximately one and one-half hour prior to live weapon deployment and shall be completed 30 minutes prior to the start of mission.
(f) Surveys shall continue for approximately one hour or until the entire ZOI has been adequately surveyed, whichever comes first.
(g) Post-mission monitoring surveys shall commence once the mission has ended or as soon as the mission area is declared safe.
(h) Vessel-based post-mission surveys shall be conducted for 30 minutes after completion of live ordnance missions.
(i) Any marine mammals detected in the ZOI during post-mission surveys, for which take are authorized, shall be counted as takes by Level B harassment. Any marine mammals detected in the ZOI during post-mission surveys, for which take is not authorized, shall be reported immediately to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS.
(j) A minimum of two dedicated observers shall be stationed on each vessel.
(k) Observers shall utilize optical equipment with sufficient magnification to allow observation of surfaced animals.
(l) The size of the survey area for each mission shall be determined according to the radius of impact for the given threshold of each munition/detonation scenario. These ranges shall be monitored during pre-mission surveys for each activity.
(m) Some missions shall be delayed to allow survey platforms to evacuate the human safety zone after pre-missions surveys are completed.
(n) Any aerial-based pre-mission surveys shall be conducted by observers aboard non-mission aircraft or mission aircraft who have completed the Marine Species Observer Training.
(o) Gunship standard procedures initiated prior to initiation of live-firing events shall require at least two complete orbits around the survey mission site at the appropriate airspeed and monitoring altitude and include the following:
(1) Monitoring for marine mammals shall continue throughout the mission by mission crew;
(2) Where applicable aircraft optical and electronic sensors shall be used for marine mammal observation;
(3) If any marine mammals are detected during pre-mission surveys or during the mission, activities shall be immediately halted until the ZOI area is clear of all marine mammals, or the mission shall be relocated to another target area. If the mission is relocated, the pre-mission survey procedures shall be repeated;
(4) If multiple firing missions are conducted within the same flight, standard clearance procedures shall precede each mission; and
(5) Gunship crews shall conduct a post-mission survey beginning at the operational altitude and proceeding through a spiraling descent to the designated monitoring altitude.
(p) Video-based monitoring from the GRATV shall be conducted where appropriate via live high-definition video feed.
(1) Supplemental video monitoring shall be conducted through the employment of additional aerial assets including aerostats and drones when available.
(2) [Reserved]
(q) Acoustic Monitoring:
(1) Eglin AFB shall conduct a passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) study as an initial step towards understanding acoustic impacts from underwater detonations, if funding is approved;
(2) Eglin AFB shall conduct PAM for marine mammal vocalizations before, during, and after live missions in the EGTTR, once funding is approved; and
(3) The results of the PAM study shall be submitted to NMFS OPR as a draft monitoring report within 90 days of completion of the study.
(r) The Holder of the LOA is required to:
(1) Submit an annual draft report to NMFS OPR on all monitoring conducted under the LOA within 90 days of the completion of marine mammal monitoring, or 60 days prior to the issuance of any subsequent LOA for projects at the EGTTR, whichever comes first. A final report shall be prepared and submitted within 30 days following resolution of comments on the draft report from NMFS. This report must contain, at a minimum, the following information:
(i) Date and time of each EGTTR mission;
(ii) A complete description of the pre-mission and post-mission activities related to mitigating and monitoring the effects of EGTTR missions on marine mammal populations; and
(iii) Results of the monitoring program, including numbers by species/stock of any marine mammals noted injured or killed as a result of the EGTTR mission and number of marine mammals (by species if possible) that may have been harassed due to presence within the zone of influence.
(2) The draft report shall be subject to review and comment by NMFS. Any recommendations made by NMFS must be addressed in the final report prior to acceptance by NMFS. The draft report shall be considered the final report for this activity under the LOA if NMFS has not provided comments and recommendations within 90 days of receipt of the draft report.
(s) Reporting injured or dead marine mammals:
(1) In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the LOA, such as an injury for species not authorized (Level A harassment), serious injury, or mortality, Eglin AFB shall immediately cease the specified activities and report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the Southeast Regional Office, NMFS. The report must include the following information:
(i) Time and date of the incident;
(ii) Description of the incident;
(iii) Environmental conditions (
(iv) Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
(v) Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
(vi) Fate of the animal(s); and
(vii) Photographs or video footage of the animal(s).
(2) Activities shall not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS shall work with Eglin AFB to determine what measures are necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. Eglin AFB may not resume their activities in the EGTTR until notified by NMFS.
(3) In the event that Eglin AFB discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead observer determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (
(4) In the event that Eglin AFB discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead observer determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the activities authorized in the LOA (
(5) Additional Conditions:
(i) The Holder of the LOA must inform the Director, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301-427-8401) or designee prior to the initiation of any changes to the monitoring plan for a specified mission activity.
(ii) A copy of the LOA must be in the possession of the safety officer on duty each day that EGTTR missions are conducted.
(iii) The LOA may be modified, suspended or withdrawn if the holder fails to abide by the conditions prescribed herein, or if NMFS determines the authorized taking is having more than a negligible impact on the species or stock of affected marine mammals.
(a) To incidentally take marine mammals pursuant to these regulations, Eglin AFB must apply for and obtain an LOA.
(b) An LOA, unless suspended or revoked, may be effective for a period of time not to exceed the expiration date of these regulations.
(c) If an LOA expires prior to the expiration date of these regulations, Eglin AFB must apply for and obtain a renewal of the LOA.
(d) In the event of projected changes to the activity or to mitigation and monitoring measures required by an LOA, Eglin AFB must apply for and obtain a modification of the LOA as described in § 218.67.
(e) The LOA shall set forth:
(1) Permissible methods of incidental taking;
(2) Number of marine mammals, by species and age class, authorized to be taken;
(3) Means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact (
(4) Requirements for monitoring and reporting.
(f) Issuance of an LOA shall be based on a determination that the level of taking shall be consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under these regulations.
(g) Notice of issuance or denial of an LOA shall be published in the
(a) An LOA issued under § 216.106 of this chapter and § 218.66 for the activity identified in § 218.60(a) shall be renewed or modified upon request by the applicant, provided that:
(1) The specified activity and mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures, as well as the anticipated impacts, are the same as those described and analyzed for these regulations (excluding changes made pursuant to the adaptive management provision in paragraph (c)(1) of this section); and
(2) NMFS determines that the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures required by the previous LOA under these regulations were implemented.
(b) For an LOA modification or renewal request by the applicant that includes changes to the activity or the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting (excluding changes made pursuant to the adaptive management provision in paragraph (c)(1) of this section) that do not change the findings made for the regulations or result in no more than a minor change in the total estimated number of authorized takes (or distribution by species or years), NMFS may publish a notice of proposed LOA in the
(c) An LOA issued under § 216.106 of this chapter and § 218.66 for the activity identified in § 218.60(a) may be modified by NMFS under the following circumstances:
(1) Adaptive Management—NMFS may modify (including augment) the existing mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures (after consulting with Eglin AFB regarding the practicability of the modifications) if doing so creates a reasonable likelihood of more effectively accomplishing the goals of the mitigation and monitoring set forth in the preamble for these regulations;
(2) Possible sources of data that could contribute to the decision to modify the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures in an LOA are:
(i) Results from Eglin AFB's annual monitoring reports;
(ii) Results from other marine mammal and sound research or studies; or
(iii) Any information that reveals marine mammals may have been taken in a manner, extent or number not authorized by these regulations or subsequent LOAs.
(3) If, through adaptive management, the modifications to the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures are substantial, NMFS will publish a notice of proposed LOA in the
(4) Emergencies—If NMFS determines that an emergency exists that poses a significant risk to the well-being of the species or stocks of marine mammals specified under LOAs issued pursuant to § 216.106 of this chapter and § 218.60, an LOA may be modified without prior notice or opportunity for public comment. Notice would be published in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; trip limit increase.
NMFS increases the commercial trip limit for king mackerel in or from Federal waters in an area off the Florida east coast between the border of Flagler and Volusia Counties and the border of Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties in the Atlantic southern zone to 75 fish per day. This commercial trip limit increase is necessary to maximize the socioeconomic benefits associated with harvesting the commercial quota of Atlantic migratory group king mackerel.
This temporary rule is effective from 12:01 a.m., local time, February 5, 2018, through February 28, 2018.
Frank Helies, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, email:
The fishery for coastal migratory pelagic fish includes king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, and cobia, and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils and is implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622. All weights for Atlantic king mackerel below apply as either round or gutted weight.
On April 11, 2017, NMFS published a final rule to implement Amendment 26 to the FMP in the
The Atlantic king mackerel southern zone encompasses an area of Federal waters south of a line extending from the state border of North Carolina and South Carolina, as specified in 50 CFR 622.2, and north of a line extending due east from the border of Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties, Florida (50 CFR 622.369(a)(2)(ii)). From October 1 through January 31, the commercial trip limit for king mackerel in or from the southern zone that may be possessed on board or landed from a federally permitted vessel is 50 fish per day (50 CFR 622.385(a)(2)(i)(A)).
However, if NMFS determines that less than 70 percent of the Atlantic southern zone commercial quota has been harvested by February 1, then during the month of February, the commercial trip limit for king mackerel in or from a specified area of the southern zone that may be possessed on board or landed from a federally permitted vessel is increased to 75 fish per day (50 CFR 622.385(a)(1)(ii)(D)). The area of the southern zone in which the commercial trip limit increase applies is in Federal waters south of 29°25′ N lat., which is a line that extends due east from the border of Flagler and Volusia Counties, Florida, and north of 25°20′24″ N lat., which is
NMFS has determined that less than 70 percent of the commercial quota for Atlantic king mackerel in the southern zone was harvested by February 1, 2018. Accordingly, a 75-fish commercial trip limit applies to vessels fishing for king mackerel in or from Federal waters south of 29°25′ N lat. and north of 25°20′24″ N lat. off the east coast of Florida in the Atlantic southern zone effective at 12:01 a.m., local time, February 5, 2018. The 75-fish trip limit will remain in effect through February 28, 2018, or until the commercial quota is reached and the southern zone closes. On March 1, 2018, the new fishing year begins and a commercial trip limit of 50 fish will again be in effect for this area.
The Regional Administrator for the NMFS Southeast Region has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of Atlantic king mackerel and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.385(a)(1)(ii)(D) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
These measures are exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the temporary rule is issued without opportunity for prior notice and comment.
This action responds to the best scientific information available. The Assistant Administrator for NOAA Fisheries (AA) finds that the need to immediately implement this commercial trip limit increase constitutes good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), because prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this temporary rule is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because the rule establishing the commercial trip limits has already been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the trip limit increase. Such procedures are contrary to the public interest, because prior notice and opportunity for public comment would require time and delay the fishers' ability to catch more king mackerel to harvest the commercial quota and achieve optimum yield, and would prevent fishers from reaping the socioeconomic benefits associated with this increased commercial trip limit.
For the aforementioned reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness of this action, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
16 U.S.C. 1801
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, USDA.
Proposed rule.
The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) proposes to revise the General Administrative Regulations; Subpart L—Reinsurance Agreement—Standards for Approval; Regulations for the 2019 and Subsequent Reinsurance Years. The intended effect of this action is to clarify and improve Subpart L to better align with the existing Standard Reinsurance Agreement (SRA) and Livestock Price Reinsurance Agreement (LPRA) and to eliminate language that is no longer relevant.
Written comments and opinions on this proposed rule will be accepted until close of business April 9, 2018 and will be considered when the rule is made final.
FCIC prefers that comments be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal. You may submit comments, identified by Docket ID No. FCIC-17-0005, by any of the following methods:
•
•
All comments received, including those received by mail, will be posted without change to
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received for any dockets by the name of the person submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the complete User Notice and Privacy Notice for
David L. Miller, Director, Reinsurance Services Division, Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Stop 0801, Washington, DC 20250, telephone (202) 720-9830.
Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” direct agencies to assess all 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 emphasized the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) designated this rule as not significant under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and therefore, OMB has not reviewed this rule. The rule is not subject to Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.”
Pursuant to the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the collections of information in this rule have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under control number 0563-0069.
FCIC is committed to complying with the E-Government Act of 2002, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of title II of the UMRA) for State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.
It has been determined under section 1(a) of Executive Order 13132, Federalism, that this rule does not have sufficient implications to warrant consultation with the States. The provisions contained in this rule will not have a substantial direct effect on States, or on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.” Executive Order 13175
FCIC has assessed the impact of this rule on Indian tribes and determined that this rule does not, to its knowledge, have tribal implications that require tribal consultation under E.O. 13175. If a Tribe requests consultation, FCIC will work with the Office of Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful consultation is provided where changes, additions and modifications identified herein are not expressly mandated by Congress.
FCIC certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Program requirements for the Federal crop insurance program are the same for all producers regardless of the size of their farming operation. For instance, all producers are required to submit an application and acreage report to establish their insurance guarantees and compute premium amounts, and all producers are required to submit a notice of loss and production information to determine the amount of an indemnity payment in the event of an insured cause of crop loss. Whether a producer has 10 acres or 1000 acres, there is no difference in the kind of information collected. To ensure crop insurance is available to small entities, the Federal Crop Insurance Act (Act) authorizes FCIC to waive collection of administrative fees from beginning farmers or ranchers and limited resource farmers. FCIC believes this waiver helps to ensure that small entities are given the same opportunities as large entities to manage their risks through the use of Federal crop insurance. A Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has not been prepared since this regulation does not have an impact on small entities, and, therefore, this regulation is exempt from the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605). This regulation pertains to all legal entities wanting a Reinsurance Agreement, to insure financial stability and capacity under this regulation.
This program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.450.
This program is not subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which require intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. See the Notice related to 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V, published at 48 FR 29115, June 24, 1983.
This rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12988 on civil justice reform. The provisions of this rule will not have a retroactive effect. The provisions of this rule will preempt State and local laws to the extent such State and local laws are inconsistent herewith. Interpretations of statutory and regulatory provisions are matters of general applicability and, therefore, no administrative appeals process is available and judicial review may only be brought to challenge the interpretation after seeking a determination of appeal ability by the Director of the National Appeals Division (NAD) in accordance with 7 CFR part 11. An interpretation of a policy provision not codified in the Code of Federal Regulations or any procedure used in the administration of any Federal crop insurance program are administratively appealable and the appeal provisions published at 7 CFR part 11 must be exhausted before any action for judicial review may be brought against FCIC.
This action is not expected to have a significant economic impact on the quality of the human environment, health, or safety. Therefore, neither an Environmental Assessment nor an Environmental Impact Statement is needed.
Administrative practice and procedure, Crop insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, as set forth in the preamble, FCIC proposes to amend 7 CFR part 400 to read as follows:
7 U.S.C. 1506(l), 1506(o).
In addition to the terms defined in the Standard Reinsurance Agreement, Livestock Price Reinsurance Agreement and any other Reinsurance Agreement, the following terms as used in this rule are defined to mean:
(a) The eighteen qualification ratios include:
(1) Thirteen National Association of Insurance Commissioner's (NAIC's) Insurance Regulatory Information System (IRIS) ratios found in subsections (b)(1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12), and (17) of this section and referenced in “Using the NAIC Insurance Regulatory Information System” distributed by NAIC, 1100 Walnut St., Suite 1500, Kansas City, MO 64106-2197;
(2) Three ratios used by A.M. Best Company found in subsections (b)(13), (15), and (16) of this section and referenced in Best's Key Rating Guide, A.M. Best, Ambest Road, Oldwick, N.J. 08858-0700;
(3) One ratio found in paragraph (b)(14) of this section which is formulated by FCIC and is calculated the same as the One-Year Change to Surplus IRIS ratio but for a two-year period; and
(4) One ratio found in paragraph (b)(18) of this section, which is reported on the annual statutory financial statement.
(b) The Company shall provide an explanation for any ratio falling outside of the requirements stated below.
The standards contained herein shall be applicable to a Company applying for and those maintaining a Reinsurance Agreement.
FCIC will offer a Reinsurance Agreement to an eligible Company as determined by FCIC. To be eligible and qualify initially or thereafter for a Reinsurance Agreement with FCIC, a Company must:
(a) Be licensed or admitted in any state, territory, or possession of the United States;
(b) Be licensed or admitted, or use as a policy-issuing company an insurance company that is licensed or admitted, in each state where the Company will write policies under a Reinsurance Agreement;
(c) Have surplus, as reported in its most recent Annual or Quarterly Statutory Financial Statement, that is at least equal to twice the MPUL amount for the Company's estimated retained premium submitted in its plan of operation.
(d) The Company shall have the financial and operational resources, including but not limited to, organization, experience, internal controls, and technical skills, positive assessment of the ratio results appearing in Section 400.162 as well as meeting methodologies, data submission requirements and assessment appearing in Appendix II (Plan of Operations) of the Reinsurance Agreement to meet the requirements, including addressing reasonable risks, associated with a Reinsurance Agreement, as determined by FCIC.
(e) The Company shall provide data and demonstrate a satisfactory performance record to obtain a Reinsurance Agreement and continue to hold a Reinsurance Agreement for the reinsurance year as determined by FCIC.
(a) If the Company believes that the FCIC has taken an action that is not in accordance with the provisions of a Reinsurance Agreement except compliance issues, it may request the Deputy Administrator of Insurance Services to make a final administrative determination addressing the disputed action. The Deputy Administrator of Insurance Services will render the final administrative determination of the FCIC with respect to the applicable actions. All requests for a final administrative determination must be in writing and submitted within 45 days after receipt after the disputed action.
(b) With respect to compliance matters, the Compliance Field Office renders an initial finding or outcome, permits the Company to respond, and then issues a final finding or outcome. If the Company believes that the Compliance Field Office's final finding or outcome is not in accordance with the applicable laws, regulations, custom or practice of the insurance industry, or FCIC approved policy and procedure, it may request, the Deputy Administrator of Compliance to make a final administrative determination addressing the disputed final finding or outcome. The Deputy Administrator of Compliance will render the final administrative determination of the FCIC with respect to these issues. All requests for a final administrative determination must be in writing and submitted within 45 days after receipt of the final finding or outcome.
(c) A Company may also request reconsideration by the Deputy Administrator of Insurance Services of a decision of the FCIC rendered under any FCIC bulletin or directive which bulletin or directive does not interpret, explain, or restrict the terms of the Reinsurance Agreement. The Company, if it disputes the FCIC's determination, must request a reconsideration of that
(d) Appealable final administrative determinations of the FCIC under paragraph (a) or (b) of this section may be appealed to the Board of Contract Appeals in accordance with 48 CFR part 6102 and with the provisions 7 CFR part 24.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 727 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by significant changes made to the airworthiness limitations (AWLs) related to fuel tank ignition prevention. This proposed AD would require revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the latest revision of the AWLs. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 26, 2018.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; internet
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Christopher Baker, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6498; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a final rule titled “Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review, Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements” (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, that rule included Amendment 21-78, which established Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (“SFAR 88”) at 14 CFR part 21. Subsequently, SFAR 88 was amended by Amendment 21-82 (67 FR 57490, September 20, 2002; corrected at 67 FR 70809, November 26, 2002) and Amendment 21-83 (67 FR 72830, December 9, 2002; corrected at 68 FR 37735, June 25, 2003, to change “21-72” to “21-83”).
Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design (
In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four criteria intended
We have determined that the actions identified in this proposed AD are necessary to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.
We reviewed Boeing 727-100/200 Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) D6-8766-AWL, dated December 2016. The service information describes AWL tasks that include airworthiness limitation instructions (ALIs) and critical design configuration control limitations (CDCCLs) related to fuel tank ignition prevention. 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 proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require revision of the maintenance or inspection program to incorporate the ALI and CDCCL tasks described previously.
This proposed AD would require revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new actions (
Notwithstanding any other maintenance or operational requirements, components that have been identified as airworthy or installed on the affected airplanes before accomplishing the revision of the airplane maintenance or inspection program specified in this proposed AD do not need to be reworked in accordance with the latest revision of the CDCCLs specified by this proposed AD for incorporation. However, once the airplane maintenance or inspection program has been revised as specified by this proposed AD, future maintenance actions on these components must be done in accordance with the CDCCLs specified by this proposed AD.
Five ADs are related to this NPRM. We have determined that certain requirements of those ADs may be terminated when the referenced AWLs specified in this proposed AD have been incorporated, as follows:
• The revision required by paragraph (g) of AD 2008-04-10 R1, Amendment 39-16121 (74 FR 66227, December 15, 2009).
• The revision required by paragraph (h) of AD 2009-05-03, Amendment 39-15827 (74 FR 8851, February 27, 2009).
• The revision required by paragraph (j) of AD 2011-12-05, Amendment 39-16712 (76 FR 33991, June 10, 2011).
• The revision required by paragraph (h) of AD 2013-22-03, Amendment 39-17635 (78 FR 65193, October 31, 2013).
• The revision required by paragraphs (n)(1) and (n)(2) of AD 2013-24-15, Amendment 39-17692 (78 FR 72791, December 4, 2013).
AWL No. 28-AWL-03 identifies certain wire types. Paragraph (h)(1) of this proposed AD specifies additional acceptable wire types and cables.
AWL No. 28-AWL-03 identifies certain sleeving materials. Paragraph (h)(2) of this proposed AD specifies additional acceptable sleeving materials.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 20 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by March 26, 2018.
This AD affects the ADs specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(5) of this AD.
(1) AD 2008-04-10 R1, Amendment 39-16121 (74 FR 66227, December 15, 2009) (“AD 2008-04-10 R1”).
(2) AD 2009-05-03, Amendment 39-15827 (74 FR 8851, February 27, 2009) (“AD 2009-05-03”).
(3) AD 2011-12-05, Amendment 39-16712 (76 FR 33991, June 10, 2011) (“AD 2011-12-05”).
(4) AD 2013-22-03, Amendment 39-17635 (78 FR 65193, October 31, 2013) (“AD 2013-22-03”).
(5) AD 2013-24-15, Amendment 39-17692 (78 FR 72791, December 4, 2013) (“AD 2013-24-15”).
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 727, 727C, 727-100, 727-100C, 727-200, and 727-200F series airplanes, certificated in any category, with an original standard airworthiness certificate or original export certificate of airworthiness issued on or before the effective date of this AD.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.
This AD was prompted by significant changes made to the airworthiness limitations (AWLs) related to fuel tank ignition prevention. We are issuing this AD to prevent the potential for ignition sources inside fuel tanks caused by latent failures, alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 60 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate all information in Section A, including Subsections A.1 and A.2, of Boeing 727-100/200 Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) D6-8766-AWL, dated December 2016. The initial compliance times for the airworthiness limitation instruction (ALI) items are within the applicable compliance times specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(6) of this AD.
(1) For AWL No. 28-AWL-01, “External Wires Over Center Fuel Tank (Tank No. 2)”: at the applicable time specified in paragraph (g)(1)(i) or (g)(1)(ii) of this AD.
(i) For airplanes that have been previously inspected as specified in 28-AWL-01 as of the effective date of this AD: Conduct the inspection within 120 months after the most recent inspection.
(ii) For airplanes that have not been inspected as specified in 28-AWL-01 as of the effective date of this AD: Conduct the inspection within 12 months after the effective date of this AD.
(2) For AWL No. 28-AWL-16, “Over-Current and Arcing Protection Electrical Design Features Operation—Boost Pump Ground Fault Interrupter (GFI)”: at the applicable time specified in paragraph (g)(2)(i) or (g)(2)(ii) of this AD.
(i) For airplanes that have been previously inspected as specified in 28-AWL-16 as of the effective date of this AD: Conduct the inspection within 12 months after the most recent inspection.
(ii) For airplanes that have not been inspected as specified in 28-AWL-16 as of the effective date of this AD: Conduct the inspection within 90 days after the effective date of this AD.
(3) For AWL No. 28-AWL-17, “Auxiliary Tank Fuel Boost Pump Power Failed On Protection System”: at the applicable time specified in paragraph (g)(3)(i) or (g)(3)(ii) of this AD.
(i) For airplanes that have been previously inspected as specified in 28-AWL-17 as of the effective date of this AD: Conduct the inspection within 12 months after the most recent inspection.
(ii) For airplanes that have not been inspected as specified in 28-AWL-17 as of the effective date of this AD: Conduct the inspection within 90 days after the effective date of this AD.
(4) For AWL No. 28-AWL-18, “Fuel Quantity Indicating System (FQIS)—Out-Tank Wiring Lightning Shield to Ground Termination and Joint Resistance for the Volumetric Top-Off (VTO) Unit (If Installed)”: at the applicable time specified in paragraph (g)(4)(i) or (g)(4)(ii) of this AD.
(i) For airplanes that have been previously inspected as specified in 28-AWL-18 as of the effective date of this AD: Conduct the inspection within 120 months after the most recent inspection.
(ii) For airplanes that have not been inspected as specified in 28-AWL-18: Conduct the inspection within 12 months after the effective date of this AD.
(5) For AWL No. 28-AWL-22, “AC Fuel Boost Pump Bonding Installation”: at the applicable time specified in paragraph (g)(5)(i) or (g)(5)(ii) of this AD.
(i) For airplanes that have been previously inspected as specified in 28-AWL-22 as of the effective date of this AD: Conduct the inspection within 72 months after the most recent inspection.
(ii) For airplanes that have not been inspected as specified in 28-AWL-22 as of the effective date of this AD: Conduct the inspection within 12 months after the effective date of this AD.
(6) For AWL No. 28-AWL-24, “Motor Operated Valve Bonding Jumper Installation—Fault Current Protection”: at the applicable time specified in paragraph (g)(6)(i) or (g)(6)(ii) of this AD.
