| Page Range | 5871-6105 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 83 FR 6105 - Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Libya | |
| 83 FR 6024 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 83 FR 6054 - Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
| 83 FR 6052 - Sunshine Act: Notice of Agency Meeting | |
| 83 FR 5976 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 83 FR 6024 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company | |
| 83 FR 6024 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
| 83 FR 6047 - Notice of Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council Critical Infrastructure Summit | |
| 83 FR 6053 - Qualification and Training of Personnel for Nuclear Power Plants | |
| 83 FR 6019 - National and Governmental Advisory Committees | |
| 83 FR 5997 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records | |
| 83 FR 5948 - Ohio: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revision | |
| 83 FR 6001 - National Assessment Governing Board Quarterly Board Meeting | |
| 83 FR 5971 - Outer Continental Shelf Air Regulations; Consistency Update for Massachusetts | |
| 83 FR 6050 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Cooperative Research Group on ROS-Industrial Consortium-Americas | |
| 83 FR 6050 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc. | |
| 83 FR 6052 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Extension of Information Collection; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 6050 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-ASTM International Standards | |
| 83 FR 6030 - Packaging, Storage, and Disposal Options To Enhance Opioid Safety-Exploring the Path Forward; Public Workshop; Extension of Comment Period | |
| 83 FR 6051 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Gap Year Association (Formerly Amercian Gap Association) | |
| 83 FR 6051 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-UHD Alliance, Inc. | |
| 83 FR 6025 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 6100 - Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses; Notice of Meeting | |
| 83 FR 6048 - Request for Applicants for Appointment to the Aviation Security Advisory Committee | |
| 83 FR 6080 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Grant Request Automated Submissions Program (GRASP) | |
| 83 FR 6075 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 6057 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 6020 - Partial Lift of Freeze on Filing Petitions for Rulemaking To Change Television Stations Community of License | |
| 83 FR 6028 - Training Program for Regulatory Project Managers; Information Available to Industry | |
| 83 FR 6018 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Modification of Secondary Treatment Requirements for Discharges Into Marine Waters | |
| 83 FR 6028 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; IMBRUVICA | |
| 83 FR 6016 - Lock +TM | |
| 83 FR 5987 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 49-Newark, New Jersey; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; Movado Group, Inc. (Timepieces and Jewelry); Moonachie, New Jersey | |
| 83 FR 6012 - Lock +TM | |
| 83 FR 6014 - Lock +TM | |
| 83 FR 6007 - Lock 14 Hydro Partners, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests | |
| 83 FR 6010 - University of Notre Dame; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests | |
| 83 FR 6009 - Lock 12 Hydro Partners, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests | |
| 83 FR 6016 - Village of Lyndonville Electric Department; Notice of Technical Meeting | |
| 83 FR 6014 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
| 83 FR 6011 - City and County of Denver, Colorado; Notice of Availability of Supplemental Environmental Assessment | |
| 83 FR 6012 - City of Anaheim, California; Notice of Filing | |
| 83 FR 6013 - Pinal Central Energy Center, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
| 83 FR 6013 - Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC; Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the Herscher Northwest Storage Field Abandonment Project | |
| 83 FR 6006 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 83 FR 6010 - Upstream Wind Energy LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
| 83 FR 6015 - Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications; Public Notice | |
| 83 FR 6016 - Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Planned Northern Lights 2019 Expansion Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues | |
| 83 FR 5986 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 134-Chattanooga, Tennessee; Notification of Proposed Production Activity: Volkswagen Group of America-Chattanooga Operations, LLC (Passenger Motor Vehicles), Chattanooga, Tennessee | |
| 83 FR 6008 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
| 83 FR 6012 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 83 FR 6090 - Meeting of the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee | |
| 83 FR 5950 - Civil Penalties; 2018 Inflation Adjustments for Civil Monetary Penalties | |
| 83 FR 6031 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; DALVANCE | |
| 83 FR 6026 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; GILOTRIF | |
| 83 FR 6036 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Content and Format of Labeling for Human Prescription Drugs and Biological Products; Requirements for Pregnancy and Lactation Labeling | |
| 83 FR 5987 - Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube From Turkey: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017 | |
| 83 FR 6034 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; BELSOMRA | |
| 83 FR 6080 - Forms Submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for Extension of Clearance | |
| 83 FR 6033 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; BRAVECTO | |