(i) For airplanes that have been previously inspected as specified in 28-AWL-24 as of the effective date of this AD: Conduct the inspection within 60 months after the most recent inspection.
(ii) For airplanes that have not been inspected as specified in 28-AWL-24 as of the effective date of this AD: Conduct the inspection within 12 months after the effective date of this AD.
(1) Where AWL No. 28-AWL-03 identifies wire types BMS 13-48, BMS 13-58, and BMS 13-60, the following acceptable wire types and cables can be added to AWL No. 28-AWL-03: MIL-W-22759/16, SAE AS22759/16 (Formerly M22759/16), MIL-W-22759/32, SAE AS22759/32 (Formerly M22759/32), MIL-W-22759/34, SAE AS22759/34 (Formerly M22759/34), MIL-W-22759/41, SAE AS22759/41 (Formerly M22759/41), MIL-W-22759/86, SAE AS22759/86 (Formerly M22759/86), MIL-W-22759/87, SAE AS22759/87 (Formerly M22759/87), MIL-W-22759/92 and SAE AS22759/92 (Formerly M22759/92); and MIL-C-27500 cables that are constructed from the MIL
(2) Where AWL No. 28-AWL-03 identifies TFE-2X Standard wall for wire sleeving, the following acceptable sleeving materials can be added to AWL No. 28-AWL-03: Roundit 2000NX and Varglas Type HO, HP, or HM, Grade A.
After the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, has been revised as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (
Accomplishment of the revision required by paragraph (g) of this AD terminates the actions specified in paragraphs (j)(1) through (j)(5) of this AD for the airplane on which the revision has been incorporated.
(1) The revision required by paragraph (g) of AD 2008-04-10 R1.
(2) The revision required by paragraph (h) of AD 2009-05-03.
(3) The revision required by paragraph (j) of AD 2011-12-05.
(4) The revision required by paragraph (h) of AD 2013-22-03.
(5) The revision required by paragraphs (n)(1) and (n)(2) of AD 2013-24-15.
(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (l)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Christopher Baker, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6498; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; internet
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2016-23-01, which applies to all Airbus Model A310 series airplanes. AD 2016-23-01 requires repetitive detailed inspections for cracking around the fastener holes in certain areas of the wing top skin panels, supplemental repetitive ultrasonic inspections for cracking around the fastener holes in certain other areas of the wing top skin panels, and repair if necessary. Since we issued AD 2016-23-01, an evaluation done by the design approval holder (DAH) indicates that the wing top skin panel attachment holes at a certain area are also subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). This proposed AD would add an inspection and modification of the attachment holes of the wing top skin panels at a certain area. This proposed AD also includes terminating action for certain inspections. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 26, 2018.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Airbus 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 Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-2125; fax: 425-227-1149.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We issued AD 2016-23-01, Amendment 39-18708 (81 FR 78899, November 10, 2016) (“AD 2016-23-01”), for all Airbus Model A310 series airplanes. AD 2016-23-01 was prompted by development of an ultrasonic inspection program to allow for earlier crack detection and extended repetitive inspection intervals. AD 2016-23-01 requires repetitive detailed inspections for cracking around the fastener holes in certain wing top skin panels between the front and rear spars on the left- and right-hand sides of the fuselage, supplemental repetitive ultrasonic inspections for cracking around the fastener holes in wing top skin panels 1 and 2 at ribs 2 and 3, and repair if necessary. We issued AD 2016-23-01 to detect and correct fatigue cracking around the fastener holes, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
Since we issued AD 2016-23-01, WFD analysis identified structural modification points for certain fastener holes located at each attachment from stringer (STG) 2 through STG10 at ribs 2 and 3 on both wings. Inspections and modifications were developed to reset the fatigue life of the attachment holes at the top skin attachment to rib 2 and rib 3 up to the limit of validity (LOV).
Fatigue damage can occur locally, in small areas or structural design details, or globally, in widespread areas. Multiple-site damage is widespread damage that occurs in a large structural element such as a single rivet line of a lap splice joining two large skin panels. Widespread damage can also occur in multiple elements such as adjacent frames or stringers. Multiple-site damage and multiple-element damage cracks are typically too small initially to be reliably detected with normal inspection methods. Without intervention, these cracks will grow, and eventually compromise the structural integrity of the airplane. This condition is known as WFD. It is associated with general degradation of large areas of structure with similar structural details and stress levels. As an airplane ages, WFD will likely occur, and will certainly occur if the airplane is operated long enough without any intervention.
The FAA's WFD final rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) became effective on January 14, 2011. The WFD rule requires certain actions to prevent structural failure due to WFD throughout the operational life of certain existing transport category airplanes and all of these airplanes that will be certificated in the future. For existing and future airplanes subject to the WFD rule, the rule requires that DAHs establish an LOV of the engineering data that support the structural maintenance program. Operators affected by the WFD rule may not fly an airplane beyond its LOV, unless an extended LOV is approved.
The WFD rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) does not require identifying and developing maintenance actions if the DAHs can show that such actions are not necessary to prevent WFD before the airplane reaches the LOV. Many LOVs, however, do depend on accomplishment of future maintenance actions. As stated in the WFD rule, any maintenance actions necessary to reach the LOV will be mandated by airworthiness directives through separate rulemaking actions.
In the context of WFD, this action is necessary to enable DAHs to propose LOVs that allow operators the longest operational lives for their airplanes, and still ensure that WFD will not occur. This approach allows for an implementation strategy that provides flexibility to DAHs in determining the timing of service information development (with FAA approval), while providing operators with certainty regarding the LOV applicable to their airplanes.
Since we issued AD 2016-23-01, we have received a report that an evaluation done by the DAH indicates that the wing top skin panel attachment holes at ribs 2 and 3 are also subject to WFD, and an analysis identified structural modification points for certain fastener holes located at each attachment from STG2 through STG10 at ribs 2 and 3 on both wings.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2017-0081, dated May 8, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A310 series airplanes. The MCAI states:
Following scheduled maintenance, cracks were found around the wing top skin panels fastener holes at Rib 2, between Stringer (STG) 2 and STG14.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could reduce the structural integrity of the aeroplane.
To address this issue, Airbus developed an inspection programme, and published Service Bulletin (SB) A310-57-2096, providing instructions for repetitive detailed inspections (DET) to ensure that any visible cracks in the wing top skin panels 1 and 2 along Rib 2 are detected on time and repaired appropriately. Consequently, EASA issued AD 2008-0211 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2010-04-03] to require implementation of that inspection programme.
After that [EASA] AD was issued, Airbus improved the inspection programme, revising SB A310-57-2096 accordingly, to include a special detailed inspection (SDI), using an ultrasonic method, to allow earlier crack detection, to subsequently reduce the scope of potential repair action, and to extend the intervals of the repetitive inspections.
Consequently, EASA issued AD 2014-0200 (later revised), retaining the requirements of EASA AD 2008-0211, which was superseded, and required supplementary repetitive SDI [for cracking] of the wing top skin panel 1 and 2 between STG2 and STG10 at Rib 2 [and repair if needed], as described in Airbus SB A310-57-2096 Revision 02.
Since EASA AD 2014-0200R1 was issued, a Widespread Fatigue Damage (WFD) analysis concluded that the inspection programme had to be extended to include the wing top skin panels at Rib 3 attachments, and Airbus issued SB A310-57-2096 Revision 03 accordingly, to provide the necessary instructions. Consequently, EASA issued [EASA] AD 2016-0005 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2016-23-01], retaining the requirements of EASA AD 2014-0200R1, which was superseded, and extending the inspection area to includeRib 3.
In addition to changes to the inspected area, WFD analysis identified structural modification points for certain fastener holes, located at each attachment from STG2 to STG10, at Ribs 2 and 3 on both wings.
Airbus developed modification (mod) 13785 and mod 13786, consisting of an SDI, followed by an oversize of the defined holes on Ribs 2 and 3 on both wings. Airbus issued SB A310-57-2106 and SB A310-57-2107 to provide in-service modification instructions for top skin attachments to Rib 2 and Rib 3 respectively. Accomplishment of these modifications at the specified time will reset the fatigue life of the attachment holes at the top skin attachment to Rib 2 and Rib 3 to the Limit of Validity (LOV). Airbus issued inspection SB A310-57-2096 Revision 04 to account for the inspection requirements post-modification.
For the reasons describe above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2016-0005, which is superseded, requires modifications to the top skin attachment holes at Rib 2 and Rib 3, and
Modification of the fastener holes at top skin ribs 2 and 3 constitutes terminating action for certain repetitive special detailed inspections. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
Airbus has issued the following service information.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2096, Revision 04, dated December 5, 2016. This service information describes procedures for detailed and ultrasonic inspections for cracking around the fastener holes of wing top skin panels 1 and 2, at ribs 2 and 3, on the left- and right-hand sides of the fuselage.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2106, dated November 14, 2016. This service information describes procedures for a special detailed inspection and modification of the fastener holes of wing top skin panels 1 and 2, at rib 2.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2107, dated November 14, 2016. This service information describes procedures for a special detailed inspection and modification of the fastener holes of wing top skin panels 1 and 2, at rib 3.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
The compliance time for the modification specified in this proposed AD for addressing WFD was established to ensure that discrepant structure is modified before WFD develops in airplanes. Standard inspection techniques cannot be relied on to detect WFD before it becomes a hazard to flight. We will not grant any extensions of the compliance time to complete any AD-mandated service bulletin related to WFD without extensive new data that would substantiate and clearly warrant such an extension.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 8 airplanes of U.S. registry.
The actions required by AD 2016-23-01, and retained in this proposed AD, take about 8 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that are required by AD 2016-23-01 on U.S. operators to be $5,440, or $680 per product.
We also estimate that it would take about 95 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. Required parts would cost about $10,200 per product. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $146,200, or $18,275 per product.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary modification would take about 40 work-hours and require parts costing $10,000, for a cost of $13,400 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by March 26, 2018.
This AD replaces AD 2016-23-01, Amendment 39-18708 (81 FR 78899, November 10, 2016) (“AD 2016-23-01”).
This AD applies to all Airbus Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.
This AD was prompted by an evaluation done by the design approval holder (DAH) indicating that the wing top skin panel attachment holes at ribs 2 and 3 are also subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking around the fastener holes, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2016-23-01, with revised service information. Except as required by paragraph (i) of this AD: Within the initial compliance time and thereafter at the repetitive intervals specified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(3) of this AD, as applicable, accomplish the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD concurrently and in sequence, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2096, Revision 03, dated June 30, 2015, or Revision 04, dated December 5, 2016; except as provided by paragraph (j) of this AD. As of the effective date of this AD, use only Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2096, Revision 04, dated December 5, 2016, to accomplish the required actions.
(1) Accomplish a detailed inspection for cracking around the fastener holes in the wing top skin panels 1 and 2, along ribs 2 and 3, between the front and rear spars on the left- and right-hand sides of the fuselage.
(2) Accomplish an ultrasonic inspection for cracking around the fastener holes in the wing top skin panels 1 and 2, along ribs 2 and 3, between stringer (STG) 2 and STG10 on the left- and right-hand sides of the fuselage.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2016-23-01, with no changes.
(1) For Model A310-203, -204, -221, and -222 airplanes: Do the actions required by paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD at the later of the times specified in paragraphs (h)(1)(i) and (h)(1)(ii) of this AD. Repeat the inspections specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed 2,000 flight cycles or 4,100 flight hours, whichever occurs first.
(i) Prior to the accumulation of 18,700 flight cycles or 37,400 flight hours since first flight of the airplane, whichever occurs first.
(ii) Within 30 days after December 15, 2016 (the effective date of AD 2016-23-01).
(2) For Model A310-304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes having an average flight time (AFT) of less than 4 hours: Do the actions required by paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD at the later of the times specified in paragraphs (h)(2)(i) and (h)(2)(ii) of this AD. Repeat the inspections specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed 2,000 flight cycles or 5,600 flight hours, whichever occurs first.
(i) Prior to the accumulation of 17,300 flight cycles or 48,400 flight hours since first flight of the airplane, whichever occurs first.
(ii) Within 30 days after December 15, 2016 (the effective date of AD 2016-23-01).
(3) For Model A310-304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes having an AFT of equal to or more than 4 hours: Do the actions required by paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD at the later of the times specified in paragraphs (h)(3)(i) and (h)(3)(ii) of this AD. Repeat the inspections specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,500 flight cycles or 7,500 flight hours, whichever occurs first.
(i) Prior to the accumulation of 12,800 flight cycles or 64,300 flight hours since first flight of the airplane, whichever occurs first.
(ii) Within 30 days after December 15, 2016 (the effective date of AD 2016-23-01).
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (i) of AD 2016-23-01, with revised service information.
For airplanes previously inspected before December 15, 2016 (the effective date of AD 2016-23-01), using Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2096, dated May 6, 2008; Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2096, Revision 01, dated August 5, 2010; or Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2096, Revision 02, dated March 5, 2014: At the applicable compliance times specified in paragraphs (i)(1), (i)(2), and (i)(3) of this AD, accomplish the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) concurrently and in sequence, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2096, Revision 03, dated June 30, 2015, or Revision 04, dated December 5, 2016. As of the effective date of this AD, use only Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2096, Revision 04, dated December 5, 2016, to accomplish the required actions. Repeat the inspections specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD thereafter at the repetitive intervals specified in paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3) of this AD, as applicable.
(1) For Model A310-203, -204, -221, and -222 airplanes: Do the actions required by paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD within 3,500 flight hours or 1,700 flight cycles, whichever occurs first since the most recent inspection.
(2) For Model A310-304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes having an AFT of less than 4 hours: Do the actions required by paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD within 4,600 flight hours or 1,600 flight cycles, whichever occurs first since the most recent inspection.
(3) For Model A310-304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes having an AFT of equal to or more than 4 hours: Do the actions required by paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD within 6,100 flight hours or 1,200 flight cycles, whichever occurs first since the most recent inspection.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (j) of AD 2016-23-01, with revised service information. If no ultrasonic equipment is available for the initial or second inspection required by paragraph (g) or (h) of this AD, accomplish the detailed inspection specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD within the applicable compliance times specified in paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this AD. After accomplishing the detailed inspection, do the inspections specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD at the applicable compliance times specified by paragraphs (i)(1), (i)(2), and (i)(3) of this AD. Subsequently, repeat the inspections specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD thereafter at the applicable repetitive intervals specified in paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3) of this AD.
(1) For airplanes not previously inspected before December 15, 2016 (the effective date of AD 2016-23-01), using the service information identified in paragraph (j)(2)(i), (j)(2)(ii), (j)(2)(iii), or (j)(2)(iv) of this AD: Do the actions required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD within the initial compliance time specified by paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3) of this AD, as applicable.
(2) For airplanes previously inspected before December 15, 2016 (the effective date of AD 2016-23-01), using the service information identified in paragraph (j)(2)(i), (j)(2)(ii), (j)(2)(iii), or (j)(2)(iv) of this AD: Do the actions required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD within the applicable compliance times specified in paragraphs (i)(1), (i)(2), and (i)(3) of this AD.
(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2096, dated May 6, 2008.
(ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2096, Revision 01, dated August 5, 2010.
(iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2096, Revision 02, dated March 5, 2014.
(iv) Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2096, Revision 03, dated June 30, 2015.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (k) of AD 2016-23-01, with no changes. If any cracking is found during any inspection required by paragraph (g), (h), (i), or (j) of this AD, before further flight, repair the cracking using a method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature. Accomplishing the repair specified in this paragraph terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g), (h), (i), or (j) of this AD, as applicable, for the repaired area only.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (l) of AD 2016-23-01, with no changes. For the purposes of this AD, the AFT should be established as specified in paragraphs (l)(1), (l)(2), and (l)(3) of this AD for the determination of the compliance times.
(1) The inspection threshold is defined as the total flight hours accumulated (counted from take-off to touch-down), divided by the total number of flight cycles accumulated at the effective date of this AD.
(2) The initial inspection interval is defined as the total flight hours accumulated divided by the total number of flight cycles accumulated at the time of the initial inspection threshold.
(3) The second inspection interval is defined as the total flight hours accumulated divided by the total number of flight cycles accumulated between the initial and second inspection threshold. For all inspection intervals onwards, the average flight time is the flight hours divided by the flight cycles accumulated between the last two inspections.
At the compliance time specified in paragraph (n) of this AD, as applicable, accomplish the actions specified in paragraphs (m)(1) and (m)(2) of this AD concurrently and in sequence, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2106, dated November 14, 2016.
(1) Accomplish a special detailed inspection to determine the diameter of the fastener holes in the wing top skin panels 1 and 2, at rib 2 of both wings.
(2) Modify the fastener holes.
(1) For Model A310-203, -204, -221, and -222 airplanes: Do the actions required by paragraphs (m)(1) and (m)(2) of this AD at the later of the times specified in paragraphs (n)(1)(i) and (n)(1)(ii) of this AD.
(i) Prior to the accumulation of 40,000 flight cycles or 93,300 flight hours since first flight of the airplane, whichever occurs first.
(ii) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.
(2) For Model A310-304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes having an average flight time (AFT) of less than 4 hours: Do the actions required by paragraphs (m)(1) and (m)(2) of this AD at the later of the times specified in paragraphs (n)(2)(i) and (n)(2)(ii) of this AD.
(i) Prior to the accumulation of 40,000 flight cycles or 116,000 flight hours since first flight of the airplane, whichever occurs first.
(ii) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.
(3) For Model A310-304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes having an AFT of 4 hours or more: Do the actions required by paragraphs (m)(1) and (m)(2) of this AD at the later of the times specified in paragraphs (n)(3)(i) and (n)(3)(ii) of this AD.
(i) Prior to the accumulation of 30,000 flight cycles or 150,000 flight hours since first flight of the airplane, whichever occurs first.
(ii) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.
At the compliance time specified in paragraph (p) of this AD, as applicable, accomplish the actions specified in paragraphs (o)(1) and (o)(2) of this AD concurrently and in sequence, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2107, dated November 14, 2016.
(1) Accomplish a special detailed inspection to determine the diameter of the fastener holes in the wing top skin panels 1 and 2, at rib 3 of both wings.
(2) Modify the fastener holes.
(1) For Model A310-203, -204, -221, and -222 airplanes: Do the actions required by paragraphs (o)(1) and (o)(2) of this AD at the later of the times specified in paragraphs (p)(1)(i) and (p)(1)(ii) of this AD.
(i) Prior to the accumulation of 46,400 flight cycles or 92,900 flight hours since first flight of the airplane, whichever occurs first.
(ii) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.
(2) For Model A310-304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes having an average flight time (AFT) of less than 4 hours: Do the actions required by paragraphs (o)(1) and (o)(2) of this AD at the later of the times specified in paragraphs (p)(2)(i) and (p)(2)(ii) of this AD.
(i) Prior to the accumulation of 45,400 flight cycles or 127,300 flight hours since first flight of the airplane, whichever occurs first.
(ii) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.
(3) For Model A310-304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes having an AFT of 4 hours or more: Do the actions required by paragraphs (o)(1) and (o)(2) of this AD at the later of the times specified in paragraphs (p)(3)(i) and (p)(3)(ii) of this AD.
(i) Prior to the accumulation of 33,800 flight cycles or 169,000 flight hours since first flight of the airplane, whichever occurs first.
(ii) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.
If any cracking is found during any inspection required by paragraph (m), (n), (o), or (p) of this AD, before further flight, repair the cracking using a method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature. Accomplishing the repair specified in this paragraph terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g), (h), (i), or (j) of this AD, as applicable, for the repaired area only.
(1) Accomplishment of the modification specified in paragraph (m) of this AD constitutes terminating action for the repetitive special detailed inspections required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD for the modified fastener holes at top skin rib 2 for that airplane. After modification, the un-modified fastener holes at top skin rib 2 between the front and rear spars remain subject to the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.
(2) Accomplishment of the modification specified in paragraph (o) of this AD constitutes terminating action for the repetitive special detailed inspections required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD for the modified fastener holes at top skin rib 3 for that airplane. After modification, the un-modified fastener holes at top skin rib 3 between the front and rear spars remain subject to the repetitive inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2017-0081, dated May 8, 2017, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer,
(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:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Model A310-203, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a design approval holder (DAH) evaluation indicating that the outer wing lower junction is subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). This proposed AD would require modifying the fastener holes at certain locations, which includes related investigative actions and applicable corrective actions. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 26, 2018.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Airbus 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 Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-2125; fax: 425-227-1149.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
Fatigue damage can occur locally, in small areas or structural design details, or globally, in widespread areas. Multiple-site damage is widespread damage that occurs in a large structural element such as a single rivet line of a lap splice joining two large skin panels. Widespread damage can also occur in multiple elements such as adjacent frames or stringers. Multiple-site damage and multiple-element damage cracks are typically too small initially to be reliably detected with normal inspection methods. Without intervention, these cracks will grow, and eventually compromise the structural integrity of the airplane. This condition is known as widespread fatigue damage. It is associated with general degradation of large areas of structure with similar structural details and stress levels. As an airplane ages, WFD will likely occur, and will certainly occur if the airplane is operated long enough without any intervention.
The FAA's WFD final rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) became effective on January 14, 2011. The WFD rule requires certain actions to prevent structural failure due to WFD throughout the operational life of certain existing transport category airplanes and all of these airplanes that will be certificated in the future. For existing and future airplanes subject to the WFD rule, the rule requires that DAHs establish a limit of validity (LOV) of the engineering data that support the structural maintenance program. Operators affected by the WFD rule may not fly an airplane beyond its LOV, unless an extended LOV is approved.
The WFD rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) does not require identifying and developing maintenance actions if the DAHs can show that such actions are not necessary to prevent WFD before the airplane reaches the LOV. Many LOVs, however, do depend on accomplishment of future maintenance actions. As stated in the WFD rule, any maintenance actions necessary to reach the LOV will be mandated by airworthiness directives through separate rulemaking actions.
In the context of WFD, this action is necessary to enable DAHs to propose LOVs that allow operators the longest operational lives for their airplanes, and still ensure that WFD will not occur. This approach allows for an implementation strategy that provides flexibility to DAHs in determining the timing of service information development (with FAA approval), while providing operators with certainty
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2017-0122, dated July 18, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A310-203, -221, -222, -304, -308, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes. The MCAI states:
In response to the FAA Part 26 rule, wing structural items of the Airbus A310 design were assessed regarding Widespread Fatigue Damage (WFD) phenomenon. One outcome was that the outer wing lower junction is prone to WFD at level of the first fasteners row, close to Rib 1 between Frame (FR) 40 and FR 47.
This condition, if not corrected, could reduce the structural integrity of the wing.
Prompted by the conclusion of WFD analysis, Airbus issued Service Bulletin (SB) A310-57-2105 to provide modification instructions. The accomplishment of this modification at the specified time will recondition/renovate/extend the life of the fasteners holes at Rib 1, in order to reach the Limit Of Validity.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires cold working of the affected holes at Rib 1, stiffeners 1 to 14, on both outer wings between FR 40 and FR 47.
Required actions include a modification of the fastener holes at rib 1, stiffeners 1 to 14, on both outer wings between FR 40 and FR 47 by cold-working. The modification includes related investigative actions and applicable corrective actions. The related investigative actions include a rotating probe test of the fastener holes for cracks and checking the hole diameter for certain diameters. The corrective action is repair.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A310-57-2105, Revision 00, dated November 23, 2016. The service information describes procedures for a modification of the fastener holes at rib 1, stiffeners 1 to 14, on both outer wings between FR 40 and FR 47 by cold-working and includes related investigative actions and corrective actions. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 13 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repair that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this repair:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by March 26, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to all Airbus Model A310-203, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.
This AD was prompted by a design approval holder (DAH) evaluation indicating that the outer wing lower junction is subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). We are issuing this AD to prevent WFD at the outer wing lower junction, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Before exceeding the compliance time specified in figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD, as applicable, or within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later: Modify the fastener holes at rib 1, stiffeners 1 to 14, on both outer wings between frame (FR) 40 and FR 47, including doing all related investigative and applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2105, Revision 00, dated November 23, 2016, except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD. Do all related investigative and applicable corrective actions before further flight.
Where Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2105, Revision 00, dated November 23, 2016, specifies to contact Airbus for appropriate action, and specifies that action as “RC” (Required for Compliance): Before further flight, accomplish corrective actions in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (i)(2) of this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2017-0122, dated July 18, 2017, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-2125; fax: 425-227-1149.
(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:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-1A11 (CL-600), CL-600-2A12 (CL-601 Variant), and CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A, CL-601-3R, and CL-604 Variants) airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a determination that the safe life limits of the horizontal stabilizer trim actuator (HSTA) attachment pins and trunnions were not listed in certain airworthiness limitations (AWLs) and that the HSTA attachment pins and trunnions were not serialized. This proposed AD would require revision of the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to include the latest revision of the AWLs, serialization of the HSTA attachment pins and trunnions, and repair or replacement of damaged HSTA attachment pins and trunnions. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 26, 2018.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center North America toll-free telephone 1-866-538-1247 or direct-dial telephone 1-514-855-2999; fax 514-855-7401; email
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Aziz Ahmed, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7239; fax 516-794-5531.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2017-24, dated July 12, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-1A11 (CL-600), CL-600-2A12 (CL-601 Variant), and CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A, CL-601-3R, and CL-604 Variants) airplanes. The MCAI states:
During a review of the Horizontal Stabilizer Trim Actuator (HSTA) system, it was discovered that the safe life limits of the HSTA attachment pins and trunnions were not listed in the Airworthiness Limitation (AWL) Section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness. Also, the HSTA attachment pins and trunnions were not serialized making it impossible to keep accurate records of the life of these parts. Failure of these pins and trunnions could lead to a disconnect of the horizontal stabilizer and subsequent loss of the aeroplane.
This [Canadian] AD mandates the incorporation of AWL tasks into the maintenance schedule and serialization of HSTA attachment pins and trunnions. Some aircraft require AWL tasks and serialization of the attachment pins only, while others require AWL tasks and serialization of the trunnions and attachment pins [and repair or replacement if damaged (including linear scratches, pits, spalling, dents, or surface texture variations)].
This proposed AD would require revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new actions (
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
Bombardier, Inc., has issued the following service information.
The following service information describes procedures for serializing the HSTA attachment pins and trunnions. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models in different configurations.
• Bombardier Service Bulletin 600-0760, Revision 01, dated April 21, 2017.
• Bombardier Service Bulletin 601-0626, Revision 01, dated April 21, 2017.
• Bombardier Service Bulletin 604-27-034, Revision 01, dated April 21, 2017.
• Bombardier Service Bulletin 605-27-005, Revision 01, dated April 21, 2017.
The following service information identifies airworthiness limitation tasks for revising the life limits for HSTA attachment pins and trunnions. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models in different configurations.
• Task 5-10-10, “Time Limits (Structural),” of Section 5-10-00, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of Bombardier Challenger 600 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, Publication No. PSP 605, Revision 38, dated March 28, 2017.
• Task 5-10-10, “Time Limits (Structural)—Pre SB 601—0280,” of Section 5-10-00, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of Bombardier Challenger 601 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, Publication No. PSP 601-5, Revision 45, dated March 28, 2017.
• Task 5-10-11, “Time Limits (Structural)—Post SB 601—0280,” of Section 5-10-00, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of Bombardier Challenger 601 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, Publication No. PSP 601-5, Revision 45, dated March 28, 2017.
• Task 5-10-12, “Time Limits (Structural)—Post SB 601—0360,” of Section 5-10-00, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of Bombardier Challenger 601 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, Publication No. PSP 601-5, Revision 45, dated March 28, 2017.
• Task 5-10-10, “Time Limits (Structural),” of Section 5-10-00, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of Bombardier Challenger 601 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, Publication No. PSP-601A5, Revision 41, dated March 28, 2017.
• Task 5-10-11, “Time Limits (Structural),” of Section 5-10-00, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of Bombardier Challenger 601 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, Publication No. PSP-601A5, Revision 41, dated March 28, 2017.
• Task 5-10-12, “Time Limits (Structural),” of Section 5-10-00, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of Bombardier Challenger 601 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, Publication No. PSP-601A5, Revision 41, dated March 28, 2017.
The following service information describes life limits for certain HSTA attachment pins and trunnion supports. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models in different configurations.
• Task 27-42-01-108, “Discard of the Horizontal-Stabilizer Trim-Actuator (HSTA) Trunnion Support; Part No. 601R92386-1/-3,” of Section 5-10-10, “Life Limits (Structures),” of Bombardier Challenger 604 CL-604 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, Part 2 Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 29, dated June 16, 2017.
• Task 27-42-01-112, “Discard of the Horizontal-Stabilizer Trim-Actuator (HSTA) Upper and Lower Attachment Pins; Upper Pin Part No. 600-92384-5/-7 or 601R92310-1/-3 and Lower Pin Part No. 600-92383-5/-7 or 601R92309-1/-3,” of Section 5-10-10, “Life Limits (Structures),” of Bombardier Challenger 604 CL-604 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, Part 2 Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 29, dated June 16, 2017.
• Task 27-42-01-108, “Discard of the Horizontal-Stabilizer Trim-Actuator (HSTA) Trunnion Support; Part No. 601R92386-1/-3,” of Section 5-10-10, “Life Limits (Structures),” of Bombardier Challenger 605 CL-605 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, Part 2 Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 17, dated June 16, 2017.
• Task 27-42-01-112, “Discard of the Horizontal-Stabilizer Trim-Actuator (HSTA) Upper and Lower Attachment Pins; Upper Pin Part No. 600-92384-5/-7 or 601R92310-1/-3 and Lower Pin Part No. 600-92383-5/-7 or 601R92309-1/-3,” of Section 5-10-10, “Life Limits (Structures),” of Bombardier Challenger 605 CL-605 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, Part 2 Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 17, dated June 16, 2017.
• Task 27-42-01-108, “Discard of the Horizontal-Stabilizer Trim-Actuator (HSTA) Trunnion Support; Part No. 601R92386-1/-3,” of Section 5-10-10, “Life Limits (Structures),” of Bombardier Challenger 650 CL-650 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, Part 2 Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 4, dated June 16, 2017.
• Task 27-42-01-112, “Discard of the Horizontal-Stabilizer Trim-Actuator (HSTA) Upper and Lower Attachment Pins; Upper Pin Part No. 600-92384-5/-7 or 601R92310-1/-3 and Lower Pin Part No. 600-92383-5/-7 or 601R92309-1/-3,” of Section 5-10-10, “Life Limits (Structures),” of Bombardier Challenger 650 CL-650 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, Part 2 Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 4, dated June 16, 2017.
The following service information describes procedures for identifying damage to HSTA attachment pins and trunnions, and repair or replacement instructions. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models in different configurations.
• Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 600-27-42-002, “General Repair—HSTA Upper and Lower Pins,” dated December 15, 2016.
• Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 600-27-42-011, “General Repair—HSTA Trunnion P/N 601R92386-1/-3,” dated December 15, 2016.
• Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 604-27-42-012, “General Repair—HSTA Upper and Lower Pins,” dated December 15, 2016.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 137 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by March 26, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to the Bombardier, Inc., airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this AD, certificated in any category.
(1) Model CL-600-1A11 (CL-600) airplanes, serial numbers 1002 and 1004 through 1085 inclusive.
(2) Model CL-600-2A12 (CL-601 Variant) airplanes, serial numbers 3001 through 3066 inclusive.
(3) Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A and CL-601-3R Variants) airplanes, serial numbers 5001 through 5194 inclusive.
(4) Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604 Variant) airplanes, serial numbers 5301 through 5665 inclusive, 5701 through 5990 inclusive, and 6050 and subsequent.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight controls.
This AD was prompted by a determination that the safe life limits of the horizontal stabilizer trim actuator (HSTA) attachment pins and trunnions were not listed in certain airworthiness limitations (AWLs) and that the HSTA attachment pins and trunnions were not serialized. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the HSTA attachment pins and trunnions, which could lead to a disconnect of the horizontal stabilizer and subsequent loss of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
For airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD: Within 60 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the life limit AWL tasks identified in table 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD, as specified in the applicable service information identified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), or (g)(3) of this AD. The initial compliance time is within 500 flight cycles of the effective date of this AD, or at the applicable time (in terms of landings) specified in the applicable AWL task identified in table 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(1) For Model CL-600-1A11 (CL-600) airplanes, Task 5-10-10, “Time Limits (Structural),” of Section 5-10-00, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of Bombardier Challenger 600 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, Publication No. PSP 605, Revision 38, dated March 28, 2017.
(2) For Model CL-600-2A12 (CL-601 Variant) airplanes, the applicable task specified in paragraph (g)(2)(i), (g)(2)(ii), or (g)(2)(iii) of this AD, as identified in Section 5-10-00, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of
(i) Task 5-10-10, “Time Limits (Structural)—Pre SB 601-0280.”
(ii) Task 5-10-11, “Time Limits (Structural)—Post SB 601-0280.”
(iii) Task 5-10-12, “Time Limits (Structural)—Post SB 601-0360.”
(3) For Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A and CL-601-3R Variants) airplanes, the applicable task specified in paragraph (g)(3)(i), (g)(3)(ii) or (g)(3)(iii) of this AD, as identified in Section 5-10-00, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of Bombardier Challenger 601 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, Publication No. PSP-601A5, Revision 41, dated March 28, 2017.
(i) Task 5-10-10, “Time Limits (Structural).”
(ii) Task 5-10-11, “Time Limits (Structural).”
(iii) Task 5-10-12, “Time Limits (Structural).”
For airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(4) of this AD: Within 60 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new life limit AWL task 27-42-01-108, “Discard of the Horizontal-Stabilizer Trim-Actuator (HSTA) Trunnion Support; Part No. 601R92386-1/-3,” and task 27-42-01-112, “Discard of the Horizontal-Stabilizer Trim-Actuator (HSTA) Upper and Lower Attachment Pins; Upper Pin Part No. 600-92384-5/-7 or 601R92310-1/-3 and Lower Pin Part No. 600-92383-5/-7 or 601R92309-1/-3,” as specified in the applicable time limits maintenance checks (TLMC) manuals identified in paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3) of this AD. The initial compliance time is within 500 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, or at the applicable time specified in the applicable AWL task, whichever occurs later.
(1) For airplanes having serial numbers 5301 through 5665 inclusive: Section 5-10-10, “Life Limits (Structures),” of Bombardier Challenger 604 CL-604 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, Part 2 Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 29, dated June 16, 2017.
(2) For airplanes having serial numbers 5701 through 5990 inclusive: Section 5-10-10, “Life Limits (Structures),” of Bombardier Challenger 605 CL-605 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, Part 2 Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 17, dated June 16, 2017.
(3) For airplanes having serial numbers 6050 and subsequent: Section 5-10-10, “Life Limits (Structures),” of Bombardier Challenger 650 CL-650 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, Part 2 Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 4, dated June 16, 2017.
For airplanes identified in table 2 to paragraph (i) of this AD: Within 48 months after the effective date of this AD, or prior to performing a maintenance task required by paragraph (g) or (h) of this AD, as applicable, whichever occurs first, do a general visual inspection for damage (including linear scratches, pits, spalling, dents, or surface texture variations), and add serial numbers to the HSTA trunnions, lower attachment pin, and upper attachment pin, as applicable, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information specified in table (2) to paragraph (i) of this AD. If any damage to the HSTA trunnions or attachment pins is found, repair the damage in accordance with the applicable service information specified in paragraph (i)(1), (i)(2), or (i)(3) of this AD; or using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature. If the damaged HSTA trunnion or attachment pin cannot be repaired in accordance with the applicable service information specified in paragraph (i)(1), (i)(2), or (i)(3) of this AD: Before further flight, replace the damaged HSTA trunnion or attachment pin with a serviceable serialized HSTA trunnion or attachment pin, in accordance with the applicable service information specified in table (2) to paragraph (i) of this AD.
(1) Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 600-27-42-002, “General Repair—HSTA Upper and Lower Pins,” dated December 15, 2016.
(2) Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 600-27-42-011, “General Repair—HSTA Trunnion P/N 601R92386-1/-3,” dated December 15, 2016.
(3) Bombardier Repair Engineering Order (REO) 604-27-42-012, “General Repair—HSTA Upper and Lower Pins,” dated December 15, 2016.
After the maintenance or inspection program has been revised as required by paragraph (g) or (h) of this AD, no alternative actions (
This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (i) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the service information specified in paragraph (k)(1), (k)(2), (k)(3), or (k)(4) of this AD, as applicable.
(1) Bombardier Service Bulletin 600-0760, dated February 25, 2013.
(2) Bombardier Service Bulletin 601-0626, dated February 25, 2013.
(3) Bombardier Service Bulletin 604-27-034, dated February 25, 2013.
(4) Bombardier Service Bulletin 605-27-005, dated February 25, 2013.
(1) As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install, on any airplane, an HSTA attachment pin, unless the pin has a serial number.
(2) As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install, on any Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604 Variant) airplane with serial number 5301 and subsequent, an HSTA trunnion, unless the HSTA trunnion has a serial number.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2017-24, dated July 12, 2017, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Aziz Ahmed, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7239; fax 516-794-5531.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center North America toll-free telephone 1-
Coast Guard, DHS.
Request for comments.
The Coast Guard requests public comments on the potential establishment of Regulated Navigation Areas (RNAs) at the harbor entrance bars to Crescent Harbor, Humboldt Bay, Noyo River, and Morro Bay. In order to mitigate potential hazards and provide transparent communication with all mariners during hazardous weather conditions, this proposed RNA regulation would provide predictable protocols to mariners for potential restriction to traffic and conditions that prohibit vessels from entering a specified area surrounding each bar during hazardous weather conditions unless authorized by Commander, District Eleven or a designated representative. We seek your comments on what you believe to be the potential benefit or possible negative impact if we were to establish RNAs at these harbor entrances. We welcome all suggestions, ideas, and solutions for maintaining mariner and vessel safety during adverse weather and sea conditions at these harbor entrances.
Your comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before March 12, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2017-0338 using the Federal portal at
If you have questions about this notice of inquiry, call or email Lieutenant Colleen Ryan, Coast Guard District Eleven, Waterways Management; telephone 510-437-5984, email
Since 1998 COTP San Francisco and COTP Los Angeles/Long Beach (LA/LB) have issued various navigation safety advisories and created numerous emergency safety zones to mitigate risk to mariners and their vessels transiting the Crescent Harbor, Humboldt Bay, Noyo River, and Morro Bay harbor entrances during hazardous bar conditions. These emergency safety zones promulgated policies and procedures for closing the bar to vessel traffic, while also providing parameters and procedures for waiver requests. The use and application of emergency safety zones to accomplish the required risk mitigation does not provide advance notice, consistency, or predictability of Coast Guard actions to mariners; nor do safety zones allow for the promulgation of additional safety requirements to mitigate risk of necessary transits of the harbor bars. The RNAs under consideration would define the parameters and implementation procedures for restricting access to the applicable areas during hazardous conditions and define safety requirements for vessels operating within the RNAs.
The current protocols for restricting traffic in the vicinity of the Crescent City, Humboldt Bay, Noyo River, and Morro Bay harbor bar entrances are insufficient and do not provide consistency and predictability to the mariner, or allow for the establishment of bar crossing safety measures. The existing warning promulgation process is comprised of emergency safety zone implementation which, due to the emergent nature of heavy weather does not allow for advance notice and does not adequately ensure the safety of persons and vessels operating in those areas during heavy weather. Bars along the northern California coast experience severe wave, sea, and current conditions similar to the conditions that have contributed to various marine casualties along the northern Pacific coast. Coast Guard and National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) casualty investigations identified a need for specific regulations to mitigate these risks to ensure the safety of the mariners and vessels operating in the vicinity of bars (
On October 17, 2005, in a written response to the NTSB M-05-009 recommendation, the Coast Guard articulated its intention to develop written policies for transiting west coast bars and inlets. We consider access restrictions within a defined RNA to be the best method to ensure mariner and vessel safety when adverse weather and sea conditions make crossing the bar at harbor entrances especially dangerous. In November 2009, the Thirteenth Coast Guard District published a final rule (74 FR 59098, Nov. 17, 2009) to mitigate bar transit risks that addressed NTSB recommendations M-05-009 and M-05-010. The Eleventh Coast Guard District is considering drafting a proposal for a rule similar to 33 CFR 165.1325 to provide predictability to local mariners regarding restrictions on navigation in the vicinity of Crescent City, Humboldt Bay, Noyo River, and Morro Bay harbor bar entrances based on weather, sea, tide, and river conditions. Such a regulation would establish predictable sea and weather conditions that will set a “Go/No-go” standard for restricting recreational, commercial fishing, and passenger vessel access to the RNA.
Through this request for information, the Coast Guard seeks comments and information for agency consideration and to inform any future establishment of RNAs that would create bar closure conditions as well as regulate vessel bar transits during hazardous bar conditions for all recreational, commercial fishing, and passenger vessels. The Coast Guard requests and encourages open discussion and candid feedback on the possibility of establishing RNAs for Crescent City, Humboldt Bay, Noyo River, and Morro Bay harbor bar entrances. The following considerations warrant special attention:
• Weather and sea conditions at the bars that the maritime community considers a risk to safe navigation for
• The economic impact of bar closures and restrictions on the maritime community; and
• Preferred methods of notification for bar restrictions and closures.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
All public comments will be available in our online docket at
This document is issued under authority of 33 U.S.C. 1231.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve portions of State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the Commonwealth of Kentucky, through the Kentucky Division for Air Quality, on December 21, 2016 and August 29, 2017, on behalf of the Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District (District). EPA is proposing to approve the portions of the submittals that modify the District's Ambient Air Quality Standards regulation, as incorporated into the SIP. The revisions to the SIP that EPA is proposing to approve pertain to changes to the District's air quality standards for fine particulate matter (PM
Written comments must be received on or before March 12, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0550 at
Madolyn Sanchez, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Sanchez can be reached via telephone at (404) 562-9644 or via electronic mail at
Sections 108 and 109 of the CAA govern the establishment, review, and revision, as appropriate, of the NAAQS to protect public health and welfare. The CAA requires periodic review of the air quality criteria—the science upon which the standards are based—and the standards themselves. EPA's regulatory provisions that govern the NAAQS are found at 40 CFR 50—
On December 14, 2012 (78 FR 3086), EPA promulgated a revised primary annual PM
On October 1, 2015 (80 FR 65292), EPA promulgated revised 8-hour primary and secondary ozone NAAQS, strengthening both from 0.075 parts per
In addition to the revision of air quality standards in Section 7 of Regulation 3.01, the August 29, 2017, SIP submittal included minor formatting changes to Regulation 3.01: Removal of the numbering of the subsections in Section 7; and textual modifications to the footnotes which abbreviate them but do not change their meaning. EPA has determined that these are administrative changes that are consistent with the requirements of the CAA.
In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference Jefferson County Regulation 3.01,
EPA is proposing to approve the Commonwealth of Kentucky December 21, 2016, and August 29, 2017, SIP revisions identified in section II above, because these changes are consistent with the CAA.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations.
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission, submitted by the State of Alabama, through the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM), on October 24, 2017. This submission addresses the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) requirements applicable to Alabama state boards or agency personnel with respect to the approval of permits or enforcement orders. The submission also specifically addresses requirements for implementation of the following national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS): 1997, 2006, and 2012 Fine Particulate Matter (PM
Comments must be received on or before March 12, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0642 at
Nacosta C. Ward, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404) 562-9140. Ms. Ward can be reached via electronic mail at
By statute, states are required to have SIPs that provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. States are further required to make a SIP submission meeting the applicable requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) within three years after EPA promulgates a new or revised NAAQS.
This action pertains to one of the requirements of section 110(a)(2) that is relevant in the context of a state's development, and EPA's evaluation of, infrastructure SIP submissions. Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of the CAA requires states to have SIPs that contain provisions that comply with certain specific requirements respecting state boards or bodies or heads of state agencies provided in CAA section 128. Section 128 of the CAA requires that states include provisions in their SIP that (1) require that any state board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders shall have a majority of members who represent the public interest and do not receive a significant portion of their income from parties subject to permits or enforcement (section 128(a)(1)); and (2) require that the members of any such board or body, or the head of an executive agency with similar power to approve permits or enforcement orders under the CAA, shall also be subject to adequate conflict of interest disclosure requirements (section 128(a)(2)).
Alabama previously made infrastructure SIP submissions for a number of recently revised NAAQS. With the exception of the state board requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of the CAA, EPA has already approved or will consider in separate actions all other elements of Alabama's infrastructure SIP submissions related to the 2008 8-hour Ozone, 2008 Lead, 2010 NO
In order to address the requirements of section 128, and thus the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), Alabama made the October 24, 2017, SIP submission to revise the existing SIP in order to include the necessary SIP provisions. Through this action, EPA is proposing approval of Alabama's SIP revision to incorporate into its SIP certain regulatory provisions to address the state board requirements of section 128. More detail on how Alabama's SIP revision meets these requirements is provided below. As a result of the addition of these new SIP provisions to meet the requirements of section 128, EPA is also proposing approval of this submission as satisfying the section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) infrastructure element for the 1997, 2006 and 2012 PM
A brief background regarding each NAAQS relevant to this action is provided below. For comprehensive information on these NAAQS, please refer to the
On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 36852), EPA established an annual PM
On March 27, 2008, EPA promulgated a revised NAAQS for ozone based on 8-hour average concentrations. EPA revised the level of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS to 0.075 parts per million.
On November 12, 2008 (75 FR 81126), EPA issued a final rule to revise the Lead NAAQS. The Lead NAAQS was revised to 0.15 µg/m
On February 9, 2010 (75 FR 6474), EPA established a new 1-hour primary NAAQS for NO
On June 22, 2010 (75 FR 35520), EPA promulgated a revised primary SO
On December 14, 2012, EPA revised the primary annual PM
On October 24, 2017, Alabama submitted a SIP submission to include SIP provisions to address the requirements of CAA section 128, and thereby to meet the related infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). The October 24, 2017, SIP submission includes changes to rules 335-1-1-.03 and 335-1-1-.04 of ADEM's Administrative Code for Division 1 to incorporate into Alabama's SIP certain conflict of interest provisions that apply to the boards, bodies and executive agency personnel with approval authority for CAA permits and enforcement. Rule 335-1-1-.03,
If a state has a board or body that approves CAA permits or enforcement orders, section 128(a)(1) requires that a majority of such board or body represent the public interest and not derive a significant portion of income from persons subject to such permits and enforcement orders.
In 1978, EPA issued guidance recommending potential ways that states might elect to meet the requirements of section 128, including suggested interpretations of key terms.
The legislative history of the 1977 amendments to the CAA also indicates that states have some flexibility to determine the specific provisions needed to satisfy the requirements of section 128, so long as the statutory requirements are met.
EPA is proposing to approve Alabama's October 24, 2017 SIP submission as meeting the requirements of section 128 because we believe it complies with the statutory requirements and is consistent with EPA's guidance. The State has submitted certain regulatory provisions for incorporation into its SIP, and these provisions explicitly require the EMC and ADEM personnel with CAA permit or order approval authority to comply with applicable federal conflict interest laws and regulations. As explained in the submission, these provisions encompass the majority composition and income requirements of section 128(a)(1) for the multi-member EMC and the conflict of interest disclosure requirements of section 128(a)(2) for both the EMC members and the ADEM Director and designees.
As noted above, EPA has determined that state requirements that closely track or mirror the section 128 requirements satisfy CAA requirements. Likewise, EPA believes state law provisions that cross reference or incorporate these federal conflict of interest requirements satisfy the requirements of the CAA. With the incorporation of these specific regulatory requirements to comply with the relevant CAA requirements into the SIP, EPA believes that Alabama will meet the requirements of section 128 of the CAA.
The State also specifically submitted the October 24, 2017, submission to address the infrastructure requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), and the related section 128 requirements, for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM
For the 2012 PM
In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference ADEM's Rule 335-1-1-.03,
As described above, EPA is proposing to approve that Alabama's SIP meets the state board requirements of 128 of the CAA, and is proposing to approve that the Alabama SIP meets the requirements for the section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the 2012 PM
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations.
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866.
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing to amend the significant new use rule (SNUR) under section 5(a)(2) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for Oxazolidine, 3,3′-methylenebis[5-methyl-, which was the subject of a premanufacture notice (PMN) and a significant new use notice (SNUN). This action would amend the SNUR to allow certain new uses reported in the SNUN without requiring additional SNUNs and make the lack of certain worker protections a new use. EPA is proposing this amendment based on review of new and existing data as described for the chemical substance. A SNUR requires persons who intend to manufacture (including import) or process this chemical substance for an activity that is designated as a significant new use by this proposed rule to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing that activity. The required notification initiates EPA's evaluation of the intended use within the applicable review period. Manufacture and processing for the significant new use would be unable to commence until EPA conducted a review of the notice, made an appropriate determination on the notice, and took such actions as are required with that determination.
Comments must be received on or before February 23, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0941, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture, process, or use the chemical substance contained in this rule. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Manufacturers or processors of the chemical substance (NAICS codes 325 and 324110),
This action may also affect certain entities through pre-existing import certification and export notification rules under TSCA. Chemical importers are subject to the TSCA section 13 (15 U.S.C. 2612) import certification requirements promulgated at 19 CFR 12.118 through 12.127 and 19 CFR 127.28. Chemical importers must certify that the shipment of the chemical substance complies with all applicable rules and orders under TSCA. Importers of chemicals subject to a modified SNUR must certify their compliance with the SNUR requirements. The EPA policy in support of import certification appears at 40 CFR part 707, subpart B. In addition, any persons who export or intend to export the chemical substance that is the subject of a final rule are subject to the export notification provisions of TSCA section 12(b) (15 U.S.C. 2611(b)) (see § 721.20), and must comply with the export notification requirements in 40 CFR part 707, subpart D.
Because TSCA now requires EPA to make determinations for all SNUNs and the Lautenberg Act includes other changes applying to section 5 submissions, the appropriateness of the advance compliance provision in § 721.45(h) is questionable. Therefore, the Agency would suspend the applicability of the provision for these significant new uses, and will pursue a resolution of the issue.
1.
2.
EPA is proposing amendments to the SNUR for the chemical substance in 40 CFR 721.10461. This proposed action would require persons who intend to manufacture or process this chemical substance for an activity that is designated as a significant new use by this amended rule to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing that activity. The required notification would initiate EPA's evaluation of the intended use within the applicable review period. Manufacture and processing for the significant new use would be unable to commence until EPA conducted a review of the notice, made an appropriate determination on the notice, and took such actions as are required with that determination.
Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(2)) authorizes EPA to determine that a use of a chemical substance is a “significant new use.” EPA must make this determination by rule after considering all relevant factors, including the four bulleted TSCA section 5(a)(2) factors, listed in Unit III. of this document. Once EPA determines that a use of a chemical substance is a significant new use and promulgates a SNUR, TSCA section 5(a)(1)(B) requires persons to submit a significant new use notice (SNUN) to EPA at least 90 days before they manufacture or process the chemical substance for that use. Persons who must report are described in § 721.5.