| 83 FR 6094 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records | |
| 83 FR 6092 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records | |
| 83 FR 6038 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; AKYNZEO | |
| 83 FR 6000 - U.S. Air Force Scientific Advisory Board Notice of Meeting | |
| 83 FR 5960 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 6006 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; State Tribal Education Partnership (STEP) Program Application (1894-0001) | |
| 83 FR 5952 - 2017 Tribal Fishery Allocations for Pacific Whiting; Reapportionment Between Tribal and Non-Tribal Sectors; Widow Rockfish Reapportionment in the Pacific Whiting Fishery | |
| 83 FR 5904 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 5902 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 5990 - Intent To Terminate Selected National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) Services | |
| 83 FR 5989 - National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee Meeting | |
| 83 FR 5994 - Endangered and Threatened Species; Notice of Recovery Plan Workshop | |
| 83 FR 6000 - Defense Science Board; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting | |
| 83 FR 5975 - Information Collection Request; Marketing Assistance Loans, Farm Storage Facility Loans, and Farm Loan Programs | |
| 83 FR 6088 - Pipeline Safety: Information Collection Activities | |
| 83 FR 6087 - Pipeline Safety: Meeting of the Gas Pipeline Advisory Committee | |
| 83 FR 6089 - Notice of Public Meeting: Automated Vehicle Policy Summit | |
| 83 FR 5995 - Fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR); Public Meeting | |
| 83 FR 5997 - Western Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
| 83 FR 5992 - Fisheries of the South Atlantic; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR); Public Meeting | |
| 83 FR 5992 - South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings | |
| 83 FR 5991 - Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
| 83 FR 5996 - Caribbean Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
| 83 FR 5991 - Fisheries of the South Atlantic; South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings | |
| 83 FR 5996 - Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Meetings | |
| 83 FR 6049 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Grants to States and Tribes | |
| 83 FR 6069 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Exchange's Schedule of Fees To Modify Complex Order Fees and Rebates | |
| 83 FR 6071 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To List and Trade Shares of the LHA Market State® Tactical U.S. Equity ETF, a Series of the ETF Series Solutions, Under Rule 14.11(i), Managed Fund Shares | |
| 83 FR 6074 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Fees for Use on Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. | |
| 83 FR 6078 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change, Security-Based Swap Submission, or Advance Notice Relating to ICC's End-of-Day Price Discovery Policies and Procedures | |
| 83 FR 6076 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Change To Amend Certain of the Governing Documents of Its Intermediate Parent Companies | |
| 83 FR 6072 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Certain of the Governing/Documents of Its Intermediate Parent Companies | |
| 83 FR 6055 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Change To Amend Certain of the Governing Documents of Its Intermediate Parent Companies | |
| 83 FR 6059 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Investors Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt an IEX Enhanced Market Maker (“IEMM”) Program | |
| 83 FR 6057 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE National, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Change To Amend Certain of the Governing Documents of Its Intermediate Parent Companies | |
| 83 FR 6041 - National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 83 FR 6040 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 83 FR 6093 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Certificate Showing Residence and Heirs of Deceased Veterans or Beneficiary | |
| 83 FR 6091 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Veterans Mortgage Life Insurance Inquiry | |
| 83 FR 6091 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Application for Ordinary Life | |
| 83 FR 6093 - Agency Information Collection Activity: Enrollment Certification | |
| 83 FR 6100 - Agency Information Collection Activity: Intent To File a Claim for Compensation and/or Pension, or Survivors Pension and/or DIC | |
| 83 FR 6052 - Education and Research (FASTER) Community of Practice (CoP) | |
| 83 FR 5999 - Request for Information Regarding Bureau Enforcement Processes | |
| 83 FR 6039 - Low Income Levels Used for Various Health Professions and Nursing Programs Authorized in Titles III, VII, and VIII of the Public Health Service Act | |
| 83 FR 6053 - Notice of Permit Modification Received Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 | |
| 83 FR 6046 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Revisions to National Flood Insurance Program Maps: Application Forms and Instructions for (C)LOMAs and (C)LOMR-Fs | |
| 83 FR 6042 - Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program | |
| 83 FR 6051 - Meeting of the Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative Federal Advisory Committee | |
| 83 FR 6086 - Request for Comments on the Renewal of a Previously Approved Information Collection: Application and Reporting Requirements for Participation in the Maritime Security Program | |
| 83 FR 6083 - Request for Comments on the Renewal of a Previously Approved Information Collection: Determination of Fair and Reasonable Rates for the Carriage of Agricultural Cargoes on U.S. Commercial Vessels-46 CFR | |