General provisions for SNURs appear in 40 CFR part 721, subpart A. These provisions describe persons subject to the rule, recordkeeping requirements, exemptions to reporting requirements, (but see discussion in Unit II.A. of advance compliance under 40 CFR 721.45(h)), and applicability of the rule to uses occurring before the effective date of the rule. Provisions relating to user fees appear at 40 CFR part 700. According to § 721.1(c), persons subject to these SNURs must comply with the same notice requirements and EPA regulatory procedures as submitters of PMNs under TSCA section 5(a)(1)(A). In particular, these requirements include the information submission requirements of TSCA section 5(b) and 5(d)(1), the exemptions authorized by TSCA section 5(h)(1), (h)(2), (h)(3), and (h)(5), and the regulations at 40 CFR part 720.
Once EPA receives a SNUN, EPA must make a determination under TSCA section 5(a)(3). If EPA determines that the new use, under the conditions of use, is not likely to present unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, the submitter of the SNUN may immediately commence manufacture or processing for the new use. Otherwise, EPA must take regulatory action under TSCA section 5(e) or 5(f) to control the activities for which it has received the SNUN.
EPA proposes to make the final rule effective 15 days after publication. There is good cause for a 15-day effective period, because the rule largely relieves a restriction, and because the SNUR modification pertains only to new uses, there are no persons who need time to adjust existing operations.
Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA states that EPA's determination that a use of a chemical substance is a significant new use must be made after consideration of all relevant factors, including:
• The projected volume of manufacturing and processing of a chemical substance.
• The extent to which a use changes the type or form of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical substance.
• The extent to which a use increases the magnitude and duration of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical substance.
• The reasonably anticipated manner and methods of manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, and disposal of a chemical substance.
In addition to these factors enumerated in TSCA section 5(a)(2), the statute authorized EPA to consider any other relevant factors.
In EPA's determination of the appropriate modification of the scope of the existing significant new use for the chemical substance that is the subject of this SNUR, EPA considered relevant information about the toxicity of the chemical substance, likely human exposures and environmental releases associated with possible uses, taking into consideration the four bulleted TSCA section 5(a)(2) factors listed in this unit.
EPA is proposing to amend the significant new use and recordkeeping requirements for one chemical substance in 40 CFR part 721 Subpart E. In this unit, EPA provides the following information for the chemical substance:
• PMN number and SNUN number.
• Chemical name (generic name, if the specific name is claimed as CBI).
• Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) number (if assigned for non-confidential chemical identities).
•
• Basis for the Proposed Amendment.
• Tests recommended by EPA to provide sufficient information to evaluate the chemical substance (see Unit VII. for more information).
• CFR citation assigned in the regulatory text section of this rule.
On April 12, 2017 EPA received a SNUN, S-17-4 for the chemical substance for the significant new use as an anti-corrosive agent in oilfield operations and hydraulic fluids. The 90-day review period for the SNUN expired on October 30, 2017. Based on the activities described in the SNUN, a consent order was issued under TSCA sections 5(a)(3)(B)(ii)(I) and 5(e)(1)(A)(ii)(I), based on a determination that the substance may present an unreasonable risk of injury to human health and the environment.
EPA identified concerns, based on test data on the substance and on new data regarding the expected release of formaldehyde from the substance, for skin and eye irritation, neurotoxicity, mutagenicity, oncogenicity, allergic responses, and developmental toxicity. In addition to the existing water release notification requirements under the SNUR, the Consent Order for S-17-4 requires the SNUN submitter to provide personal protective equipment and respirators to workers to prevent dermal and inhalation exposure, refrain from unloading, processing, or using the substance without using enclosed equipment or systems, label containers and provide worker training, and use the substance only as an anti-corrosive agent in oilfield operations and hydraulic fluids and as a metalworking fluid. The modified SNUR proposes to designate as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.
During review of the PMN and SNUN submitted for the chemical substance that is the subject of this proposed SNUR, EPA identified concerns, as discussed in Unit IV, associated with reasonably foreseen changes from the conditions of use identified in the PMN and the requirements of the consent order for the SNUN. EPA determined that those changes could result in changes in the type or form of exposure to the chemical substance and/or increased exposures to the chemical substance and/or changes in the reasonably anticipated manner and methods of manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, and disposal of the chemical substance.
To establish a significant new use, EPA must determine that the use is not ongoing. EPA solicits comments on whether any of the uses proposed as significant new uses are ongoing. EPA designates February 8, 2018 as the cutoff date for determining whether the new use is ongoing. EPA has decided that the intent of TSCA section 5(a)(1)(B) is best served by designating a use as a significant new use as of the date of public release of the proposed SNUR rather than as of the effective date of the final rule. If uses begun after public release were considered ongoing rather than new, it would be difficult for EPA to establish SNUR notice requirements, because a person could defeat the SNUR by initiating the proposed significant new use before the rule became effective, and then argue that the use was ongoing as of the effective date of the final rule.
Thus, any persons who begin commercial manufacture or processing activities with the chemical substance that are not currently a significant new use under the current rule but which would be regulated as a “significant new use” if this proposed rule is finalized, must cease any such activity as of the effective date of the rule if and when finalized. To resume their activities, these persons would have to comply with all applicable SNUR notice requirements and wait until the notice review period, including all extensions, expires.
EPA recognizes that TSCA section 5 does not require the development of any particular test data before submission of a SNUN. There is an exception: TSCA section 5(b)(1) requires development of test data where the chemical substance subject to the SNUR is also subject to a rule, order or consent agreement under TSCA section 4 (15 U.S.C. 2603).
In the absence of a rule, order, or consent agreement under TSCA section 4 covering the chemical substance, persons are required only to submit test data in their possession or control and to describe any other data known to or reasonably ascertainable by them (see § 720.50). However, upon review of PMNs and SNUNs, the Agency has the authority to require appropriate testing. Unit IV. lists recommended testing for the subject proposed listed SNUR. Descriptions of tests are provided for informational purposes. EPA strongly encourages persons, before performing any testing, to consult with the Agency pertaining to protocol selection. To access the OCSPP test guidelines referenced in this document electronically, please go to
The recommended testing specified in Unit IV. of the proposed rule may not be the only means of addressing the potential risks of the chemical substance. However, SNUNs submitted without any test data may increase the likelihood that EPA will take action under TSCA section 5(e) or 5(f), particularly if satisfactory test results have not been obtained from a prior PMN or SNUN submitter. EPA recommends that potential SNUN submitters contact EPA early enough so that they will be able to conduct the appropriate tests.
SNUN submitters should be aware that EPA will be better able to evaluate SNUNs which provide detailed information on the following:
• Human exposure and environmental release that may result from the significant new use of the chemical substances.
• Information on risks posed by the chemical substances compared to risks posed by potential substitutes.
According to 40 CFR 721.1(c), persons submitting a SNUN must comply with the same notice requirements and EPA regulatory procedures as persons submitting a PMN, including submission of test data on health and environmental effects as described in 40 CFR 720.50. SNUNs must be on EPA Form No. 7710-25, generated using e-PMN software, and submitted to the Agency in accordance with the procedures set forth in 40 CFR 721.25 and 40 CFR 720.40. E-PMN software is available electronically at
EPA evaluated the potential costs of SNUN requirements for potential manufacturers and processors of the chemical substances in the proposed rule. The Agency's complete Economic Analysis is available in the docket under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0941.
This proposed action would modify a SNUR for a chemical substance that was the subject of a PMN and a SNUN. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled
According to PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
The information collection requirements related to this action have already been approved by OMB pursuant to PRA under OMB control number 2070-0012 (EPA ICR No. 574). This action does not impose any burden requiring additional OMB approval. If an entity were to submit a SNUN to the Agency, the annual burden is estimated to average between 30 and 170 hours per response. This burden estimate includes the time needed to review instructions, search existing data sources, gather and maintain the data needed, and complete, review, and submit the required SNUN.
Send any comments about the accuracy of the burden estimate, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques, to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, Office of Environmental Information (2822T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. Please remember to include the OMB control number in any correspondence, but do not submit any completed forms to this address.
On February 18, 2012, EPA certified pursuant to RFA section 605(b) (5 U.S.C. 601
1. A significant number of SNUNs would not be submitted by small entities in response to the SNUR.
2. The SNUN submitted by any small entity would not cost significantly more than $8,300.
A copy of that certification is available in the docket for this rule.
This proposed rule is within the scope of the February 18, 2012 certification. Based on the Economic Analysis discussed in Unit IX. and EPA's experience promulgating SNURs (discussed in the certification), EPA believes that the following are true:
• A significant number of SNUNs would not be submitted by small entities in response to the SNUR.
• Submission of the SNUN would not cost any small entity significantly more than $8,300.
Therefore, the promulgation of the SNUR would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Based on EPA's experience with proposing and finalizing SNURs, State, local, and Tribal governments have not been impacted by these rulemakings, and EPA does not have any reasons to believe that any State, local, or Tribal government will be impacted by this proposed rule. As such, EPA has determined that this rule would not impose any enforceable duty, contain any unfunded mandate, or otherwise have any effect on small governments subject to the requirements of sections 202, 203, 204, or 205 of the UMRA sections 202, 203, 204, or 205 (2 U.S.C. 1501
This action would not have a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled “
This proposed rule would not have Tribal implications because it is not expected to have substantial direct effects on Indian Tribes. This proposed rule would not significantly nor uniquely affect the communities of Indian Tribal governments, nor does it involve or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 13175, entitled “
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045, entitled “
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “
In addition, since this action does not involve any technical standards, NTTAA section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), does not apply to this action.
This action does not entail special considerations of environmental justice related issues as delineated by Executive Order 12898, entitled “
Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR part 721 be amended as follows:
15 U.S.C. 2604, 2607, and 2625(c).
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(1) The chemical substance identified as oxazolidine, 3,3′-methylenebis[5-methyl- (PMN P-03-325 and SNUN S-17-4; CAS No. 66204-44-2) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(1)
* * *
(3)
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Kansas Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Thursday, February 22, 2018 at 12 p.m. Central time. The Committee will hear testimony from school administrators in the state as part of their current study on civil rights and school funding.
The meeting will take place on Thursday, February 22, 2018 at 12 p.m. Central time.
Melissa Wojnaroski, DFO, at
Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the above listed toll free number (audio only) and web access link (visual only). Please use both the call in number and the web access link in order to fully access the meeting.
An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Regional Programs Unit, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60615. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Corrine Sanders at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that meetings of the Texas Advisory Committee (Committee) to the Commission will be held at 1:00 p.m. (Central Time), Wednesday February 14, 2018; 4:00 p.m. (Central Time) Wednesday, February 28, 2018; and 1:00 p.m. (Central Time), Wednesday March 7, 2018. The purpose of these meetings is for the Committee to continue planning for their voting rights briefing.
These meetings will be held on Wednesday February 14, 2018 at 1:00 p.m.; Wednesday, February 28, 2018 at 4:00 p.m.; and Wednesday March 7, 2018 at 1:00 p.m. Central Time.
Ana Victoria Fortes (DFO) at
These meetings are available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 866-290-08833, conference ID number: 8956350. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meetings. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meetings. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meetings.
Records and documents discussed during the meetings will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meetings at
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by the State of New Jersey, Department of State, grantee of FTZ 44, requesting subzone status for the facility of Distrilogik US Ltd., located in Dayton, New Jersey. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on February 2, 2018.
The proposed subzone (4.31 acres) is located at 2351 US Highway 130, Dayton, New Jersey. No authorization for production activity has been requested at this time. The proposed subzone would be subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 44.
In accordance with the Board's regulations, Kathleen Boyce of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the Executive Secretary.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is March 20, 2018. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to April 4, 2018.
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's website, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Kathleen Boyce at
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on aluminum extrusions from the People's Republic of China (China). The period of review (POR) is May 1, 2016, through April 30, 2017. Mandatory respondents were selected, but all requests for administrative review for the mandatory respondents were subsequently timely withdrawn. Commerce preliminarily determines that none of the 29 companies for which an administrative review was requested, and not withdrawn, demonstrated eligibility for a separate rate, and are, therefore, all part of the China-wide entity. For the 191 companies for which all requests for administrative review have been timely withdrawn, we rescind this administrative review. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable February 8, 2018.
Deborah Scott or Mark Flessner, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2657 or (202) 482-6312, respectively.
On July 6, 2017, Commerce published the notice of initiation of the administrative review of the AD order on aluminum extrusions from China
The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically
Commerce has exercised its discretion to toll deadlines for the duration of the closure of the Federal Government from January 20 through 22, 2018. If the new deadline falls on a non-business day, in accordance with Commerce's practice, the deadline will become the next business day. The revised deadline for the preliminary results of this review is now February 5, 2018.
The merchandise covered by the
Imports of the subject merchandise are provided for under the following categories of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS): 6603.90.8100, 7616.99.51, 8479.89.94, 8481.90.9060, 8481.90.9085, 9031.90.9195, 8424.90.9080, 9405.99.4020, 9031.90.90.95, 7616.10.90.90, 7609.00.00, 7610.10.00, 7610.90.00, 7615.10.30, 7615.10.71, 7615.10.91, 7615.19.10, 7615.19.30, 7615.19.50, 7615.19.70, 7615.19.90, 7615.20.00, 7616.99.10, 7616.99.50, 8479.89.98, 8479.90.94, 8513.90.20, 9403.10.00, 9403.20.00, 7604.21.00.00, 7604.29.10.00, 7604.29.30.10, 7604.29.30.50, 7604.29.50.30, 7604.29.50.60, 7608.20.00.30, 7608.20.00.90, 8302.10.30.00, 8302.10.60.30, 8302.10.60.60, 8302.10.60.90, 8302.20.00.00, 8302.30.30.10, 8302.30.30.60, 8302.41.30.00, 8302.41.60.15, 8302.41.60.45, 8302.41.60.50, 8302.41.60.80, 8302.42.30.10, 8302.42.30.15, 8302.42.30.65, 8302.49.60.35, 8302.49.60.45, 8302.49.60.55, 8302.49.60.85, 8302.50.00.00, 8302.60.90.00, 8305.10.00.50, 8306.30.00.00, 8414.59.60.90, 8415.90.80.45, 8418.99.80.05, 8418.99.80.50, 8418.99.80.60, 8419.90.10.00, 8422.90.06.40, 8473.30.20.00, 8473.30.51.00, 8479.90.85.00, 8486.90.00.00, 8487.90.00.80, 8503.00.95.20, 8508.70.00.00, 8515.90.20.00, 8516.90.50.00, 8516.90.80.50, 8517.70.00.00, 8529.90.73.00, 8529.90.97.60, 8536.90.80.85, 8538.10.00.00, 8543.90.88.80, 8708.29.50.60, 8708.80.65.90, 8803.30.00.60, 9013.90.50.00, 9013.90.90.00, 9401.90.50.81, 9403.90.10.40, 9403.90.10.50, 9403.90.10.85, 9403.90.25.40, 9403.90.25.80, 9403.90.40.05, 9403.90.40.10, 9403.90.40.60, 9403.90.50.05, 9403.90.50.10, 9403.90.50.80, 9403.90.60.05, 9403.90.60.10, 9403.90.60.80, 9403.90.70.05, 9403.90.70.10, 9403.90.70.80, 9403.90.80.10, 9403.90.80.15, 9403.90.80.20, 9403.90.80.41, 9403.90.80.51, 9403.90.80.61, 9506.11.40.80, 9506.51.40.00, 9506.51.60.00, 9506.59.40.40, 9506.70.20.90, 9506.91.00.10, 9506.91.00.20, 9506.91.00.30, 9506.99.05.10, 9506.99.05.20, 9506.99.05.30, 9506.99.15.00, 9506.99.20.00, 9506.99.25.80, 9506.99.28.00, 9506.99.55.00, 9506.99.60.80, 9507.30.20.00, 9507.30.40.00, 9507.30.60.00, 9507.90.60.00, and 9603.90.80.50.
The subject merchandise entered as parts of other aluminum products may be classifiable under the following additional Chapter 76 subheadings: 7610.10, 7610.90, 7615.19, 7615.20, and 7616.99, as well as under other HTSUS chapters. In addition, fin evaporator coils may be classifiable under HTSUS numbers: 8418.99.80.50 and 8418.99.80.60. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary results of review,
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the party or parties that requested a review withdraws the request within 90 days of the publication date of the notice of initiation of the requested review. As noted above, petitioner timely withdrew its request for an administrative review for certain companies. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding this administrative review with respect to 191 of the 220 companies named in the
In the
Of the companies for which an administrative review was requested, and not withdrawn, none submitted an SRA, SRC, or certification of no shipments. Therefore, no company for which a request for administrative review remains in place has demonstrated that it is entitled to a separate rate. We, therefore, preliminarily determine that the following companies are not eligible for a separate rate in this administrative review: (1) Activa International Inc.; (2) Atlas Integrated Manufacturing Ltd.; (3) Belton (Asia) Development Ltd.; (4) Belton (Asia) Development Limited; (5) Changzhou Tenglong Auto Parts Co., Ltd.; (6) Changzhou Tenglong Auto Accessories Manufacturing Co. Ltd.; (7) Changzhou Tenglong Auto Parts Co Ltd; (8) China Square; (9) China Square Industrial Co.; (10) China Square Industrial Ltd; (11) Daya Hardware Co Ltd; (12) ETLA Technology (Wuxi) Co. Ltd; (13) Global Hi-Tek Precision Co. Ltd; (14) Guangdong Whirlpool Electrical Appliances Co., Ltd.; (15) Guangdong Xin Wei Aluminum Products Co., Ltd.; (16) Guangdong Zhongya Aluminium Company Limited; (17) Henan New Kelong Electrical Appliances Co., Ltd.; (18) Liaoning Zhongwang Group Co., Ltd.; (19) Liaoyang Zhongwang Aluminum Profile Co. Ltd.; (20) Midea International Training Co., Ltd.; (21) Midea International Trading Co., Ltd.; (22) Shenyang Yuanda Aluminum Industry Engineering Co. Ltd.; (23) Sincere Profit Limited; (24) Summit Heat Sinks Metal Co, Ltd; (25) USA Worldwide Door Components (PINGHU) Co., Ltd.; (26) Whirlpool Canada L.P.; (27) Whirlpool Microwave Products Development Ltd.; (28) Xin Wei Aluminum Co. Ltd.; and (29) Xin Wei Aluminum Company Limited.
We preliminarily find that the 29 companies listed above are part of the China-wide entity in this administrative review because they failed to submit an SRA, SRC, or certification of no shipments.
Commerce's policy regarding conditional review of the China-wide entity applies to this administrative review.
Because no company established eligibility for an adjustment under section 777A(f) of the Act for countervailable domestic subsidies, for these preliminary results, Commerce did not make an adjustment pursuant to section 777A(f) of the Act for countervailable domestic subsidies for separate-rate recipients. Furthermore, because the China-wide entity is not under review, we made no adjustment for countervailable export subsidies for the China-wide entity pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(C) of the Act.
Normally, Commerce discloses to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with the preliminary results within five days of the public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). However, because Commerce did not calculate weighted-average dumping margins for any companies in this review, nor for the China-wide entity, there is nothing further to disclose. This meets our regulatory obligation.
Interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice.
All submissions, with limited exceptions, must be filed electronically using ACCESS.
Unless otherwise extended, Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of our analysis of all issues raised in any briefs received, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results in the
Upon issuance of the final results of this review, Commerce will determine, and CBP shall assess, AD duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
We intend to instruct CBP to liquidate entries containing subject merchandise exported by the China-wide entity at the China-wide rate. Additionally, if Commerce determines that an exporter under review had no shipments of the subject merchandise, any suspended entries that entered under that exporter's case number will be liquidated at the China-wide rate.
For the companies for which this review is rescinded, AD duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated AD duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in
The following cash deposit requirements for estimated AD duties, when imposed, will apply to all shipments of subject merchandise from China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) If the companies preliminarily determined to be eligible for a separate rate receive a separate rate in the final results of this administrative review, their cash deposit rate will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this review, as adjusted for domestic and export subsidies (except, if that rate is
These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of AD duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of AD duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double AD duties.
We are issuing and publishing notice of these preliminary results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable February 8, 2018.
Stephanie Moore, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-3692.
Section 702 of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (as amended) (the Act) requires the Department of Commerce (Commerce) to determine, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, whether any foreign government is providing a subsidy with respect to any article of cheese subject to an in-quota rate of duty, as defined in section 702(h) of the Act, and to publish quarterly updates to the type and amount of those subsidies. We hereby provide Commerce's quarterly update of subsidies on articles of cheese that were imported during the period July 1, 2017, through September 30, 2017.
Commerce has developed, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, information on subsidies, as defined in section 702(h) of the Act, being provided either directly or indirectly by foreign governments on articles of cheese subject to an in-quota rate of duty. The appendix to this notice lists the country, the subsidy program or programs, and the gross and net amounts of each subsidy for which information is currently available. Commerce will incorporate additional programs which are found to constitute subsidies, and additional information on the subsidy programs listed, as the information is developed.
Commerce encourages any person having information on foreign government subsidy programs which benefit articles of cheese subject to an in-quota rate of duty to submit such information in writing to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of
This determination and notice are in accordance with section 702(a) of the Act.
United States Section, NAFTA Secretariat, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of NAFTA Request for Panel Review in the matter of 100- to 150-Seat Large Civil Aircraft from Canada: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value (Secretariat File Number: USA-CDA-2018-1904-02).
Requests for Panel Review were filed on behalf of Bombardier Inc. and C Series Aircraft Limited Partnership and the Government of Canada with the United States Section of the NAFTA Secretariat on January 19, 2018, pursuant to NAFTA Article 1904. Panel Review was requested of the Department of Commerce's Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value regarding 100- to 150-Seat Large Civil Aircraft from Canada. The final determination was published in the
Paul E. Morris, United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, Room 2061, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, (202) 482-5438.
Chapter 19 of Article 1904 of NAFTA provides a dispute settlement mechanism involving trade remedy determinations issued by the Government of the United States, the Government of Canada, and the Government of Mexico. Following a Request for Panel Review, a Binational Panel is composed to review the trade remedy determination being challenged and issue a binding Panel Decision. There are established NAFTA Rules of Procedure for Article 1904 Binational Panel Reviews, which were adopted by the three governments for panels requested pursuant to Article 1904(2) of NAFTA which requires Requests for Panel Review to be published in accordance with Rule 35. For the complete Rules, please see
The Rules provide that:
(a) A Party or interested person may challenge the final determination in whole or in part by filing a Complaint in accordance with Rule 39 within 30 days after the filing of the first Request for Panel Review (the deadline for filing a Complaint is February 20, 2018);
(b) A Party, investigating authority or interested person that does not file a Complaint but that intends to appear in support of any reviewable portion of the final determination may participate in the panel review by filing a Notice of Appearance in accordance with Rule 40 within 45 days after the filing of the first Request for Panel Review (the deadline for filing a Notice of Appearance is March 5, 2018); and
(c) The panel review shall be limited to the allegations of error of fact or law, including challenges to the jurisdiction of the investigating authority, that are set out in the Complaints filed in the panel review and to the procedural and substantive defenses raised in the panel review.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
As a result of these sunset reviews, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) finds that revocation of the antidumping duty (AD) orders on
Applicable February 8, 2018.
Joseph Degreenia, 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) 482-6430.
On October 4, 2017, Commerce published the notice of initiation of the fourth sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders
The merchandise covered by these orders is silicomanganese. Silicomanganese, which is sometimes called ferrosilicon manganese, is a ferroalloy composed principally of manganese, silicon, and iron, and normally contains much smaller proportions of minor elements, such as carbon, phosphorous and sulfur. Silicomanganese generally contains by weight not less than 4 percent iron, more than 30 percent manganese, more than 8 percent silicon and not more than 3 percent phosphorous. All compositions, forms and sizes of silicomanganese are included within the scope of these orders, including silicomanganese slag, fines and briquettes. Silicomanganese is used primarily in steel production as a source of both silicon and manganese.
Silicomanganese is currently classifiable under subheading 7202.30.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Some silicomanganese may also currently be classifiable under HTSUS subheading 7202.99.5040.
All issues raised in these sunset reviews, including the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail if the
Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(c)(1) and (3) of the Act, we determine that revocation of the
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply
We are issuing and publishing these results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CR 351.218.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines, in the context of the changed circumstance review (CCR) of the antidumping duty order on glycine from the People's Republic of China (China), that Salvi Chemical Industries Ltd. (Salvi) and its importers, are ineligible to participate in a certification process because, after further review of the record evidence and comments submitted, we find Salvi has not demonstrated that the sales of glycine examined are of non-Chinese origin. As a result, glycine produced by Salvi continues to be subject to the
Applicable February 8, 2018.
Madeline Heeren, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-9179.
Commerce initiated this CCR on November 16, 2016, and published the
The product covered by this antidumping duty order is glycine, which is a free-flowing crystalline material, like salt or sugar. Glycine is produced at varying levels of purity and is used as a sweetener/taste enhancer, a buffering agent, reabsorbable amino acid, chemical intermediate, and a metal complexing agent. This proceeding includes glycine of all purity levels. Glycine is currently classified under subheading 2922.49.4020 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).
All issues raised by GEO, the domestic interested party, in its case brief are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. No other party filed a case or rebuttal brief. A list of the issues addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is appended to this notice.
Commerce finds that, based upon the record of the CCR, Salvi has not demonstrated that its sales of glycine are of non-Chinese origin, and therefore, Salvi, along with its importers, are not permitted to participate in the certification process. Thus, glycine produced by Salvi continues to be subject to the
This notice is the only 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 terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
Commerce is issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and (4) and 777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.216 and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(i).
United States Section, NAFTA Secretariat, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of NAFTA Request for Panel Review in the matter of 100- to 150-Seat Large Civil Aircraft from Canada: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination (Secretariat File Number: USA-CDA-2018-1904-01).
Requests for Panel Review were filed with the United States Section of the NAFTA Secretariat on behalf of Bombardier Inc. and C Series Aircraft Limited Partnership, the Government of Canada, and the Government of Québec on January 19, 2018, as well as on behalf of the Government of the United Kingdom and the European Commission on January 24, 2018, pursuant to NAFTA Article 1904. Panel Review was requested of the Department of Commerce's final countervailing duty determination regarding 100- to 150-Seat Large Civil Aircraft from Canada. The final determination was published in the
Paul E. Morris, United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, Room 2061, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, (202) 482-5438.
Chapter 19 of Article 1904 of NAFTA provides a dispute settlement mechanism involving trade remedy determinations issued by the Government of the United States, the Government of Canada, and the Government of Mexico. Following a Request for Panel Review, a Binational Panel is composed to review the trade remedy determination being challenged and issue a binding Panel Decision. There are established NAFTA Rules of Procedure for Article 1904 Binational Panel Reviews, which were adopted by the three governments for panels requested pursuant to Article 1904(2) of NAFTA which requires Requests for Panel Review to be published in accordance with Rule 35. For the complete Rules, please see
The Rules provide that:
(a) A Party or interested person may challenge the final determination in whole or in part by filing a Complaint in accordance with Rule 39 within 30 days after the filing of the first Request for Panel Review (the deadline for filing a Complaint is February 20, 2018);
(b) A Party, investigating authority or interested person that does not file a Complaint but that intends to appear in support of any reviewable portion of the final determination may participate in the panel review by filing a Notice of Appearance in accordance with Rule 40 within 45 days after the filing of the first Request for Panel Review (the deadline for filing a Notice of Appearance is March 5, 2018); and
(c) The panel review shall be limited to the allegations of error of fact or law, including challenges to the jurisdiction of the investigating authority, that are set out in the Complaints filed in the panel review and to the procedural and substantive defenses raised in the panel review.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that Jindal Poly Films Limited of India (Jindal) and SRF Limited (SRF), exporters of polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip (PET film) from India, received countervailable subsidies during the period of review (POR) January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015.
Effective February 8, 2018.
Elfi Blum, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0197.
Commerce published the preliminary results of this administrative review of PET film from India on August 3, 2016.
Commerce exercised its discretion to toll all deadlines affected by the closure of the Federal Government from January 20 through 22, 2018. If the new deadline falls on a non-business day, in accordance with Commerce's practice, the deadline will become the next business day. The revised deadline for the final results of this review is now February 2, 2018.
For the purposes of the order, the products covered are all gauges of raw, pretreated, or primed polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet and strip, whether extruded or coextruded. Excluded are metallized films and other finished films that have had at least one of their surfaces modified by the application of a performance-enhancing resinous or inorganic layer of more than 0.00001 inches thick. Imports of PET film are classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
The issues raised by the GOI, SRF, and Jindal in their case briefs and the petitioners' issues raised in their rebuttal brief are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.
Based on the comments received from the GOI, Jindal, and SRF, and the rebuttal comments received from the petitioners, we made no changes to our rate calculations. For a discussion of these issues,
Commerce conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, we find that there is a subsidy,
In accordance with section 777A(e)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5), we determine the total estimated net countervailable subsidy rates for the period January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015 to be:
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), Commerce intends to issue appropriate instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 15 days after publication of the final results of this review. Commerce will instruct CBP to liquidate shipments of subject merchandise produced and/or exported by the companies listed above, entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption from January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015, at the percent rates, as listed above for each of the respective companies, of the entered value.
Commerce intends also to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties, in the amounts shown above for each of the respective companies 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 review. For all non-reviewed firms, we will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits at the most-recent company-specific or all-others rate applicable to the company, as appropriate. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
These final results are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meetings.
The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a meeting of its Mariana Archipelago Ecosystem Plan (FEP) Advisory Panels (AP) to discuss and make recommendations on fishery management issues in the Western Pacific Region.
The CNMI Mariana Archipelago FEP AP will meet on Thursday, February 22, 2018, between 6 p.m. and 8 p.m. The Guam Mariana Archipelago FEP AP will meet on Friday, February 23, 2018, between 6 p.m. and 7:30 p.m. All times listed are local island times. For specific times and agendas, see
Kitty M. Simonds, Executive Director, Western Pacific Fishery Management Council; telephone: (808) 522-8220.
Public comment periods will be provided in the agenda. The order in which agenda items are addressed may change. The meetings will run as late as necessary to complete scheduled business.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kitty M. Simonds, (808) 522-8220 (voice) or (808) 522-8226 (fax), at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application.
Notice is hereby given that the National Marine Fisheries Service's Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC), 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543 (Responsible Party: Jon Hare) has applied in due form for a permit to conduct research on marine mammals.
Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before March 12, 2018.
The application and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the “Features” box on the Applications and Permits for Protected Species (APPS) home page,
These documents are also available upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376.
Written comments on this application should be submitted to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, at the address listed above. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile to (301) 713-0376, or by email to
Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division at the address listed above. The request should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this application would be appropriate.
Shasta McClenahan or Carrie Hubard, (301) 427-8401.
The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361
The applicant is requesting a research permit for 38 species of cetaceans including the following endangered species: Blue (
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Skate Committee to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.
This meeting will be held on Wednesday, February 21, 2018 at 10 a.m.
The meeting will be held at the Fairfield Inn & Suites, 185 MacArthur Drive, New Bedford, MA 02740; telephone: (774) 634-2000.
Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
The Committee will discuss the scope of alternatives to be considered in Framework 6—this could include adjustments to the wing possession limits; provide guidance to the Skate Plan Development Team for appropriate range of alternatives to be analyzed. They will receive an overview of the Council's skate priorities for 2018, and discuss other business, as necessary.
Although non-emergency issues not contained on this agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. This meeting will be recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
16 U.S.C. 1801
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of All American Power and Gas, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is February 22, 2018.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
Take notice that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) will convene a staff-led technical conference in the above-referenced proceeding on Tuesday and Wednesday, April 3-4, 2018 from 9:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. (EDT). The conference will be held in the Commission Meeting Room at Commission headquarters, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Commissioners may attend and participate.
The purpose of this conference is to discuss issues related to the coordination of Affected Systems raised in (1) the complaint filed by EDF Renewable Energy, Inc. against Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Southwest Power Pool, Inc., and PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. in Docket No. EL18-26-000 and (2) the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the generator interconnection process in Docket No. RM17-8-000.
Discussions at the conference may involve issues raised in proceedings that are currently pending before the Commission. These proceedings include, but are not limited to:
Additional information regarding the conference program and speakers will be provided in subsequent supplemental notices of technical conference.
Those wishing to participate in this conference should submit a nomination form online by 5:00 p.m. on March 2, 2018 at:
The conference will be transcribed and webcast. Transcripts will be available immediately for a fee from Ace Reporting (202-347-3700). A link to the webcast of this event will be available in the Commission Calendar of Events at
Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please send an email to
For more information about this technical conference, please contact Lina Naik at
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.
Notice of information collection and request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved information collection, FERC-582 (Electric Fees, Annual Charges, Waivers, and Exemptions) which will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for a review of the information collection requirements.
Comments on the collection of information are due April 9, 2018.
You may submit comments (identified by Docket No. 18-4-000) by either of the following methods:
•
•
Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
The Commission uses the FERC-582 to implement the statutory provisions of the Independent Offices Appropriation Act of 1952 (IOAA)
To comply with the FERC-582 respondents submit to the Commission the sum of the megawatt-hours (MWh) of all unbundled transmission (including MWh delivered in wheeling transactions and MWh delivered in exchange transactions) and the megawatt-hours of all bundled wholesale power sales (to the extent the bundled wholesale power sales were not separately reported as unbundled transmission). The data collected within the FERC-582 is drawn directly from the FERC Form 1
Respondents (
Respondents file requests for waivers and exemptions of fees and charges
The total estimated annual cost burden to respondents is $5,125.50 [67 hours * $76.50/hour
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following public utility holding company filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Sierrita Compressor Expansion Project involving construction and operation of facilities by Sierrita Gas Pipeline LLC (Sierrita) in Pima County, Arizona. The Commission will use this EA in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity.
This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the project. You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EA. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before March 5, 2018.
If you sent comments on this project to the Commission before the opening of this docket on December 21, 2017, you will need to file those comments in Docket No. CP18-37-000 to ensure they are considered as part of this proceeding.
This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this project. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if the Commission approves the project, that approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with state law.
Sierrita provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” This fact sheet addresses a number of typically asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. It is also available for viewing on the FERC website (
For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the
(2) You can file your comments electronically by using the
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP18-37-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Sierrita proposes to construct and operate new natural gas compression, metering, and pipeline facilities on its existing Line No. 2177 in Pima County, Arizona. Sierrita is also requesting approval to amend its existing Natural Gas Act Section 3 authorization and Presidential Permit for the project's increased capacity. Specifically, the project would increase Sierrita's authorized capacity of its existing international border crossing near Sasabe, Arizona from approximately 200,846 Dekatherms per day to 631,389 Dekatherms per day (627,000,000 cubic feet per day).
The Sierrita Compressor Expansion Project would consist of the following facilities, all in Pima County:
• One new 15,900 horsepower compressor station (Sierrita Compressor Station);
• suction and discharge piping and various station yard auxiliary facilities to connect the Sierrita Compressor Station with Line No. 2177;
• one new 10-inch Ultrasonic meter at the existing San Joaquin Meter Station on Line No. 2177; and
• the relocation of the existing “Mainline Valve 2” and an associated inspection tool launcher and receiver from milepost 1.2 to milepost 6.5 on Line No. 2177.
The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix 1.
Construction of the proposed facilities would disturb about 18.7 acres of land for the aboveground and auxiliary facilities. Following construction, Sierrita would maintain about 15.7 acres for permanent operation of the compressor station including station piping and auxiliary facilities, and about 1.1 acres for operation of the mainline valve. The remaining acreage would be restored and revert to former uses.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed project under these general headings:
• Geology and soils;
• land use;
• water resources (including floodplains), fisheries, and wetlands;
• cultural resources;
• vegetation and wildlife;
• air quality and noise;
• endangered and threatened species;
• socioeconomics;
• public safety; and
• cumulative impacts
We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
The EA will present our independent analysis of the issues. The EA will be available in the public record through eLibrary. Depending on the comments received during the scoping process, we may also publish and distribute the EA to the public for an allotted comment period. We will consider all comments on the EA before making our recommendations to the Commission. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public Participation section, beginning on page 2.
With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues of this project to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the EA.
In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on historic properties.
The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the project. We will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed project.
If we publish and distribute the EA, copies of the EA will be sent to the environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the attached Information Request (appendix 2).
In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want to become an intervenor which is an official party to the Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in the Document-less Intervention Guide under the e-filing link on the Commission's website. Motions to intervene are more fully described at
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
Finally, public sessions or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at
Take notice that on February 2, 2018, pursuant to sections 1(5), 6, 8, 9, 13, 15 and 16 of the Interstate Commerce Act,
Joint Complainants certify that copies of the complaint were served on the contacts for Respondent as listed on the Commission's list of Corporate Officials.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that the following hydroelectric license application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file scoping comments using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this time.
l. The existing Riverdale Mills Project consists of: (1) A 142-foot-long, 14-foot-high concrete and steel dam that includes a spillway that contains five stanchion bays with stop-logs, and one hydraulically-operated spillway gate; (2) a 22-acre impoundment with a normal maximum elevation of 262.35 feet above mean sea level; (3) two unused, gated intake structures connected to two 10-foot-wide sluiceways; (4) a gated intake structure fitted with a trashrack with 1.75-inch bar spacing, and connected to a 14- to 18-foot-wide sluiceway; (5) a 200-foot-long, 75-foot-wide powerhouse room, located within the Riverdale Mills Corporation manufacturing facility, and containing a 150-kilowatt turbine-generator unit; (6) a tailrace that includes a 214-foot-long arched granite structure with a minimum width of 18 feet, and an 1,800-foot-long, 37.5- to 75-foot-wide excavated channel; (7) a 75-foot-long, 480-volt generator lead that connects the turbine-generator unit to the Riverdale Mills Corporation manufacturing facility; and (8) appurtenant facilities.
The project is manually operated as a run-of-river facility with an annual average energy production of approximately 162,000 kilowatt-hours. The project bypasses approximately 1,200 feet of the Blackstone River, and there is currently no required minimum instream flow for the bypassed reach.
Mr. Knott proposes to continue operating the project in a run-of-river
m. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website at
n. You may also register online at
o. Scoping Process.
Commission staff intends to prepare a single Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Riverdale Mills Project in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act. The EA will consider both site-specific and cumulative environmental impacts and reasonable alternatives to the proposed action.
Commission staff does not propose to conduct any on-site scoping meetings at this time. Instead, we are soliciting comments, recommendations, and information on Scoping Document 1 (SD1), issued on February 2, 2018.
Copies of SD1 outlining the subject areas to be addressed in the EA were distributed to the parties on the Commission's mailing list and the applicant's distribution list. Copies of SD1 may be viewed on the web at
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Iridium Energy, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is February 22, 2018.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives notice that members of the Commission's staff may attend the following meetings related to the transmission planning activities of the New York Independent System Operator, Inc. (NYISO):
The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.
The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at:
The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.
The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at:
The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.
The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at:
The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.
The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at:
The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.
The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at:
The discussions at the meetings described above may address matters at issue in the following proceedings:
For more information, contact James Eason, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (202) 502-8622 or
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
Recent amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) require EPA to develop a system to assign a “unique identifier” whenever it approves a Confidential Business Information (CBI) claim for the specific chemical identity of a chemical substance, to apply this unique identifier to other information concerning the same substance, and to ensure that any nonconfidential information received by the Agency identifies the chemical substance using the unique identifier while the specific chemical identity of the chemical substance is protected from disclosure. EPA previously requested comment on approaches for assigning and applying unique identifiers, and has developed an additional approach on which it now requests comment.
EPA will accept written comments and materials submitted to the docket on or before March 12, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0144, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
You may be affected by this action if you have submitted or expect to submit information to EPA under TSCA. Persons who would use unique identifiers assigned by the Agency to seek information may also be affected by this action. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Manufacturers, importers, or processors of chemical substances (NAICS codes 325 and 324110),
1.
2.
The June 22, 2016, amendments to TSCA by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act added a requirement in TSCA section 14(g)(4) for EPA to, among other things, “assign a unique identifier to each specific chemical identity for which the Administrator approves a request for protection from disclosure.” EPA is required to use the “unique identifier assigned under this paragraph to protect the specific chemical identity in information that the Administrator has made public” and to “apply that identifier consistently to all information relevant to the applicable chemical substance,” including “any nonconfidential information received by the Administrator with respect to a
The requirements to assign a unique identifier and the unreconciled requirements concerning application of the unique identifier and protection of CBI are more fully discussed in the
EPA has developed a third alternative approach for reconciling the competing requirements of TSCA section 14(g), and now invites public comment on this new alternative.
A brief explanation of CBI claims for chemical identity provides context for understanding the potential effects of applying a unique identifier. TSCA section 14 permits a person to assert a CBI claim to seek to protect from public disclosure certain information in a submission, including a specific chemical identity. A CBI claim for specific chemical identity is intended to protect from disclosure the existence of the chemical substance and/or the fact that the chemical substance is (or is intended to be) manufactured by any person for commercial purposes in the United States (note that under TSCA, the term “manufacture” includes import).
When a chemical identity on the TSCA Inventory (Inventory) is claimed as CBI, then the chemical substance is maintained on the confidential portion of the Inventory. Conversely, a specific chemical identity that appears on the public portion of the Inventory, and is therefore known to be (or to have been) manufactured for commercial purposes in the United States, is generally not eligible for confidential protection (see,
Under this approach, EPA would assign one unique identifier (UID) per chemical substance. In most cases EPA would apply the UID to all non-confidential information concerning the same chemical substance, from any company. However, in a small number of cases, EPA would not apply the UID to some non-confidential documents, in order to preserve approved CBI claims for specific chemical identity where the non-confidential document itself does not undermine the CBI claim, but EPA's application of the UID to that document would result in a linkage that does undermine the CBI claim. The basic criterion for application of the UID to submissions made by different submitters is that
Specifically, prior to applying a UID to public versions of documents concerning the same substance, and filed by different submitters, those documents would be reviewed for presence of the specific chemical identity. If the specific chemical identity (
For example, Company A files a Premanufacture Notice (PMN) and later, a Notice of Commencement (NOC), claiming chemical identity as CBI to protect from disclosure the fact that the chemical is now being manufactured for commercial purposes in the United States and hence is being added to the Inventory. EPA approves the CBI claim and assigns a UID. Company A subsequently files a section 8(e) notice concerning the same substance, claiming chemical identity as CBI again. The UID is applied to that submission as well. Sometime later, Company B files a section 8(e) notice on the same substance, which it asserts it is using for research and development (R&D) purposes, but does not claim chemical identity as CBI. EPA revisits Company A's original CBI claim and confirms that it is not expired, has not been withdrawn, and has not been denied. Company B's submission does not reveal that the substance is on the Inventory or that it is in commerce (as other than an R&D substance). If EPA applied the UID to Company B's submission, that act would link Company B's section 8(e) notice to Company A's NOC, revealing that the specific chemical identity in Company B's section 8(e) notice is also the subject of an NOC and has therefore been manufactured for commercial purposes, and is on the Inventory. Thus, EPA's linkage of the two documents through the applied UID—as opposed to any information contained in the non-confidential document itself—would undermine the previously approved CBI claim for chemical identity. EPA would not apply the UID to Company B's submission in this case, to preserve Company A's CBI claim.
By way of contrast, if Company B's non-confidential section 8(e) notice itself revealed that the chemical substance was manufactured for commercial purposes in the United States—for instance, if the filing were an incident report relating to the commercial manufacture or use of that chemical substance, as opposed to an R&D exploration as originally described—then this would indicate that Company A's CBI claim may no longer be valid, and EPA would reevaluate the prior CBI claim in accordance with TSCA section 14(f)(2)(B) and/or 14(g)(4)(D), as appropriate.
EPA expects that exceptions to application of the UID will be fairly rare. For example, in reviewing all non-confidential section 8(e) submissions submitted over the past 5 years that included a CAS number (such that Inventory status can be readily checked), EPA found that fewer than 4% of these submissions mentioned substances that are currently on the confidential portion of the TSCA Inventory. Further, on preliminary review (
EPA acknowledges that this approach would occasionally create the possibility that the application of the UID to submissions from two or more companies may alert each company to the other's manufacture of the same chemical substance. However, such disclosures frequently arise in the normal course of business under TSCA, independent of UID. One reason for this is that a single accession number is typically assigned to each Inventory substance, and the accession number is often used for subsequent reporting,
While not every company reports under the CDR for every chemical that they manufacture (for example, specialty chemical companies may be making relatively small quantities of a substance, for a specialized use, and may not meet the reporting thresholds for CDR), the fact that a chemical substance is on the Inventory can be revealed in other ways. For example, a company that intends to manufacture a chemical substance for commercial purposes may file a bona fide submission under 40 CFR 720.25 to determine whether the chemical substance is already on the Inventory. The response to the bona fide inquiry, where EPA tells the submitter whether a chemical substance is on the confidential portion of the Inventory, would indicate whether another company has manufactured the chemical substance for commercial purposes in the United States. Also, submitters of section 5 notices that are subsequently deemed to be invalid because the substance is already on the Inventory and thus not subject to section 5 reporting requirements are informed of the Inventory status and are provided the accession number.
This third alternative approach would avoid several problems that EPA has identified with assigning more than one UID to a single substance (see “Second Alternative Approach,” May 8
EPA invites comment on the possible approach outlined above.
15 U.S.C. 2613.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), “Submission of Unreasonable Adverse Effects Information under FIFRA Section 6(a)(2)” (EPA ICR No. 1204.13, OMB Control No. 2070-0039), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through September 30, 2018. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Comments must be submitted on or before April 9, 2018.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0687 online using
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.
Amaris Johnson, Field and External Affairs Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, (7506P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 305-9542; email address:
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i.) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii.) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii.) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv.) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
44 U.S.C. 3501
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “Application for Reference and Equivalent Method Determination (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 0559.13, OMB Control No. 2080-0005) 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 February 28, 2018. Public comments were previously requested via the
Additional comments may be submitted on or before March 12, 2018.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-ORD-2005-0530, to (1) EPA online using
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.
Robert W. Vanderpool, Environmental Protection Agency, Exposure Methods and Measurements Division, Air Quality Branch, Mail Drop D205-03, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: 919-541-7877; fax number: 919-541-4848; 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
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notification of public meeting.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hereby provides notice that the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) will meet on the dates and times described below. This meeting is open to the public. Members of the public are encouraged to provide comments relevant to the specific issues being considered by the NEJAC. For additional information about registering to attend the meeting or to provide public comment, please see “REGISTRATION” under
The NEJAC will host a public teleconference meeting on Thursday, March 8, 2018, starting at 3:30 p.m. Eastern Time. The meeting discussion will focus on several topics including, but not limited to, the discussion and deliberation of draft reports from the NEJAC Youth Perspectives on Climate Change Workgroup and the NEJAC Environmental Justice and Water Infrastructure Finance and Capacity Work Group.
Public comment period relevant to the specific issues being considered by the NEJAC (see
Questions or correspondence concerning the public teleconference meeting should be directed to Karen L. Martin, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, by mail at 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC2201A), Washington, DC 20460; by telephone at 202-564-0203; via email at
The Charter of the NEJAC states that the advisory committee “will provide independent advice and recommendations to the Administrator about broad, crosscutting issues related to environmental justice. The NEJAC's efforts will include evaluation of a broad range of strategic, scientific, technological, regulatory, community engagement and economic issues related to environmental justice.”
Registration for the March 9, 2018, pubic meeting teleconference option will be processed at
Individuals or groups making remarks during the public comment period will be limited to seven (7) minutes. To accommodate the number of people who want to address the NEJAC, only one representative of a particular community, organization, or group will be allowed to speak. Written comments can also be submitted for the record. The suggested format for individuals providing public comments is as follows: Name of speaker; name of organization/community; city and state; and email address; brief description of the concern, and what you want the NEJAC to advise EPA to do. Written comments received by registration deadline, will be included in the materials distributed to the NEJAC prior to the teleconference. Written comments received after that time will be provided to the NEJAC as time allows. All written comments should be sent to Karen L. Martin, EPA, via email at
For information about access or services for individuals requiring assistance, please contact Karen L. Martin, at (202) 564-0203 or via email at
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 Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid 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 PRA comments should be submitted on or before April 9, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email to
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
FCC Form 328. Pursuant to section 76.910, a franchising authority must be certified by the Commission to regulate the basic service tier and associated equipment of a cable system within its jurisdiction. To obtain this certification, the franchising authority must prepare and submit FCC Form 328. The Report and Order revises section 76.910 to require a franchising authority filing Form 328 to submit specific evidence demonstrating its rebuttal of the presumption in section 76.906 that the cable system is subject to competing provider effective competition pursuant to section 76.905(b)(2). The franchising authority bears the burden of submitting evidence rebutting the presumption that competing provider effective competition, as defined in section 76.905(b)(2), exists in the franchise area. Unless a franchising authority has actual knowledge to the contrary, it may rely on the presumption in section 76.906 that the cable system is not
Evidence establishing lack of effective competition. If the evidence establishing the lack of effective competition is not otherwise available, section 76.910(b)(4) provides that franchising authorities may request from a multichannel video programming distributor (“MVPD”) information regarding the MVPD's reach and number of subscribers. An MVPD must respond to such request within 15 days. Such responses may be limited to numerical totals.
Franchising authority's obligations if certified. Section 76.910(e) of the Commission's rules currently provides that, unless the Commission notifies the franchising authority otherwise, the certification will become effective 30 days after the date filed, provided, however, that the franchising authority may not regulate the rates of a cable system unless it: (1) Adopts regulations (i) consistent with the Commission's regulations governing the basic tier and (ii) providing a reasonable opportunity for consideration of the views of interested parties, within 120 days of the effective date of the certification; and (2) notifies the cable operator that the franchising authority has been certified and has adopted the required regulations.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreement under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreement to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within twelve days of the date this notice appears in the
By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreements to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within twelve days of the date this notice appears in the
By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chap 35), the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 330 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20201. Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. Email address:
The Department specifically requests comments on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.
In compliance with the requirements of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, 330 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20201, Attn: OPRE Reports Clearance Officer. Email address:
The Department specifically requests comments on (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.
For decades various organizations and agencies have been developing and operating programs to strengthen families through healthy marriage and relationship education and responsible fatherhood programming. The Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Office of Family Assistance (OFA), has had administrative responsibility for federal funding of such programs since 2006 through the Healthy Marriage (HM) and Responsible Fatherhood (RF) Grant Programs. The authorizing legislation for the programs may be found in Section 403(a)(2) of the Social Security Act [1].
The Offices of Family Assistance (OFA) and Planning, Research and Evaluation (OPRE) in the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) are proposing to extend performance measure and other data collection activities, in service to the HM and RF programs. This data collection is part of the Fatherhood and Marriage Local Evaluation and Cross-site (FaMLE Cross-site) project, whose purpose is to support high quality data collection, strengthen local evaluations, and conduct cross-site analysis for the Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Marriage grantees. ACF is requesting comment on the following data collection, which has been ongoing under OMB #0970-0460 since 2016. There are no changes proposed to the information collection, we are only requesting an extension to continue data collection with the current grantees through 2020.