| 83 FR 6084 - Request for Comments on the Renewal of a Previously Approved Information Collection: Application for Construction Reserve Fund and Annual Statements (CRF) | |
| 83 FR 6081 - Projects Approved for Consumptive Uses of Water | |
| 83 FR 6041 - Towing Safety Advisory Committee; Vacancies | |
| 83 FR 6020 - Disability Advisory Committee; Announcement of Next Meeting | |
| 83 FR 5871 - Standardizing Phytosanitary Treatment Regulations: Approval of Cold Treatment and Irradiation Facilities; Cold Treatment Schedules; Establishment of Fumigation and Cold Treatment Compliance Agreements | |
| 83 FR 6082 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed | |
| 83 FR 6021 - Information Collection Being Submitted to the Office of Management and Budget | |
| 83 FR 5984 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records | |
| 83 FR 5976 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records | |
| 83 FR 5981 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records | |
| 83 FR 6085 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel WINSOME RIDE; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 83 FR 6083 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel MAYAN MYSTRESS; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 83 FR 6084 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel DELA; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 83 FR 6086 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel ANYWHERE; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 83 FR 6005 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Application for the U.S. Presidential Scholars Program | |
| 83 FR 5923 - Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: California; South Coast Moderate Area Plan for the 2006 PM2.5 | |
| 83 FR 5942 - Rimsulfuron; Pesticide Tolerances | |
| 83 FR 5921 - Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District | |
| 83 FR 5940 - Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District | |
| 83 FR 5878 - 2018-2020 Enterprise Housing Goals | |
| 83 FR 5975 - Notice of Request for Revision of a Currently Approved Information Collection | |
| 83 FR 5958 - Airworthiness Directives; Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 5956 - Airworthiness Directives; DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Gliders | |
| 83 FR 5963 - Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG Turbofan Engines | |
| 83 FR 6003 - Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs | |
| 83 FR 5965 - Proposed Revocation of Class E Airspace; Seven Springs, PA, and Somerset, PA | |
| 83 FR 5966 - Proposed Amendment of Class D Airspace and Class E Airspace; Greenwood, MS | |
| 83 FR 5968 - Request for Public Comments Regarding Controls on Energetic Materials, Armored and Protective “Equipment” and Military Electronics | |
| 83 FR 5970 - Notice of Inquiry; Request for Comments Regarding Review of United States Munitions List Categories V, X, and XI | |
| 83 FR 5955 - Softwood Lumber Research, Promotion, Consumer Education and Industry Information Order; Continuance Referendum | |
| 83 FR 5906 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 5912 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 5899 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 6022 - Price Index Adjustments for Expenditure Limitations and Lobbyist Bundling Disclosure Threshold | |
| 83 FR 5927 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Arkansas; Approval of Regional Haze State Implementation Plan Revision for NOX | |
| 83 FR 5915 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Arkansas; Regional Haze and Interstate Visibility Transport Federal Implementation Plan Revisions; Withdrawal of Federal Implementation Plan for NOX |
Agricultural Marketing Service
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Commodity Credit Corporation
Farm Service Agency
Rural Housing Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Air Force Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Transportation Security Administration
Fish and Wildlife Service
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office
Antitrust Division
Justice Programs Office
Federal Aviation Administration
Maritime Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
United States Mint
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Final rule.
We are amending the phytosanitary treatment regulations to establish generic criteria that would allow for the approval of new cold treatment facilities in the Southern and Western States of the United States. These criteria, if met, will allow us to approve new cold treatment facilities without rulemaking and facilitate the importation of fruit requiring cold treatment while continuing to provide protection against the introduction of pests of concern into the United States. We are also amending the fruit cutting and inspection requirements in the cold treatment regulations in order to expand cutting and inspection to commodities that have been treated for a wider variety of pests of concern. This action will provide for a greater degree of phytosanitary protection. We are also adding requirements concerning the establishment of compliance agreements for U.S. entities that operate fumigation facilities. Finally, we are harmonizing language concerning State compliance with facility establishment and parameters for the movement of consignments from the port of entry or points of origin in the United States to the treatment facility in the irradiation treatment regulations with language in the cold treatment regulations. These actions will serve to codify and make enforceable existing procedures concerning compliance agreements for these facilities.
Effective March 14, 2018.
Mr. David B. Lamb, Senior Regulatory Policy Specialist, IRM, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 851-2103.