• Applicant characteristics;
• Program operations (including program characteristics and service delivery); and
• Participant outcomes:
○ Entrance survey, with four versions: (1) Healthy Marriage Program Pre-Program Survey for Adult-Focused Programs; (2) Healthy Marriage Program Pre-Program Survey for Youth-Focused Programs; (3) Responsible Fatherhood
○ Exit survey, with four versions: (1) Healthy Marriage Program Post-Program Survey for Adult-Focused Programs; (2) Healthy Marriage Program Post-Program Survey for Youth-Focused Programs; (3) Responsible Fatherhood Program Post-Program Survey for Community-Based-Fathers; and (4) Responsible Fatherhood Program Post-Program Survey for Incarcerated Fathers.
These measures were developed per extensive review of the research literature and grantees' past measures.
Grantees are required to submit data on these standardized measures on a regular basis (
• Semi-annual Performance Progress Report (PPR), with two versions: (1) Performance Progress Report for Healthy Marriage Programs, and (2) Performance Progress Report for Responsible Fatherhood Programs; and
• Quarterly Performance Report (QPR), with two versions: (1) Quarterly Performance Progress Report for Healthy Marriage Programs, and (2) Quarterly Performance Progress Report for Responsible Fatherhood Programs.
A management information system has been implemented which improves efficiency and the quality of data, and makes reporting easier.
• Staff interview protocol on program design (will be collected from about half of all grantees);
• Staff interview protocols on program implementation (will be collected from about 10 grantees); and
• Program participant focus group protocol (will be conducted with about 10 grantees).
In compliance with the requirements of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, 330 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20201, Attn: OPRE Reports Clearance Officer. Email address:
The Department specifically requests comments on (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) has determined the regulatory review period for JUBLIA and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of an application to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that human drug product.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (in the
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before April 9, 2018. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6250, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-3600.
The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.
A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the human drug product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award (for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).
FDA has approved for marketing the human drug product JUBLIA (efinaconazole). JUBLIA is indicated for the topical treatment of onychomycosis of the toenails due to
FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for JUBLIA is 2,521 days. Of this time, 1,840 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 681 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:
1.
2.
3.
This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its application for patent extension, this applicant seeks 1,601 days of patent term extension.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and, under 21 CFR 60.24, ask for a redetermination (see
Submit petitions electronically to
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services, is publishing the following summary of a proposed collection for public comment.
Comments on the ICR must be received on or before March 12, 2018.
Submit your comments to
Sherrette Funn,
Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
We are requesting that the collection be valid for three years.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of an Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC or Committee) meeting.
The purpose of the IACC meeting is to discuss business, agency updates, and issues related to autism spectrum disorder (ASD) research and services activities. The meeting will be open to the public and will be accessible by webcast and conference call.
For IACC Public Comment guidelines please see:
Any member of the public interested in presenting oral comments to the IACC must notify the Contact Person listed on this notice by 5:00 p.m. ET on Friday, April 6, 2018 with their request to present oral comments at the meeting, and a written/electronic copy of the oral presentation/statement must be submitted by 5:00 p.m. ET on Tuesday, April 10, 2018.
A limited number of slots for oral comment are available, and in order to ensure that as many different individuals are able to present throughout the year as possible, any given individual only will be permitted to present oral comments once per calendar year (2018). Only one representative of an organization will be allowed to present oral comments in any given meeting; other representatives of the same group may provide written comments. If the oral comment session is full, individuals who could not be accommodated are welcome to provide written comments instead. Comments to be read or presented in the meeting will be assigned a 3-5 minute time slot depending on the number of comments, but a longer version may be submitted in writing for the record. Commenters going beyond their allotted time in the meeting may be asked to conclude immediately in order to allow other comments and presentations to proceed on schedule.
Any interested person may submit written public comments to the IACC prior to the meeting by emailing the comments to
In the 2016-2017 IACC Strategic Plan, the IACC listed the “Spirit of Collaboration” as one of its core values, stating that, “We will treat others with respect, listen with open minds to the diverse views of people on the autism spectrum and their families, thoughtfully consider community input, and foster discussions where participants can comfortably where participants can comfortably offer opposing opinions.” In keeping with this core value, the IACC and the NIMH Office of Autism Research Coordination (OARC) ask that members of the public who provide public comments or participate in meetings of the IACC also seek to treat others with respect and consideration in their communications and actions, even when discussing issues of genuine concern or disagreement.
The meeting will be open to the public through a conference call phone number and webcast live on the internet. Members of the public who participate using the conference call phone number will be able to listen to the meeting but will not be heard. If you experience any technical problems with the webcast or conference call, please send an email to
Visitors will be asked to sign in and show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) at the
Meeting schedule subject to change.
Information about the IACC is available on the website:
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of availability.
This document announces the availability of a list of vessels that are generally prohibited from entering the navigable waters of the United States or transferring cargo in the United States. The list, which is developed by the Department of State, will be publicly available on the Coast Guard National Vessel Movement Center (NVMC) website at
The list of vessels will be available on February 2, 2018, and will be updated periodically thereafter.
The list of prohibited vessels will be available online at
If you have questions about this notice, call or email the Coast Guard's Headquarters Foreign & Offshore Vessel Compliance Division, 202-372-1232,
On August 2, 2017, the President signed into law the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA).
(1) Owned and operated by or on behalf of the Government of North Korea or a North Korean person.
(2) Owned or operated by or on behalf of any country identified by the President as a country that has not complied with the applicable United Nations Security Council resolutions (as such term is defined in 22 U.S.C. 9202).
(3) Owned or operated by or on behalf of any country in which a sea port is located, the operator of which the President has identified in the most recent report submitted under 22 U.S.C. 9225(a)(1)(A). As revised by section 314 of CAATSA, § 9225(a)(1) states that the President shall submit a report to Congress of countries and ports that knowingly do any of the following: (a) Significantly fail to implement or enforce regulations to inspect ships, aircraft, cargo, or conveyances in transit to or from North Korea, as required by applicable United Nations Security Council resolutions; (b) facilitate the transfer, transshipment, or conveyance of significant types or quantities of cargo, vessels, or aircraft owned or controlled by persons designated under applicable United Nations Security Council resolutions; or (c) facilitate any of the activities described in section 104(a) of the North Korea Sanctions and Policy Enhancement Act of 2016.
Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of CAATSA, and periodically thereafter, the Coast Guard is required to publish in the
Upon receiving an advance notice of arrival under 33 U.S.C. 1223(a)(5) from a vessel on the list, the Coast Guard will notify the vessel master that the vessel may not enter or operate in the navigable waters of the United States, or transfer cargo in any port or place under the jurisdiction of the United States, unless otherwise allowed by law. The Ports and Waterways Safety Act, as amended by CAATSA, provides for limited entry in certain circumstances, such as a specific determination from the U.S. Secretary of State, and does not restrict the right of innocent passage or the right of transit passage as recognized under international law.
This notice is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a), § 315 of Public Law 115-44, and DHS Delegation 0170.1(II)(70).
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee and its subcommittees will meet in Houston, TX, to discuss committee matters relating to the safe and secure marine transportation of hazardous materials. These meetings will be open to the public.
The Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee subcommittees will meet on Tuesday, March 6, 2018, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.; and on Wednesday, March 7, 2018, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. The full Committee will meet on Thursday, March 8, 2017, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Please note that the
The meeting will be held at United States Coast Guard Sector Houston-Galveston, 13411 Hilliard St., Houston, TX 77034,
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact the Alternate Designated Federal Officer as soon as possible using the contact information provided in the
Lieutenant Commander Julie Blanchfield, Alternate Designated Federal Officer of the Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE, Stop 7509, Washington, DC 20593-7509, Telephone 202-372-1419, Fax 202-372-8380, or
The Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee is established under the authority of Section 871 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Title 6, United States Code, section 451. This Committee is established in accordance with and operates under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Title 5, United States Code, Appendix).
The Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee will advise, consult with, and make recommendations reflecting its independent judgment to the Commandant of the United States Coast Guard on matters concerning the safe and secure marine transportation of hazardous materials, including industry outreach approaches. The Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee will respond to specific assignments and may conduct studies, inquiries, workshops, and seminars as the Commandant may authorize or direct.
The subcommittee meetings will separately address the following tasks:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
The task statements from the last committee meeting are located at Homeport at the following address:
The agenda for each subcommittee meeting will include the following:
1. Review subcommittee task statements.
2. Work on tasks assigned in task statements mentioned above.
3. Public comment period.
4. Discuss and prepare any proposed recommendations for the Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee meeting on March 8, 2018, on tasks assigned in detailed task statements mentioned above.
The agenda for the Chemical Transportation Committee meeting on Thursday, March 8, 2018, is as follows:
1. Introductions and opening remarks.
2. Swear in newly appointed committee members, and thank outgoing members.
3. Review of October 5, 2017, meeting minutes and status of task items.
4. Coast Guard Leadership Remarks.
5. Chairman's and Designated Federal Officer's remarks.
6. Committee will review, discuss, and formulate recommendations on the following items:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
7. United States Coast Guard update on International Maritime Organization activities as they relate to the marine transportation of hazardous materials.
8. Presentation of interest related to safe and secure shipment of hazardous materials.
9. New business and subcommittee recommendation discussion.
10. Set next meeting date and location.
11. Set subcommittee meeting schedule.
12. Public comment period.
13. Adjournment of meeting.
A copy of all meeting documentation will be available at
A public comment period will be held during each subcommittee and the full committee meeting concerning matters being discussed. Public comments will be limited to 3 minutes per speaker. Please note that the public comment period may end before the time indicated, following the last call for comments. Please contact the individual listed in the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Committee management; request for applicants for appointment to the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Technical Mapping Advisory Council.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is requesting qualified individuals interested in serving on the Technical Mapping Advisory Council (TMAC) to apply for appointment. As provided for in the
Applications will be accepted until 11:59 p.m. EST on March 12, 2018.
Applications for membership should be submitted by one of the following methods:
•
•
Mark Crowell (Designated Federal Officer for the TMAC); FEMA, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Risk Management Directorate, 400 C Street SW, Suite 313, Washington, DC 20472-3020; telephone: (202) 646-3432; and email:
The TMAC is an advisory committee that was established by the
Members of the TMAC will be appointed based on their demonstrated knowledge and competence regarding surveying, cartography, remote sensing, geographic information systems, or the technical aspects of preparing and using FIRMs. To the maximum extent practicable, FEMA will ensure that membership of the TMAC has a balance of Federal, State, local, Tribal, and private members, and includes geographic diversity.
FEMA is requesting qualified individuals who are interested in serving on the TMAC to apply for appointment. Applicants will be considered for appointment for ten vacancies on the TMAC, the terms of which start on October 1, 2018. Certain members of the TMAC, as indicated below, will be appointed to serve as Special Government Employees (SGE) as defined in section 202(a) of title 18 United States Code. Candidates selected for appointment as SGEs are required to complete a Confidential Financial Disclosure Form (Office of Government Ethics (OGE) Form 450). This form can be obtained by visiting the website of the Office of Government Ethics (
a. One representative of a State government agency that has entered into a cooperating technical partnership with the FEMA Administrator and has demonstrated the capability to produce FIRMs;
b. One member of a recognized professional surveying association or organization (SGE appointment);
c. One member of a recognized professional mapping association or organization (SGE appointment);
d. One member of a recognized professional engineering association or organization (SGE appointment);
e. One representative of a State national flood insurance coordination office;
f. Two representatives of local government agency that has entered into a cooperating technical partnership with the FEMA Administrator and has demonstrated the capability to produce FIRMs;
g. One member of a recognized floodplain management association or organization (SGE appointment);
h. One member of a recognized risk management association or organization (SGE appointment); and
i. One State mitigation officer (SGE appointment).
Members of the TMAC serve terms of office for two years. There is no application form. However, applications must include the following information:
• The applicant's full name,
• home and business phone numbers,
• preferred email address,
• home and business mailing addresses,
• current position title and organization,
• resume or curriculum vitae, and
• the membership category of interest (
Applicants can submit a cover letter along with their resume to the listed contact (
The TMAC shall meet as often as needed to fulfill its mission, but not less than twice a year. Members may be reimbursed for travel and per diem incurred in the performance of their duties as members of the TMAC. All travel for TMAC business must be approved in advance by the Designated Federal Officer.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not discriminate in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, political affiliation, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, disability and genetic information, age, membership in an employee organization, or other non-merit factor. DHS strives to achieve a widely diverse candidate pool for all its recruitment actions. Current DHS and FEMA employees will not be considered for membership. Federally registered lobbyists will not be considered for SGE appointments.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Correction notice and request for comments.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will submit the information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission will describe the nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents, the estimated burden (
Comments must be submitted on or before February 26, 2018.
Submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the Desk Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and sent via electronic mail to
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection should be made to Director, Records Management Division, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, email address
This proposed information collection notice previously published in the
Comments may be submitted as indicated in the
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed revision of a currently approved collection of information or new collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until April 9, 2018.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0027 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2007-0041. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only
(1)
(2)
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529-2140, telephone number 202-272-8377 (This is not a toll-free number. Comments are not accepted via telephone message). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS website at
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
The information provided on this form continues to ensure effective interagency communication among the three governmental departments—the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), DOS, and the Department of Defense (DOD)—as well as with NATO/HQ SACT. These departments and organizations utilize this form to facilitate the uniform collection and review of information necessary to determine an alien's eligibility for the requested immigration benefit. This form also ensures that the information collected is communicated among DHS, DOS, DOD, and NATO/HQ SACT regarding each other's findings or actions.
(5)
(6)
(7)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments.
The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until March 12, 2018. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, must be directed to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer via email at
You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make. For additional information please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529-2140, Telephone number (202) 272-8377 (This is not a toll-free number; comments are not accepted via telephone message.). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS website at
The information collection notice was previously published in the
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), are proposing to renew an information collection for Areas Designated by Act of Congress.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before April 9, 2018.
Send your comments on this information collection request (ICR) by mail to: The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Attn: John Trelease, 1849 C Street NW, Mail Stop 4559, Washington, DC 20240. Comments may also be submitted electronically to
To request additional information about this ICR, contact John Trelease by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
We are soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the OSMRE; (2) is the estimate of burden accurate; (3) how might the OSMRE enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) how might the OSMRE minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. 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.
This notice provides the public with 60 days in which to comment on the following information collection activity:
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.
The authorities for this action are the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, as amended (30 U.S.C. 1201
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), are proposing to renew an information collection for the Permanent Regulatory Program—Small Operator Assistance Program (SOAP).
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before April 9, 2018.
Send your comments on this information collection request (ICR) by mail to: The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Information Collection Clearance
To request additional information about this ICR, contact John Trelease by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
We are soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the OSMRE; (2) is the estimate of burden accurate; (3) how might the OSMRE enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) how might the OSMRE minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. 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.
This notice provides the public with 60 days in which to comment on the following information collection activity:
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.
The authorities for this action are the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, as amended (30 U.S.C. 1201
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), are proposing to renew an information collection for requirements for certification and noncoal reclamation.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before April 9, 2018.
Send your comments on this information collection request (ICR) by mail to: The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Attn: John Trelease, 1849 C Street NW, Mail Stop 4559, Washington, DC 20240. Comments may also be submitted electronically to
To request additional information about this ICR, contact John Trelease by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
We are soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the OSMRE; (2) is the estimate of burden accurate; (3) how might the OSMRE enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) how might the OSMRE minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. 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.
This notice provides the public with 60 days in which to comment on the
The authorities for this action are the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, as amended (30 U.S.C. 1201
On the basis of the record
The Commission, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), instituted these reviews on July 3, 2017 (82 FR 30902) and determined on October 6, 2017 that it would conduct expedited reviews (82 FR 49659, October 26, 2017).
The Commission made these determinations pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its determinations in these reviews on February 2, 2018. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4758 (February 2018), entitled
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
February 12, 2018 at 11:00 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. 701-TA-388, 389, and 391 and 731-TA-817, 818, and 821 (Third Review) (Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from India, Indonesia, and Korea). The Commission is currently scheduled to complete and file its determinations and views of the Commission by February 26, 2018.
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.
Office of Management and Budget.
Revisions to Appendix C of OMB Circular A-94.
The Office of Management and Budget revised Circular A-94 in 1992. The revised Circular specified certain discount rates to be updated annually when the interest rate and inflation assumptions used to prepare the Budget of the United States Government were changed. These discount rates are found in Appendix C of the revised Circular. The updated discount rates are shown below. The discount rates in Appendix C are to be used for cost-effectiveness analysis, including lease-purchase analysis, as specified in the revised Circular. They do not apply to regulatory analysis.
The revised discount rates will be in effect through December 2018.
Gideon Lukens, Office of Economic Policy, Office of Management and Budget, (202) 395-3316.
Analyses of programs with terms different from those presented above may use a linear interpolation. For example, a four-year project can be evaluated with a rate equal to the average of the three-year and five-year rates. Programs with durations longer than 30 years may use the 30-year interest rate.
The Members of the National Council on Disability (NCD) will hold a quarterly meeting on Thursday, March 8, from 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, in Washington, DC.
This meeting will occur in Washington, DC, at the Access Board Conference Room, 1331 F Street NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20004. Interested parties may join the meeting in person at the meeting location or may join by phone in a listening-only capacity (other than the period allotted for public comment noted below) using the following call-in information: Teleconference number: 1-888-599-8667; Conference ID: 9890793; Conference Title: NCD Meeting; Host Name: Clyde Terry.
The Council will receive agency updates on policy projects, finance, governance, and other business. The Council will receive an update on the work done to date for its 2018 Progress Report to Congress and the President, which this year will focus on monitoring and enforcement efforts in three federal agencies. The Council will next release its latest report titled, “U.S. Foreign Policy and Disability 2017: Progress and Promise” with a summary of the report followed by a respondent panel. The Council will then revisit its 2017 Progress Report, which explored the intersection of disability and poverty, and receive public comments on which of the report's recommendations are of greatest importance for NCD's immediate follow-up activities. Following the public comment, the Council will discuss future 2018 policy activity building off of the 2017 Progress Report. The Council will conclude its meeting with a policy panel including representatives from the U.S. Department of Justice (invited), who have been asked to speak about recent ADA regulation rescissions as well as their work in the area of service animals.
The times provided below are approximations for when each agenda item is anticipated to be discussed (all times Eastern):
To better facilitate NCD's public comment, any individual interested in providing public comment is asked to register his or her intent to provide comment in advance by sending an email to
Anne Sommers, NCD, 1331 F Street NW, Suite 850, Washington, DC 20004; 202-272-2004 (V), 202-272-2074 (TTY).
A CART streamtext link has been arranged for this meeting. The web link to access CART on Thursday, March 8, 2018 is:
Those who plan to attend the meeting in-person and require accommodations should notify NCD as soon as possible to allow time to make arrangements. To help reduce exposure to fragrances for those with multiple chemical sensitivities, NCD requests that all those attending the meeting in person refrain from wearing scented personal care products such as perfumes, hairsprays, and deodorants.
National Science Foundation.
Notice of availability and notice of public meeting.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) has made available for public review and comment the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for Sacramento Peak Observatory. This DEIS has been prepared for the NSF to evaluate the potential environmental effects of proposed operational changes due to funding constraints for the Sacramento Peak Observatory in Sunspot, New Mexico. The DEIS was prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. Consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) is being conducted concurrent with the NEPA process.
NSF will accept comments on the DEIS for 45 days following publication of this Notice of Availability. Comments may be submitted verbally during the public meeting scheduled for February 28, 2018 (see details in
You may submit written comments by either of the following methods:
For further information regarding the EIS process or Section 106 consultation, contact: Elizabeth Pentecost, National Science Foundation, Division of Astronomical Sciences, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Suite W9152, Alexandria, VA 22314; Telephone: (703) 292-4907; email:
Sacramento Peak Observatory is located in Sunspot, New Mexico, within the Lincoln National Forest in the Sacramento Mountains. Established by the U.S. Air Force via a memorandum of agreement with the U.S. Forest Service in 1950, the facility was transferred to NSF in 1976. NSF and the U.S. Forest Service executed a land use agreement (signed in 1980) to formalize this transition and the continued use of the land for the observatory. The primary research facility in operation at the Sacramento Peak site is the Richard B. Dunn Solar Telescope (DST), currently managed by the National Solar Observatory (NSO). The DST is a high-spatial resolution optical/infrared solar telescope. In addition to its own operations, the Sacramento Peak Observatory supplies water for the nearby Apache Point Observatory (APO).
The NSF Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Division of Astronomical Sciences, through a series of academic community-based reviews, has identified the need to divest several facilities from its portfolio in order to deliver the best performance on the emerging and key science technologies of the present decade and beyond. In 2012, NSF's Division of Astronomical Sciences (AST's) portfolio review committee, under the category of solar facilities stated that, “AST and NSO should plan for the continued use of the Dunn Solar Telescope (DST) as a world-class scientific observatory, supporting the solar physics community, to within two years of ATST [now the Daniel K. Inouye Solar Telescope, DKIST] first light.” DKIST is being constructed in Hawai'i and is expected to begin operations in 2020. In 2016, in response to this recommendation, NSF completed a feasibility study to inform and define options for the site's future disposition that would involve significantly decreasing or eliminating NSF funding of the Sacramento Peak Observatory. NSF issued a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS on July 5, 2016, held scoping meetings on July 21, 2016, and held a 30-day public comment period that closed on August 5, 2016.
Alternatives to be evaluated in the EIS which may be refined through public input, with preliminary proposed alternatives that include the following:
• Continued science- and education-focused operations by interested parties with reduced NSF-funding.
• Transition to partial operations by interested parties with reduced NSF funding.
• Mothballing of facilities (suspension of operations in a manner such that operations could resume efficiently at some future date).
• Demolition and site restoration.
• No-Action Alternative: continued NSF investment for science-focused operations.
No final decisions will be made regarding the proposed changes to operations at Sacramento Peak Observatory prior to issuance of a Final Environmental Impact Statement, and, subsequently, a Record of Decision for the Proposed Action.
• Public Meeting: February 28, 2018, at 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., New Mexico Museum of Space History, 3198 State Route 2001, Alamogordo, New Mexico 88310, Telephone: (575) 437-2840.
The meeting will be transcribed by a court reporter. Please contact NSF at least one week in advance of the meeting if you would like to request special accommodations (
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
Notice of intent to request extension of OMB approval.
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) intends to request that OMB extend approval (with changes), under the Paperwork Reduction Act, of a quarterly survey of insurance company rates for pricing annuity contracts (OMB control number 1212-0030; expires May 31, 2018). The American Council of Life Insurers conducts this voluntary survey for PBGC. This notice informs the public of PBGC's intent and solicits public comment on the collection of information.
Comments should be submitted by April 9, 2018.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
Copies of the collection of information may be obtained without charge by writing to the Disclosure Division of the Office of the General Counsel of PBGC at the above address or by visiting that office or calling 202-326-4040 during normal business hours. (TTY/ASCII users may call the Federal relay service toll-free at 1-800-877-8339 and ask to be connected to 202-326-4040.) The regulations and forms and instructions relating to this collection of information are available on PBGC's website at
Jo Amato Burns (
PBGC's regulations prescribe actuarial valuation methods and assumptions (including interest rate assumptions) to be used in determining the actuarial present value of benefits under single-employer plans that terminate (29 CFR part 4044) and under multiemployer plans that undergo a mass withdrawal of contributing employers (29 CFR part 4281). Each month PBGC publishes the interest rates to be used under those regulations for plans terminating or undergoing mass withdrawal during the next month.
The interest rates are intended to reflect current conditions in the annuity markets. To determine these interest rates, PBGC gathers pricing data from insurance companies that are providing annuity contracts to terminating pension plans through a quarterly “Survey of Nonparticipating Single Premium Group Annuity Rates.” The American Council of Life Insurers (ACLI) distributes the survey and provides PBGC with “blind” data (
PBGC is proposing several changes to the survey distributed by ACLI:
• Reduction in the number of ages for which PBGC requests net rate plan factors for immediate and deferred annuities, and removal of columns asking for Deferred to Exact Age 60 net rate plan factors. These changes are proposed because the net rate plan factors for the annuitant ages removed are no longer used when deriving interest factors. The proposed changes will simplify the completion of the survey.
• Increases in the dollar ranges of the Settlement Categories in Parts III and IV to better capture variability and range of business accepted by respondents. Dollar amounts previously used were too low to differentiate among insurance companies that responded to the survey.
• Addition of a question asking whether the respondent participated in the survey in the previous year to enable PBGC to determine the extent to which the survey respondents vary over time.
• Addition of a question asking whether the current value of the respondent's annuity portfolio is greater than $5 billion. This proposed addition will permit PBGC to determine if the insurers who respond to the survey represent a sizable portion of the total annuity market.
This voluntary survey is directed at insurance companies most, if not all, of which are members of ACLI. The survey is conducted quarterly and will be sent to approximately 22 insurance companies. PBGC estimates that about six insurance companies will respond to the survey each quarter, and that each survey will require approximately 30 minutes to complete and return. The total burden is estimated to be 12 hours (30 minutes per survey × four per year × six respondents).
OMB has approved this collection of information under control number 1212-0030 through May 31, 2018. PBGC intends to request that OMB extend its approval for another three years. 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.
PBGC is soliciting public comments to—
• 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;
• evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the 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 using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning negotiated service agreements. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the market dominant or the competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the market dominant or the competitive product list.
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern market dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3010, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.
1.
2.
3.
This notice will be published in the
On June 13, 2017, New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
On August 16, 2017, the Exchange withdrew Amendment No. 1 and filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change, which superseded and replaced the proposed rule change in its entirety.
Generally, Section 102 of the Manual sets forth the minimum numerical standards for domestic companies, or foreign private issuers that choose to follow the domestic standards, to list equity securities on the Exchange. Section 102.01B of the Manual requires a listed company to demonstrate at the time of listing an aggregate market value of publicly-held shares of either $40 million or $100 million, depending on the type of listing.
The Exchange proposed two changes to Footnote (E). First, the Exchange proposed to amend Footnote (E) to provide that, in the absence of any recent trading in a Private Placement Market, the Exchange will determine that a company has met its market value of publicly-held shares requirement if the company provides a recent Valuation evidencing a market value of
Second, the Exchange proposed to further amend Footnote (E) by establishing certain criteria that would preclude a valuation agent from being considered “independent” for purposes of Footnote (E), which the Exchange believes will provide a significant additional guarantee of the independence of any entity providing such a Valuation.
• At the time it provides such Valuation, the valuation agent or any affiliated person or persons beneficially own in the aggregate as of the date of the Valuation, more than 5% of the class of securities to be listed, including any right to receive any such securities exercisable within 60 days;
• The valuation agent or any affiliated entity has provided any investment banking services to the listing applicant within the 12 months preceding the date of the Valuation;
• The valuation agent or any affiliated entity has been engaged to provide investment banking services to the listing applicant in connection with the proposed listing or any related financings or other related transactions.
The Exchange also proposed to amend Exchange Rules 15, 104 and 123D, governing the opening of trading, to specify procedures for the opening trade on the day of initial listing of a company that lists under the proposed amendments to Footnote (E) and did not have any recent trading in a Private Placement Market.
Rule 15(b) provides that a DMM will publish a pre-opening indication
The Exchange proposed to amend Rule 15(c)(1) to add new sub-paragraph (D) to specify the Reference Price for a security that is listed under Footnote (E). The Exchange proposed that if such security has had recent sustained trading in a Private Placement Market prior to listing, the Reference Price in such scenario would be the most recent transaction price in that market or, if no such sustained trading has occurred, the Reference Price used would be a price determined by the Exchange in consultation with a financial advisor to the issuer of such security.
Rule 104(a)(2) provides that the DMM has a responsibility for facilitating openings and reopenings for each of the securities in which the DMM is registered as required under Exchange rules, which includes supplying liquidity as needed. The Exchange proposed to amend Rule 104(a)(2) to require the DMM to consult with the issuer's financial advisor when facilitating the opening on the first day of trading of a security that is listing under Footnote (E) and that has not had recent sustained history of trading in a Private Placement Market prior to listing, in order to effect a fair and orderly opening of such security.
The Exchange stated that it believes that such a financial advisor would have an understanding of the status of ownership of outstanding shares in the company and would have been working with the issuer to identify a market for the securities upon listing.
In its proposal, the Exchange stated that the proposed amendments to both Rule 15 and Rule 104 are designed to provide DMMs with information to assist them in meeting their obligations to open a new listing under the proposed amended text of Footnote (E).
The Exchange further proposed to amend its rules to provide authority to declare a regulatory halt for a non-IPO new listing. As proposed, Rule 123D(d) would provide that the Exchange may declare a regulatory halt in a security that is the subject of an initial pricing on the Exchange and that has not been listed on a national securities exchange or traded in the over-the-counter market pursuant to FINRA Form 211 immediately prior to the initial pricing.
The Commission received two comments on the proposed rule change.
One commenter urged the Commission to approve the proposal promptly and without further delay.
The other commenter also supported the proposal.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 3, is consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Commission has consistently recognized the importance of exchange listing standards. Among other things, such listing standards help ensure that exchange listed companies will have sufficient public float, investor base, and trading interest to provide the depth and liquidity necessary to promote fair and orderly markets.
The Exchange has stated that it typically expects a company to list in
As noted above, the Exchange has proposed to provide an alternative in cases where there is not sufficient Private Placement Market trading to establish a reliable price. The Exchange has also proposed additional standards concerning the independence of the third party agent providing the Valuation.
The Commission believes that the proposed rule change will provide a means for a category of companies with securities that have not previously been traded on a public market and that are listing only upon effectiveness of a selling shareholder registration statement, without a related underwritten offering, and without recent trading in a Private Placement Market, to list on the Exchange. In particular, for such companies that otherwise meet NYSE's listing standards,
Exchange rules also seek to ensure that the Valuation is reliable by requiring it to be provided by an independent third party that has significant experience and demonstrable competence in providing valuations of companies.
The Exchange also has proposed to amend certain of its procedures to address how the DMM is to establish the Reference Price in connection with the opening, on the first day of trading, of a security listed under Footnote (E).
Finally, the Exchange has proposed that it be permitted to declare a regulatory halt in certain securities that are the subject of an initial pricing on the Exchange, and have not been listed on an exchange or quoted in an over-
For the reasons set forth above, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 3, is consistent with the Exchange Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning whether Amendment No. 3 is consistent with the Exchange 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.
The Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 3, prior to the thirtieth day after the date of publication of the notice of Amendment No. 3 in the
It is Therefore Ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statement may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of this proposed rule change is to modify the default handling of market orders entered with a time-in-force of DAY (hereinafter referred to as “market DAY orders”).
Pursuant to Rule 11.190(a)(2), the Exchange offers Users a market order, which is an order type that allows Users to buy or sell a stated amount of a security that is to be executed at or better than the NBBO at the time the order reaches the Exchange.
Pursuant to Rule 11.190(a)(2)(A), market orders must have a time-in-force of IOC, FOK, or, DAY, depending on the User election.
Furthermore, pursuant to Rule 11.190(f)(1), market orders, including market DAY orders entered during continuous trading are subject to the IEX Order Collar, which prevents any incoming order or order resting on the Order Book, including those marked ISO, from executing at a price outside the Order Collar price range (
The default treatment for market DAY orders was implemented based on informal discussions with various market participants who indicated that such orders are not typically utilized by market participants during continuous trading because of their aggressive trading characteristics. As a result, the Exchange determined that the default treatment for market DAY orders was appropriate.
On August 4, 2017, the Commission approved a proposed rule change filed by the Exchange to adopt rules governing auctions for IEX-listed securities, including Opening and Closing Auction processes that establish IEX Official Opening and Closing Prices for each trading day, as well as IPO, Halt, and Volatility Auction processes utilized to conduct initial public offerings, and resume trading after a regulatory trading halt or pause in an IEX-listed security (collectively, “IEX Auctions”).
During the iterative process of designing IEX Auctions, informal discussions with various market participants indicated that notwithstanding the atypical use-case for the entry of market DAY orders during continuous trading, such orders are in fact ordinarily utilized by investors to interact with the auction processes of certain primary listing markets, because market DAY orders retain their aggressive pricing characteristics, which increases the likelihood of execution and adds depth of liquidity in the auction, while remaining constrained to the auction match price, therefore passively benefiting from the price discovery process.
Accordingly, the Exchange designed the IEX Auction processes to account for market DAY orders by queueing such orders on the Auction Book
• The Opening and IPO Auction Books include market orders with a time-in-force of DAY entered during the Order Acceptance Period, and in the case of the Opening Auction, before the Opening Auction Lock-In Time;
• The Halt Auction Book includes market orders with a time-in-force of DAY received during the Order Acceptance Period within the Regular Market Session, or queued prior to the Regular Market Session for securities that have not traded during the Regular Market Session on that trading day (
• The Volatility Auction Book includes market orders with a time-in-force of DAY received during the Order Acceptance Period within the Regular Market Session.
However, if a User does not have their connectivity ports properly configured to allow market DAY orders, such auction interest would be rejected by default. While, as noted above, a User can elect for the Exchange to accept market DAY orders by submitting an Equities Port Request Form, the process of making system changes to modify, test, and deploy the configuration adds additional complexity for Members and the Exchange. Therefore, to simplify User interaction with the System and allow Users to efficiently leverage the benefits of interacting with the IEX Auction processes using market DAY orders, the Exchange is proposing to eliminate the default rejection of market DAY orders and the corresponding User elected connectivity port settings for the acceptance of market DAY orders. As proposed, the Exchange will instead allow all connectivity port sessions across all Members to accept market DAY orders by default.
The proposed changes do not amend the behavior of market DAY orders, as described above. Moreover, notwithstanding the potentially aggressive trading characteristics of market orders generally, the Exchange believes that there are sufficient limitations on execution of market orders, as described above, to mitigate against such concerns.
As announced in IEX Trading Alerts #2017-015 and #2017-046, the Exchange intends to become a primary listing exchange and support its first IEX-listed security in 2018.
IEX believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6(b)
The proposed rule change is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, because it does not alter the substantive behavior of market DAY orders, but instead simplifies the process of entering market DAY orders for all Members. Specifically, the proposed changes are designed to simplify User interaction with the System and allow Users to efficiently leverage the benefits of interacting with the IEX Auction processes by eliminating the default rejection of market DAY orders and the corresponding User elected connectivity port settings for the acceptance of market DAY orders. The Exchange further believes that since the proposed changes do not amend the behavior of market DAY orders, the proposed rule changes are consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because the limitations on execution of market orders, as discussed in the purpose section, would continue to mitigate against potential adverse market impact from such orders during continuous trading.
Additionally, IEX notes that no other exchange utilizes default rejection of orders comparable to market DAY order types.
Moreover, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes are consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because the Exchange is proposing to amend the default behavior of market DAY orders during the industry wide testing period for Members and other market participants to test with IEX as a primary listing exchange, and in advance of the first listing transferring to IEX, which will allow Members and other market participants time to develop, test, and deploy any necessary changes to support the handling of market DAY orders for participation in IEX Auctions.
Furthermore, as discussed in the purpose section, the process of making system changes to modify, test, and deploy the port setting configurations on a Member-by-Member basis adds additional technical complexities for Members and the Exchange. Thus, the Exchange believes the proposed rule changes are consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest in that the Exchange is proposing to simplify the process of entering market DAY orders, thereby reducing overall technical complexities within the System that raise risks to Exchange operations, Members, and their investor clients.
Lastly, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would not result in unfair discrimination, since the proposed changes amend the default behavior of market DAY orders across all connectivity ports. Thus, all Members will be eligible to enter market DAY orders on a fair and equal basis.
IEX does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the proposed changes do not impact inter-market competition since it is merely designed
In addition, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will have any impact on intra-market competition, because as discussed in purpose section, the proposed changes amend the default behavior of market DAY orders across all connectivity ports. Thus, all Members will be eligible to enter market DAY orders on a fair and equal basis.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The Exchange has designated this rule filing as non-controversial under Section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 806(e)(1) of Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act entitled the Payment, Clearing, and Settlement Supervision Act of 2010 (“Clearing Supervision Act”)
The advance notice of NSCC consists of modifications to NSCC's Rules &
NSCC is also proposing to eliminate the existing Market Maker Domination component (“MMD Charge”) from the Clearing Fund formula, as described in greater detail below.
In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the Advance Notice and discussed any comments it received on the Advance Notice. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The clearing agency has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A and B below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
While NSCC has not solicited or received any written comments relating to this proposal, NSCC has conducted outreach to Members in order to provide them with notice of the proposal. NSCC will notify the Commission of any written comments received by NSCC.
NSCC is proposing to enhance the calculation of the VaR Charge by introducing an additional estimation of volatility that would be incorporated into the VaR model, and introducing two additional calculations, the Gap Risk Measure and the Portfolio Margin Floor, that NSCC believes would collectively enhance its ability to mitigate market price risk. NSCC currently calculates the VaR Charge by applying a parametric VaR model that incorporates an EWMA volatility estimation. NSCC is proposing to introduce an additional calculation that also applies the parametric VaR model but replaces the EWMA volatility estimation with an evenly-weighted volatility estimation.
NSCC is also proposing to introduce two additional calculations to arrive at a final VaR Charge, the Gap Risk Measure and the Portfolio Margin Floor. NSCC would use the highest result between the Core Parametric Estimation, the Gap Risk Measure, when applicable, and the Portfolio Margin Floor calculations as a Member's final VaR Charge.
Each of the separate calculations would provide NSCC with a measure of the market price risk presented by the Net Unsettled Positions and Net Balance Order Unsettled Positions (for purposes of this filing, referred to collectively herein as “Net Unsettled Positions”)
NSCC is also proposing to eliminate the existing MMD Charge from the Clearing Fund formula. When the MMD Charge was first introduced, it was developed to only address concentration risks presented by Net Unsettled Positions in certain securities that are traded by firms that are designated Market Makers, as described in greater detail below. Given this limited scope of application of this charge, and because NSCC believes it more effectively addresses the risks this charge was designed to address through other risk management measures, including the proposed Gap Risk Measure calculation of the VaR Charge, NSCC is proposing to eliminate the MMD Charge.
Each of these proposed changes is described in more detail below.
As part of its market risk management strategy, NSCC manages its credit exposure to Members by determining the appropriate Required Deposits to the Clearing Fund and monitoring its sufficiency, as provided for in the Rules.
Pursuant to NSCC's Rules, each Member's Required Deposit amount consists of a number of applicable components, each of which is calculated to address specific risks faced by NSCC, as identified within Procedure XV of the Rules.
Currently, Members' Required Deposits may also include an MMD Charge, applicable only to Members that are Market Makers and Members that clear for Market Makers.
NSCC employs daily backtesting to determine the adequacy of each Member's Required Deposit. NSCC compares the Required Deposit
Further, as a part of its model performance review, and consistent with its regulatory requirements, NSCC regularly assesses its risks as they relate to its model assumptions, parameters, and sensitivities, including those of its parametric VaR model, to evaluate whether margin levels are commensurate with the particular risk attributes of each relevant product, portfolio, and market.
The proposed changes to the calculation of the VaR Charge, described below, are a result of NSCC's regular review of the effectiveness of its margining methodology.
However, NSCC believes this calculation may not adequately cover a rapid change in market price volatility levels, including, for example, a drop in portfolio volatility in a stabilizing market. Additionally, NSCC has observed poorer backtesting coverage for those Members with less diversified portfolios in atypical market conditions.
In estimating volatility, the EWMA volatility estimation gives greater weight to more recent market observations, and effectively diminishes the value of older market observations. However, volatility in equity markets often rapidly revert to pre-volatile levels, and then are followed by a subsequent spike in volatility. So, while a calculation that relies exclusively on the EWMA volatility estimation can capture changes in volatility that emerge from a progressively calm or non-volatile market, it may cause a reactive decrease in margin that does not adequately capture the risks related to a rapid shift in market price volatility levels. Alternatively, an evenly-weighted volatility estimation would continue to give even weight to all historical volatility observations in the look-back period (described below), and would prevent margin from decreasing too quickly.
Therefore, in order to more adequately cover a rapid change in market price volatility levels and the risks presented by less diversified portfolios in its calculation of the VaR Charge, NSCC is proposing to add another calculation of the VaR Charge utilizing its parametric VaR model that would incorporate an evenly-weighted volatility estimation. NSCC believes an additional calculation using a volatility estimation that gives even weight to market observations over a set look-back period would allow it to more adequately address risks related to a rapid shift in general market price volatility levels, which can occur as a result of either idiosyncratic, issuer events (also referred to as “gap risk events”),
The proposed calculation incorporating an evenly-weighted volatility estimation would give equal weight to price observations over a look-back period of at least 253 days. NSCC analyzed the impact of using a look-back period of various lengths and determined that a look-back period of at least 253 days would provide NSCC with an adequate view of recent, past market observations in estimating volatility to meet its backtesting performance targets, and wouldn't result in unnecessarily high margin calculations. NSCC would weigh these considerations periodically to determine
NSCC would perform both calculations using the parametric VaR model—one using the existing EWMA volatility estimation and an additional calculation using the proposed evenly-weighted volatility estimation—and would use the highest result of these calculations as the Core Parametric Estimation in connection with calculating a Member's VaR Charge. NSCC believes that, while the existing EWMA calculation provides adequate responsiveness to increasing market volatility, as described above, the proposed evenly-weighted calculation would be better at covering the risk of a rapid change in market volatility levels by retaining market observations from the entire historical data set. Therefore, by using both calculations and selecting the higher result, NSCC would be able to more effectively cover its credit exposures and mitigate the risk presented by different market conditions in arriving at a final Core Parametric Estimation.
In order to implement the proposed change, NSCC would amend Procedure XV of the Rules by creating a new subjection (I) to Sections I(A)(1)(a)(i) and I(A)(2)(a)(i) of the Rules, which would define the Core Parametric Estimate as the higher result of two calculations—and EWMA calculation and the proposed evenly-weighted calculation—both utilizing the parametric VaR model.
The proposed Gap Risk Measure would be calculated to address the risks presented by a portfolio that is more susceptible to the effects of gap risk events due to the idiosyncratic nature of the Net Unsettled Positions in that portfolio. For example, the proposed calculation would address the risk that a gap risk event affects the price of a security in which a portfolio holds a Net Unsettled Position that represents more than a certain percent of the entire portfolio's value, such that the event could impact the entire portfolio's value. The proposed Gap Risk Measure would supplement the calculation of the Core Parametric Estimation because a parametric VaR model calculation is not designed to fully capture this specific risk presented by a concentrated position in a Member's portfolio.
The proposed Gap Risk Measure would only be applied for a Member if the Net Unsettled Position with the largest absolute market value in the portfolio represents more than a certain percent of the entire portfolio's value (“concentration threshold”). NSCC is proposing a concentration threshold to the application of the Gap Risk Measure because its backtesting results have shown that portfolios with a Net Unsettled Position that represents a proportional value of the entire portfolio over 30 percent tend to have backtesting coverage below the target 99 percent confidence level. These results also show that these portfolios are more susceptible to the effects of gap risk events that the proposed calculation is designed to measure. Therefore, NSCC would only apply the Gap Risk Measure charge if the Net Unsettled Position with the largest absolute market value in a Member's portfolio represents more than 30 percent of that Member's entire portfolio value. NSCC would set 30 percent as the ceiling for the concentration threshold, and would evaluate the threshold periodically based on the Member's backtesting results during a time period of not less than the previous twelve months to determine if it may be appropriate to the threshold at a lower percent.
Additionally, NSCC believes the risk of large, unexpected price movements, particularly those caused by a gap risk event, may have a greater impact on portfolios with large Net Unsettled Positions in securities that are susceptible to those events. Generally, index-based exchange-traded funds track closely to similar equity indices and are less prone to the effects of gap risk events. As such, if the concentration threshold is met, NSCC would calculate the Gap Risk Measure for Net Unsettled Positions in the portfolio, other than positions in index-based exchange traded funds (referred to herein for ease of reference as “non-index Net Unsettled Positions”).
When applicable, NSCC would calculate the Gap Risk Measure by multiplying the gross market value of the largest non-index Net Unsettled Position in the portfolio by a percent of not less than 10 percent.
By calculating this charge as a percent of the gross market value of the largest non-index Net Unsettled Position that exceeds the set threshold, NSCC believes the proposed Gap Risk Measure would allow it to capture the risk that a gap risk event affects the price of a security in which the Member holds a concentrated position and, due to the disproportionate value of this position in the Member's portfolio, the impact of that event affects the entire portfolio. This calculation, as an additional measure for the VaR Charge, would permit NSCC to assess an adequate amount of margin to cover the gap risks not captured by the parametric VaR model calculations. As such, the proposed calculation would contribute to NSCC's goal of producing margin levels commensurate with the risks and particular attributes of each Member's portfolio.
In order to implement this proposed change, NSCC would amend Procedure XV of the Rules by creating a new subjection (II) to Sections I(A)(1)(a)(i) and I(A)(2)(a)(i) of the Rules, which would describe the calculation of the Gap Risk Measure.
The proposed Portfolio Margin Floor would be calculated to address risks that may not be adequately accounted for in the other calculations of the VaR Charge by operating as a floor to, or minimum amount of, the final VaR Charge. A parametric VaR model may result in a low VaR Charge for balanced portfolios. For example, in
The Portfolio Margin Floor would be the sum of two separate calculations, both of which would measure the market value of the portfolio based on the direction of Net Unsettled Positions in that portfolio. In this way, the calculation would effectively set a floor on the VaR Charge based on the composition of the portfolio and would mitigate the risk that low price volatility in portfolios with either large gross market values or large net directional market values could hinder NSCC's ability to effectively liquidate or hedge the Member's portfolio in three business days.
First, NSCC would calculate the net directional market value of the portfolio by calculating the absolute difference between the market value of the long Net Unsettled Positions and the market value of the short Net Unsettled Positions in the portfolio,
NSCC would add the results of these two calculations to arrive at the final Portfolio Margin Floor amount. The sum of these two calculations would provide a minimum VaR Charge by effectively establishing a margin floor for certain portfolios that may not be effectively assessed in the other calculations of the VaR Charge. NSCC would compare the Portfolio Margin Floor result with the Gap Risk Measure, when applicable, and the Core Parametric Estimation and would use the highest of the three calculations as the final VaR Charge for each Member, as applicable.
In order to implement this proposed change, NSCC would amend Procedure XV of the Rules by creating a new subjection (III) to Sections I(A)(1)(a)(i) and I(A)(2)(a)(i) of the Rules, which would describe the calculation of the Portfolio Margin Floor.
Finally, NSCC is proposing to eliminate the MMD Charge from its Clearing Fund calculation. The MMD Charge is an existing component of the Clearing Fund formula and is calculated for Members that are Market Makers and Members that clear for Market Makers.
Since the MMD Charge was implemented, the U.S. equities market has evolved with improved price transparency, access across exchange venues, and participation by market liquidity providers to reduce the risks that the charge was designed to address. Further, NSCC believes the MMD Charge may not effectively address concentration risk because (1) it only applies to Net Unsettled Positions in certain dominated securities, as described above and currently in Procedure XV of the Rules; (2) it does not address concentration risk presented by Net Unsettled Positions in securities that are not listed on NASDAQ or in securities traded by firms that are not Market Makers; and (3) it does not account for concentration in market capitalization categories.
NSCC also believes that the proposed enhancements to the VaR Charge, specifically the introduction of an evenly-weighted volatility measure and the calculation of the Gap Risk Measure, would provide it with more effective measures of risks related to concentrated positions in its Members' portfolios. Subject to applicable thresholds, these proposed risk measures would be applicable to all Members as part of the calculation VaR Charge, and would not, like the MMD Charge, be limited to positions held by Market Makers. Further, as a threshold-based calculation, the Gap Risk Measure would provide NSCC with a more appropriate measure of the potential risk presented by a large Net Unsettled Position in a portfolio. Therefore, NSCC believes that these proposed enhancements to the VaR Charge and other existing risk management measures (described below) would provide it with more effective measures of the risks presented by concentrated positions, and, as such, it is appropriate to eliminate the MMD Charge.
In order to implement this proposed change, NSCC would amend Procedure XV of the Rules by removing subsection (d) of Section I(A)(1) and subsection (c) of Section I(A)(2) of the Rules, and renumbering the subsequent subsections accordingly.
For the reasons described above, NSCC believes that the proposed enhancements to its VaR Charge would allow it to better measure and mitigate the risks presented by certain Net Unsettled Positions, including the risk presented to NSCC when those positions are concentrated in a
NSCC will continue to evaluate its exposures to these risks. Any future, proposed changes to the margining methodology to address such risks would be subject to a separate proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Act,
NSCC believes that the proposed changes to enhance the calculation of the VaR Charge would enable NSCC to better limit its exposure to Members arising out of their Net Unsettled Positions. The proposal to enhance the calculation of the VaR Charge would enable NSCC to limit its credit exposures posed by portfolios whose risk characteristics are not effectively covered by the current VaR Charge. The proposal to add another calculation of the VaR Charge using the VaR model but incorporating an evenly-weighted volatility measure would permit NSCC to more effectively measure the risk of a rapid change in market price volatility, which may not be adequately covered by the calculation that incorporates an EWMA volatility estimation. The addition of the Gap Risk Measure, when applicable, and the Portfolio Margin Floor calculations would provide alternative measurements of the market price volatility of a Member's Net Unsettled Positions, enabling NSCC to assess a VaR Charge that accounts for risks related to gap risk events, and risks related to the unique compositions of securities within a Member's Net Unsettled Positions, respectively and as described in greater detail above. Therefore, by enabling NSCC to calculate and collect margin that more accurately reflects the risk characteristics of securities in its Members' Net Unsettled Positions, the proposal would enhance NSCC's risk management capabilities.
NSCC's proposal to eliminate the MMD Charge would affect NSCC's management of risk by removing a component from the Clearing Fund calculations that has a limited scope, and was designed to address risks related to a Member's concentration risks that would be more adequately addressed by other proposed and existing risk management measures.
By providing NSCC with a more effective measurement of its exposures, as described above, the proposed change would also mitigate risk for Members because lowering the risk profile for NSCC would in turn lower the risk exposure that Members may have with respect to NSCC in its role as a central counterparty.
Although the Clearing Supervision Act does not specify a standard of review for an advance notice, its stated purpose is instructive: To mitigate systemic risk in the financial system and promote financial stability by, among other things, promoting uniform risk management standards for systemically important financial market utilities and strengthening the liquidity of systemically important financial market utilities.
Section 805(a)(2) of the Clearing Supervision Act
For the reasons described below, NSCC believes that the proposed changes in this advance notice are consistent with the objectives and principles of these risk management standards as described in Section 805(b) of the Clearing Supervision Act and in the Covered Clearing Agency Standards.
As discussed above, NSCC is proposing a number of changes to the way it calculates the VaR Charge, one of the components of its Members' Required Deposits—a key tool that NSCC uses to mitigate potential losses to NSCC associated with liquidating a Member's portfolio in the event of Member default. NSCC believes the proposed changes are consistent with promoting robust risk management because they are designed to enable NSCC to better limit its exposure to Members in the event of a Member default.