The phytosanitary treatments regulations in 7 CFR part 305 set out general requirements for certifying or approving treatment facilities and for performing treatments listed in the Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) Treatment Manual
In § 305.6, paragraph (b) allows cold treatment facilities to be located in the area north of 39° latitude and east of 104° longitude. When the cold treatment regulations were established, areas outside of these coordinates were identified as having conditions favorable for the establishment of exotic fruit flies. The location restrictions served as an additional safeguard against the possibility that fruit flies could escape from imported articles prior to treatment and become established in the United States.
Although the regulations initially did not allow cold treatment facilities to be located in Southern and Western States, APHIS periodically received requests for exemptions. In response to these requests, APHIS conducted site-specific evaluations for these locations and determined that regulated articles can be safely transported to, handled in, and treated by specific cold treatment facilities outside of the areas established by the regulations under special conditions to mitigate the possible escape of pests of concern. Over the years, APHIS has amended its regulations to allow cold treatment facilities to be located at the maritime ports of Wilmington, NC; Seattle, WA; Corpus Christi, TX; and Gulfport, MS; Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, Seattle, WA; Hartsfield-Atlanta International Airport, Atlanta, GA; and, most recently, MidAmerica St. Louis Airport, Mascoutah, IL.
In addition to those requests, certain importers of fruits and vegetables have shown considerable interest in locating cold treatment facilities in places that are not currently allowed under the regulations (
On June 30, 2016, we published in the
We also proposed to expand our requirements for initial cold treatment facility certification and recertification; expand the fruit cutting and inspection requirements in order to state that consignments treated for other fruit flies and pests of concern may be subject to sampling and cutting; combine requirements both domestic and foreign cold treatment facilities and importers would have to meet in order to enter into a compliance agreement with APHIS; add language regarding compliance agreements required in association with articles moved interstate from Hawaii and the U.S. territories; add a section to the regulations concerning fumigation treatment to provide that both domestic and foreign fumigation treatment facilities and importers enter into a compliance agreement with APHIS; add a definition for “treatment facility” to the regulations in § 305.1; and remove a cold treatment schedule from the PPQ Treatment Manual.
We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days ending August 29, 2016. We received 42 comments by that date. They were from producers, exporters, industry groups, private citizens, and a State department of agriculture. Of those, 26 were wholly supportive of the proposed action. The remainder are discussed below by topic.
Several commenters argued that granting the exemptions described previously that have allowed for the establishment of cold treatment facilities in a number of Southern and Western States mistakenly served to further liberalize the regulations and lessen the phytosanitary safety of the United States.
As stated previously, prior to the establishment of those cold treatment facilities, we conducted site-specific evaluations for each location and determined that regulated articles could be safely transported to, handled in, and treated subject to special conditions designed to mitigate the possible escape of pests of concern. These evaluations and proposals were made available both to the States in which the facilities would be established and the general public for review and comment. We have successfully established cold treatment facilities in seven locations outside of the areas established by the regulations and they have operated without incident. If a facility were to be found out of compliance with the requirements of the regulations, we would take appropriate remedial action to ensure ongoing phytosanitary security.
A number of commenters hypothesized that the proposed rule was intended to satisfy nonagricultural entities (
We have determined that the measures specified in the treatment evaluation document (TED) that accompanied the proposed rule (
One commenter asked about the impetus for the proposed rule. The commenter suggested that greater flexibility for importers and a higher volume of imports serving as a revenue generating device for ports were the two obvious motivations for the change.
We developed the proposed rule in response to a number of pending requests for the approval of cold treatment facilities. After considering the issue and the associated phytosanitary risks, we determined that generic criteria could be established for the approval of new facilities that would streamline the approval process while at the same time minimizing the risk of pests escaping from regulated articles prior to cold treatment.
Another commenter stated that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has reported pest interceptions and that the volume of those interceptions is greater today than it was in the past.
The commenter provided no evidence to support the claim of increased pest interceptions related to commercial commodities imported or moved interstate in the United States for cold treatment. In addition, the commenter did not specify the identities of the pests of concern, the commodities with which the pests are associated, whether those commodities were imported or moved commercially or non-commercially, or what State or States are the focus of particular concern when it comes to the supposed increase in interceptions. In the absence of specific information we cannot provide targeted CBP data to address the commenter's claim, however we have not noted a general increase in pest interceptions.