First, NSCC's proposal to introduce an additional calculation using its parametric VaR model that uses an evenly-weighted volatility estimation would better enable NSCC to limit its exposures to Members by enhancing the calculation of the VaR Charge to better cover the risk of a rapid change in market price volatility levels, including, for example, a drop in portfolio volatility in a stabilizing market. Second, the proposal to introduce the Gap Risk Measure calculation as an additional measure of volatility in connection with the calculation of the VaR Charge would better enable NSCC
Therefore, because the proposal is designed to enable NSCC to better limit its exposure to Members in the manner described above, NSCC believes it is consistent with promoting robust risk management.
Furthermore, NSCC believes that the changes proposed in this advance notice are consistent with promoting safety and soundness, which, in turn, is consistent with reducing systemic risks and supporting the stability of the broader financial system, consistent with Section 805(b) of the Clearing Supervision Act.
By better limiting NSCC's exposures to Members in the event of a Member default, the proposed changes are consistent with promoting safety and soundness, which, in turn, is consistent with reducing systemic risks and supporting the stability of the broader financial system.
NSCC believes that the proposed changes are consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(i) and (e)(6)(i) and (v), each promulgated under the Act.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(i) under the Act
As described above, the proposed changes would enable NSCC to better identify, measure, monitor, and, through the collection of Members' Required Deposits, manage its credit exposures to Members by maintaining sufficient resources to cover those credit exposures fully with a high degree of confidence. Each of the additional calculations that NSCC is proposing to introduce to enhance its methodology for calculating a Member's VaR Charge would provide NSCC with a more effective measure of the risks these calculations were designed to assess, as described above. As such, the proposed enhancements to the calculation of the VaR Charge would permit NSCC to more effectively identify, measure, monitor and manage its exposures to market price risk, and would enable it to better limit its exposure to potential losses from Member default. The proposal to use the highest result of each of the calculations as among the Core Parametric Estimation, the Gap Risk Measure and the Portfolio Margin Floor, would enable NSCC to manage its credit exposures by allowing it to collect and maintain sufficient resources to cover those exposures fully and with a high degree of confidence.
Furthermore, removing the MMD Charge would enable NSCC to remove from the Clearing Fund calculations a component that is limited in scope and would allow it to address the risks presented by Net Unsettled Positions that are concentrated in certain securities more effectively by other Clearing Fund components and risk management measures.
Therefore, the proposal would enhance NSCC's ability to effectively identify, measure and monitor its credit exposures and would enhance its ability to maintain sufficient financial resources to cover its credit exposure to each participant fully with a high degree of confidence. As such, NSCC believes the proposed changes are consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(i) under the Act.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i) under the Act
The Required Deposits are made up of risk-based components (as margin) that, that are calculated and assessed daily to limit NSCC's credit exposures to Members. NSCC's proposal to enhance the calculation of its VaR Charge in order to more effectively address market price volatility would permit it to produce margin levels that are commensurate with the particular risk attributes, including risks related to rapid changes in market price volatility levels due to gap risk events, or risks related to a unique composition of securities within a portfolio, as described above. For example, the use of an evenly-weighted volatility estimation utilizing the VaR model, as an additional calculation of the VaR Charge, which gives equal weight to a long historical data set, rather than more
Finally, NSCC is proposing to eliminate the MMD Charge because this component of the Clearing Fund has only a limited application and, as such, does not provide as effective a measurement of the risk presented by Net Unsettled Positions that are concentrated in certain securities as other proposed and existing risk management measures. Therefore, the proposal to eliminate this charge would enable NSCC to remove an unnecessary component from the Clearing Fund calculation, and would help NSCC to rely on an appropriate method of measuring its exposures to this risk.
The proposed changes are designed to assist NSCC in maintaining a risk-based margin system that considers, and produces margin levels commensurate with, the risks and particular attributes of portfolios that exhibit idiosyncratic risk attributes, are more susceptible to price volatility caused by to gap risk events, and contain concentrated Net Unsettled Positions. Therefore, NSCC believes the proposed change is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i) and (v) under the Act.
The proposed change may be implemented if the Commission does not object to the proposed change within 60 days of the later of (i) the date that the proposed change was filed with the Commission or (ii) the date that any additional information requested by the Commission is received. The clearing agency shall not implement the proposed change if the Commission has any objection to the proposed change.
The Commission may extend the period for review by an additional 60 days if the proposed change raises novel or complex issues, subject to the Commission providing the clearing agency with prompt written notice of the extension. A proposed change may be implemented in less than 60 days from the date the advance notice is filed, or the date further information requested by the Commission is received, if the Commission notifies the clearing agency in writing that it does not object to the proposed change and authorizes the clearing agency to implement the proposed change on an earlier date, subject to any conditions imposed by the Commission.
The clearing agency shall post notice on its website of proposed changes that are implemented.
The proposal shall not take effect until all regulatory actions required with respect to the proposal are completed.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the Advance Notice is consistent with the Clearing Supervision 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.
By the Commission.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) is (i) extending until February 5, 2019 certain temporary exemptive relief originally provided by the Commission in connection with the revision of the definition of “security” in the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) to encompass security-based swaps (“Temporary Exemptions”);
Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
On July 1, 2011, the Commission issued the Exchange Act Exemptive Order granting temporary exemptive relief from compliance with certain provisions of the Exchange Act in connection with the revision of the Exchange Act definition of “security” to encompass security-based swaps.
The Commission also, on June 15, 2011, issued an exemptive order granting temporary relief from compliance with certain provisions added to the Exchange Act by subtitle B of Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act with which compliance would have otherwise been required as of the Effective Date. In that order, the Commission provided guidance regarding the provisions of the Exchange Act that were added by Title VII with which compliance was required as of the Effective Date.
The Commission also provided a temporary exemption within the Exchange Act Exemptive Order for Sections 5 and 6 of the Exchange Act and linked the expiration date of that exemptive relief until the earliest compliance date set forth in any of the final rules regarding registration of security-based swap execution facilities.
The Exchange Act Exemptive Order further provided that no security-based swap contract entered into on or after July 16, 2011 shall be void or considered voidable by reason of Section 29(b) of the Exchange Act because any person that is a party to the contract violated a provision of the Exchange Act for which the Commission has provided exemptive relief in the Exchange Act Exemptive Order, until such time as the underlying exemptive relief expires. By extending the underlying exemptive relief until February 5, 2019, this order will also extend the relevant Section 29(b) relief until that same date.
The overall approach of the Exchange Act Exemptive Order was directed toward maintaining the
In 2014, the Commission extended the expiration dates for the Temporary Exemptions.
The Linked Temporary Exemptions are not addressed in this order and will be separately considered in connection with the related security-based swap rulemakings. The Commission has already addressed some of the Linked Temporary Exemptions. For example, on June 8, 2016, the Commission adopted new rules for trade acknowledgement and verification of security-based swap transactions.
The Commission most recently extended the expiration date of the Unlinked Temporary Exemptions until February 5, 2018.
Since the issuance of the 2014 Extension Order, the Commission has implemented a substantial portion of the regulatory regime for security-based swaps set forth in Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act.
As noted above, one commenter has suggested that the Commission extend the expiration date for the Unlinked Temporary Exemptions until a time that the Commission can provide appropriate permanent relief and other relief to security-based swap market participants from the federal securities laws that apply to security-based swaps due to their inclusion in the definition of “security” under the Exchange Act.
Accordingly, pursuant to its authority under Section 36 of the Exchange Act,
The Commission is providing interested parties the opportunity to comment on whether any relief should be granted with respect to any specific Unlinked Temporary Exemption(s) beyond February 5, 2019. The
To the extent that interested parties request specific relief for any of the Unlinked Temporary Exemptions beyond February 5, 2019, the Commission encourages any such interested parties to be detailed in any request as to the circumstances in which the Exchange Act provision or rule applies to security-based swaps or security-based swap market participants, and why relief would be necessary.
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 in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F St. NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
By the Commission.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange seeks to amend its rules related to flexibly structured options (“FLEX Options”). The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange is proposing to make certain revisions to Rules 24A.4.02, which contains certain requirements for a FLEX Option that has the exact same terms as a Non-FLEX Option.
FLEX Options with quarterly expirations, short term expirations, weekly expirations,
The effect of the proposed rule change is that once an option series with identical terms is listed for trading as a Non-FLEX Option series, (i) all existing open positions established under the FLEX trading procedures will be fully fungible with transactions in the identical Non-FLEX Option series, and (ii) any further trading in the series would be as Non-FLEX Options subject to the Non-FLEX trading procedures and rules. The Exchange believes the proposed application of Rule 24A.4.02 to all FLEX Options will have the effect of more FLEX Options becoming fungible with Non-Flex Options, which will potentially increase the liquidity available to traders of FLEX Options.
Second, the Exchange proposes to codify existing practice by including rule text in paragraph (a) to Rule 24A4.02 to specify the applicability of Interpretation and Policy .02 in the event the relevant expiration is an Exchange holiday. The proposed text is as follows:
In the event the relevant expiration is an Exchange holiday, this Interpretation and Policy shall be applicable to options with an expiration date that is the business day immediately preceding the Exchange holiday. Except, in the case of Monday expiring Weekly Expirations (Rule 24.9(e)(1)), this Interpretation and Policy shall be applicable to options with an expiration date that is the business day immediately following the Exchange Holiday.
Third, we are proposing to change the text to clarify that the existing intra-day add provision only applies to FLEX Options that have an American-style exercise. Limiting the application of the intra-day add provision to American-style exercises was the Exchange's original intent when this provision was originally adopted.
Finally, we are also proposing non-substantive, clarifying changes to simplify the text and make it easier to read. The changes are as follows:
The Exchange notes that when a FLEX Option is fungible with the Non-FLEX option OCC converts any open interest in the FLEX Option to the Non-FLEX option. However, OCC's By-laws currently provide that:
Once a series of non-flexibly structured options (other than a series of quarterly options or short term options) is opened for trading on an Exchange, any existing flexibly structured option contracts that have identical variable terms shall be fully fungible with options in such series, and shall cease to be flexibly structured options.
In order to allow OCC the time necessary to amend its By-laws, the proposed rule text provides that the Exchange's current rule text will remain in effect until a date specified by the Exchange in a Regulatory Circular, which date shall be no later than July 31, 2018. The Regulatory Circular announcing the effective date shall be issued at least 30 days prior to the effective date. On the effective date specified by the Exchange in a Regulatory Circular, the rule text provisions amended by this filing will be in effect.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed application of Rule 24A.4.02 to all FLEX Options will have the effect of more FLEX Options becoming fungible with Non-Flex Options, which will potentially increase the liquidity available to traders of FLEX Options. The Exchange also believes the rule text regarding holidays will serve to make clear the Exchange's policies with regards to holidays. In addition, the Exchange believes that specifying that the intra-day add provision applies solely to American-style expirations will potentially provide more clarity regarding the manner in which the rules operate, which helps protect investors and the public interest. Finally, the non-substantive, clarifying changes of the proposed filing protect investors and the public interest by making the rule easier to read and understand.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Specifically, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition because the rules will be applicable to all TPHs. The Exchange does not believe the proposal will negatively impact market participants because, importantly, more FLEX Options becoming fungible with Non-Flex Options will potentially increase the liquidity available to traders of FLEX Options (
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
A. By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
B. institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes (1) to reflect a change in the description of the index underlying shares (“Shares”) of the U.S. Equity Ex-Dividend Fund—Series 2027; and (2) to revise the reference to the Custodian for the U.S. Equity Cumulative Dividends Fund—Series 2027 and the U.S. Equity Ex-Dividend Fund—Series 2027 (each a “Fund” and, collectively, the “Funds”). Shares of the Funds have been approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) for listing and trading on the Exchange under NYSE Arca Rule 8.200-E, Commentary .02. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Commission has approved a proposed rule change relating to listing and trading on the Exchange of Shares of the Funds under NYSE Arca Rule 8.200-E,
With respect to the U.S. Equity Ex-Dividend Fund—Series 2027 Fund (“Ex-Dividend Fund”), the Prior Releases stated that, according to the Registration Statement, the Ex-Dividend Fund will seek investment results that, before fees and expenses, correspond to the performance of the Solactive U.S. Equity Ex-Dividends Index—Series 2027 so as to provide shareholders of the Ex-Dividend Fund with returns that are equivalent to the performance of 0.5 shares of SPDR® S&P 500 ETF (“SPDRs”) less the value of current and future expected ordinary cash dividends to be paid on the S&P 500 constituent companies over the term of the Ex-Dividend Fund. In addition, the Prior Releases stated that, according to the Registration Statement, the Solactive Ex-Dividend Index aims to represent the current value of 0.5 shares of SPDRs, less the current value of ordinary cash dividends expected to be paid on the S&P 500, until the Ex-Dividend Fund's maturity as represented by the Solactive Dividend Index and, because the Solactive Ex-Dividend Index tracks the performance of 0.5 shares of SPDRs and sums up the discounted values of the Annual S&P 500 Dividend Futures Contracts, no weighting is applied.
The Ex-Dividend Fund proposes to change these representations to state
Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change identified the Funds' Custodian as Bank of New York Mellon. This representation is changed to state that the Funds' Custodian will be Brown Brothers, Harriman & Co., as stated in the Prior Notice.
The Funds will comply with all initial and continued listing requirements under NYSE Arca Rule 8.200-E, Commentary .02. The only change with respect to the Funds' investment objective is that the Ex-Dividend Fund will seek investment results that, before fees and expenses, correspond to the performance of the Solactive U.S. Equity Ex-Dividends Index—Series 2027 so as to provide shareholders of the Ex-Dividend Fund with returns that are equivalent to the performance of 0.25 shares (rather than 0.50 shares) of SPDRs less the value of current and future expected ordinary cash dividends to be paid on the S&P 500 constituent companies over the term of the Ex-Dividend Fund. Except for the changes noted above, all other representations made in the Prior Releases remain unchanged.
The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the requirement under Section 6(b)(5) that an exchange have rules that are designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
The proposed rule change is designed to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. With respect to the change to the Solactive Ex-Dividend Index, which aims to represent the current value of 0.25 shares of SPDRs (reduced from 0.50 as stated in the Prior Releases), less the current value of ordinary cash dividends expected to be paid on the S&P 500, the net asset value of the Ex-Dividend Fund's Shares was reduced by half in order to track a reduction by half of the value of the Solactive Dividend Index and the corresponding reduction by half of the net asset value of the Dividend Fund's Shares. The Sponsor has determined that the net asset value of the Dividend Fund's Shares would be too large for many retail investors of financial intermediaries. The Sponsor has determined that such reduction, which would consequently result in a proportionate reduction in the net asset value of Shares of the Ex-Dividend Fund (to represent the current value of 0.25 shares of SPDRs less the current value of ordinary cash dividends expected to be paid on the S&P 500), would be more appropriate for retail investors. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change relating to the Solactive Ex-Dividend Index will provide the Funds [sic] with the ability to price the Funds' [sic] Shares in a manner that the Exchange believes is more appropriate for retail investors, which will enhance market competition with respect to the Funds' [sic] Shares and may enhance liquidity in trading in the Funds' [sic] Shares. Such change will not impact operation of the Funds and will not adversely impact investors, Exchange trading or the ability of market participants to arbitrage the Funds.
The Funds will comply with all initial and continued listing requirements under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.200-E, Commentary .02. Except for the changes noted above, all other representations made in the Prior Releases remain unchanged.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change relating to the Solactive Ex-Dividend Index will provide the Funds [sic] with the ability to price the Funds' [sic] Shares in a manner that the Exchange believes is more appropriate for retail investors, which will enhance market competition with respect to the Funds' [sic] Shares.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act
The Exchange states that modification of the investment objective of the Ex-Dividend Fund will adjust the price of the Shares to a level that the Exchange believes is more appropriate for retail investors. The Exchange asserts that this, in turn, will enhance market competition with respect to the Shares and may enhance their liquidity. Additionally, the Exchange states that this change, as well as the designation of a new custodian, will not impact the operation of the Funds or adversely impact investors. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the proposal operative upon filing.
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 change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice of meetings and request for comments.
The Department of State and the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) are providing notice that, on February 21-22, 2018, the United States and Peru will hold the ninth meeting of the Sub-Committee on Forest Sector Governance (the “Sub-Committee”), the seventh meeting of the Environmental Affairs Council (the “Council”), and the fifth meeting of the Environmental Cooperation Commission (the “Commission”). The public session for the Council, Commission and Sub-Committee will be held on February 22, 2018 at 3:00 p.m. All meetings will take place in Lima, Peru, at the Ministry of International Trade and Tourism (Mincetur).
The public session of the Council, Sub-Committee and Commission meetings will be held on February 22, 2018 at 3:00 p.m. Comments and suggestions are requested in writing no later than February 20, 2018.
All meetings will be held at Peru's Ministry of International Trade and Tourism (Mincetur), Calle Uno Oeste N 050 Urb. Corpac, San Isidro.
Written comments and suggestions should be submitted to both:
(1) Rachel Kastenberg, Office of Environmental Quality and Transboundary Issues, U.S. Department of State, by electronic mail at
(2) Laura Buffo, Office of Environment and Natural Resources, Office of the United States Trade Representative, by electronic mail at
Rachel Kastenberg, Telephone (202) 647-6849 or Laura Buffo, Telephone (202) 395-9424.
The PTPA entered into force on February 1, 2009. Article 18.6 of the PTPA establishes an Environmental Affairs Council, which meets once a year unless otherwise agreed by the Parties to discuss the implementation of Chapter 18. Annex 18.3.4 to the PTPA establishes a Sub-Committee on Forest Sector Governance. The Sub-Committee is a specific forum for the Parties to exchange views and share information on any matter arising under the PTPA Annex on Forest Sector Governance. The ECA entered into force on August 23, 2009. Article III of the ECA establishes an Environmental Cooperation Commission and makes the Commission responsible for developing a Work Program. Article 18.6 of the PTPA and Article VI of the ECA provide that meetings of the Council and Commission respectively include a public session, unless the Parties otherwise agree. At its first meeting, the Sub-Committee on Forest Sector Governance committed to hold a public session after each Sub-Committee meeting.
The purpose of the meetings is to review implementation of: Chapter 18 (Environment) of the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement (PTPA); the PTPA Annex on Forest Sector Governance (Annex 18.3.4); and the United States-Peru Environmental Cooperation Agreement (ECA).
The Department of State and USTR invite interested organizations and members of the public to attend the public session, and to submit written comments or suggestions regarding implementation of Chapter 18, Annex 18.3.4, and the ECA, and any issues that should be discussed at the meetings. If you would like to attend the public session, please notify Rachel Kastenberg and Laura Buffo at the email addresses listed under the heading
In preparing comments, submitters are encouraged to refer to:
• Chapter 18 of the PTPA, including Annex 18.3.4,
• the Final Environmental Review of the PTPA,
• the ECA,
These and other useful documents are available at:
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Notice.
The United States Trade Representative is making technical modifications to subchapter III of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS) to correct errors and omissions in the Annex to a Presidential Proclamation issued on January 23, 2018, concerning imports of large residential washers and covered parts.
The modifications and corrections are effective with respect to articles entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the dates set forth in each item in the annex to this notice.
Victor Mroczka, Office of WTO and Multilateral Affairs, at
On January 23, 2018, Presidential Proclamation 9694 (83 FR 3553) established increases in duties and a tariff-rate quota known as the safeguard measure, pursuant to section 203 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2253), on imports of large residential washers and covered parts described in paragraph 5 of that Proclamation. Effective with respect to goods entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 12:01 a.m., eastern standard time, on February 7, 2018, Proclamation 9694 modifies the HTS to provide for increased duties and a tariff-rate quota. The Annex to the Proclamation contained technical errors and omissions. This notice correct those errors and omissions to provide the intended tariff treatment. In particular, the notice corrects an error regarding the description of covered washer parts included in the application of the safeguard measure, as provided in paragraph 5 of Proclamation 9694.
Presidential Proclamation 6969 of January 27, 1997 (62 FR 4415), authorizes the United States Trade Representative to exercise the authority provided to the President under section 604 of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2483) to embody rectifications, technical or conforming changes, or similar modifications in the HTS. Pursuant to this delegated authority, the United States Trade Representative is making the following changes to the HTS with respect to goods entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the dates set forth below.
Effective with respect to articles entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 12:01 a.m., eastern standard time, on February 7, 2018, U.S. Note 17(f) to subchapter III of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is modified:
(1) By deleting the phrase “, the foregoing which incorporate, at a minimum, (A) a side wrapper, (B) a base and (C) a drive hub” in subdivision (1);
(2) by deleting the word “and” at the end of subdivision (2);
(3) by renumbering subdivision (3) as subdivision (4); and
(4) by inserting the following new subdivision (3) in numerical order:
“(3) all assembled baskets provided for in subheading 8450.90.60 and designed for use in the washing machines defined in subdivision (c) of this note, which incorporate, at a minimum: (A) a side wrapper, (B) a base and (C) a drive hub; and”.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before February 28, 2018.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-1049 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Nia Daniels, (202) 267-7626, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Issued in Washington, DC.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of petition for exemption received.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before February 28, 2018.
You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2016-9416 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Nia Daniels, (202) 267-7626, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Issued in Washington, DC.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. The collection involves the submission of application FAA Form 8710-3 for the certification process. The information to be collected will be used to and/or is necessary to evaluate the operators request to become certified as an Agricultural Aircraft Operator.
Written comments should be submitted by April 9, 2018.
Barbara Hall by email at:
The information collected includes: Type of application, Operators name/DBAs, telephone number, mailing address, physical address of the principal base of operations, Chief pilot/designee name, airman certificate grade and number, rotorcraft make/model registration numbers to be used and load combinations requested.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The FHWA has forwarded the information collection request described in this notice to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval of a new information collection. We published a
Please submit comments by March 12, 2018.
You may send comments within 30 days to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention DOT Desk Officer. You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including: (1) Whether the proposed collection is necessary for the FHWA's performance; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways for the FHWA to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and (4) ways that the burden could be minimized, including the use of electronic technology, without reducing the quality of the collected information. All comments should include the Docket No. FHWA- 2017-0037.
Dana Gigliotti, 202-366-1290,
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Office of Safety's mission is to exercise leadership throughout the highway community to make the Nation's roadways safer by developing, evaluating, and deploying life-saving countermeasures; advancing the use of scientific methods and data-driven decisions, fostering a safety culture, and promoting an integrated, multidisciplinary 4 E's (Engineering, Education, Enforcement, Education) approach to safety. The mission is carried out through the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), a data driven strategic approach to improving highway safety on all public roads that focuses on performance. The goal of the program is to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads, including non-State-owned public roads and roads on tribal lands.
In keeping with that mission, the United States Congress on June 29, 2012 passed the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), which was signed into law (Pub. L. 112-141) on July 6, 2012 by President Barrack Obama and continued in the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act). MAP-21 is a milestone for the U.S. economy and the Nation's surface transportation program as it transformed the policy and programmatic framework for investments to guide the system's growth and development and created a streamlined performance-based surface transportation program. The FHWA defines Transportation Performance Management (TPM) as a strategic approach that uses system information to make investment and policy decisions to achieve national performance goals.
MAP-21 required the Secretary of Transportation to establish performance measures for States to use to assess serious injuries and fatalities per vehicle mile traveled; and the number of serious injuries and fatalities, for the purposes of carrying out the HSIP under 23 U.S.C. 148. The HSIP is applicable to all public roads and therefore requires crash reporting by law enforcement agencies that have jurisdiction over them.
In defining performance measures for serious injuries, FHWA requires national reporting by States using a uniform definition for national reporting in this performance area, as required by MAP-21. An established standard for defining serious injuries as a result of motor vehicle related crashes has been developed in the 4th edition of the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC). MMUCC represents a voluntary and collaborative effort to generate uniform crash data that are accurate, reliable and credible for data-
As part of the national requirement to report serious injuries using the MMUCC 4th Edition definition, the FHWA seeks to determine if States have adopted the MMUCC 4th edition definition, attribute and coding convention by the required April 15, 2019 date. Specifically, States will be considered compliant with the serious injury definition requirement if it: Maintains a statewide crash database capable of accurately aggregating the MMUCC 4th Edition injury status attribute for “Suspected Serious Injury (A); Ensures the State crash database, data dictionary and crash report user manual employs the verbatim terminology and definitions for the MMUCC 4th Edition injury status attribute Suspected Serious Injury (A); Ensures the police crash form employs the verbatim MMUCC 4th Edition injury status attribute for Suspected Serious Injury (A); Ensures that the seven serious injury types specified in the Suspected Serious Injury (A) attribute are not included in any of the other attributes listed in the States' injury status data elements are MMUCC compliant.
The purpose of the information collection is to assess each States' ability to report serious injuries using the new Federal definition. This assessment will require consultation with the State database owner, State law enforcement agency and possibly county and municipal law enforcement agencies that don't use the State form.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.48.
This Document was Received at the Office of the Federal Register on February 5, 2018.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The FHWA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval for renewal of a previously approved information collection that is summarized below under
Please submit comments by April 9, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket ID Number FHWA 2018-0005 by any of the following methods:
Samantha Lubkin, 202-366-1575, Office of Bridges and Structures, Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.48.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of request for extension of currently approved information collection.
The FHWA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval for renewal of an existing information collection that is summarized below under
Please submit comments by April 9, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket ID Number 2018-0006 by any of the following methods:
Greg Wolf, 202-366-4655, Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Program Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.48.
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 |