One commenter expressed concern over the phytosanitary risk inherent in allowing untreated fruits and vegetables to travel through areas where host material may exist to a facility in proximity to domestic host material. Another commenter said that APHIS should not allow cold treatment facilities to be located near areas producing domestic host material, nor should we allow access to such facilities via highways or railways that run through areas producing host material. One commenter stated that invasive species are not introduced directly to farming communities, but instead become established first in urban areas adjacent to ports or terminal markets before spreading elsewhere. The commenter urged us to examine this phenomenon.
A number of commenters expressed specific concerns regarding potential pest incursion into the State of Florida. One commenter stated the recent establishment of citrus canker, citrus black spot, and citrus greening should serve to eliminate Florida as a potential location for cold treatment facilities. Four commenters said that, due to the overall risk of fruit fly and other pest introduction to the State of Florida, APHIS should exclude commodities originating from areas where certain fruit flies are known to exist from the consolidated regulations. Two commenters said that cold treatment should be completed prior to any shipment's arrival in the State of Florida in order to ensure the phytosanitary security of domestic crops. Another commenter argued that because foreign production areas are not well monitored, cold treatment should occur prior to departure from the shipment's country of origin.
The regulations in § 305.6 allow for cold treatment of articles either prior to or after arrival in the United States, provided that an APHIS-approved facility is available. Articles may be treated in the United States instead of the exporting country for several reasons, including when the exporting country lacks the resources, technical expertise, or infrastructure to treat articles prior to export. The regulations require safeguards that have successfully prevented the introduction or dissemination of plant pests into or within the United States via the importation or interstate movement of cold treated articles in the past. Based on our experience, we are confident that exporting countries have the ability to comply with all APHIS requirements and commodities from exporting countries can be safely treated in the United States.
APHIS recognizes that the Southern and Western States of the United States have conditions favorable for the establishment of certain pests, and that is why we proposed additional safeguards for cold treatment facilities in these States that go beyond the current requirements that apply to all cold treatment facilities. These safeguards include the requirements that untreated articles may not be removed from their packaging prior to treatment under any circumstances, that refrigerated or air-conditioned conveyances must be used to transport regulated articles to the treatment facility, and that facilities have contingency plans for safely destroying or disposing of regulated articles if the facility was unable to properly treat a shipment. To help prevent establishment of pests in the unlikely event that they escape despite the required precautions, we will require trapping and other pest monitoring activities within 4 square miles of the facility to help prevent establishment of any escaped pests of concern. Those activities will be paid for by the facility.
APHIS will only approve a proposed facility if the Administrator determines that regulated articles can be safely transported to the facility from a port of entry or points of origin in the United States. We believe that the mitigations included in this final rule have proven effective in mitigating the risk associated with the importation of commodities into the United States, and thus will provide protection against the introduction or dissemination of pests of concern into the United States.
A number of commenters asked what had changed in APHIS' assessment of phytosanitary risk since the cold treatment regulations were originally established. The commenters specifically pointed to § 305.6(b), which states that “cold treatment facilities are to be located in the area North of the 39th latitude and east of the 104th longitude as areas outside of these coordinates are identified as having conditions favorable for the establishment of exotic fruit flies.” The commenters argued that the original justification for the prohibition on facility location is still valid.
The TED that accompanied the proposed rule referenced a study conducted in 1994, which was the basis for our initial decision to prohibit the movement of host materials to cold treatment facilities in the Southern and Western States of the United States. The study recommended restricting or prohibiting the movement of host materials through these States unless strict measures were applied to manage the associated risks. Since that time, in response to petitions and after site-specific evaluations, APHIS has approved several Southern and Western locations where facilities could be established to receive and cold treat foreign fruits or vegetables provided certain conditions determined by APHIS to result in the safe transport of regulated articles to the treatment facility, were followed. It is our experience with these stringent, additional measures that has led us to conclude that generic criteria can be safely established.
Many commenters stated that the potential escape of fruit flies represented too great a phytosanitary risk and added that the proposed regulations could expose domestic citrus crops to citrus leprosis virus, spread by
As this rule does not certify any additional cold treatment facilities, such specific pest concerns are outside the scope of the current regulation, although we note that the introductions of EAB, ALB, and brown marmorated stink bug were all associated with wood packing material, which, at the time of the pests' first entrance into the United States, was not safeguarded at the level of imported fruits and vegetables. Any new treatment facilities would have to be authorized using the criteria described in the regulation, which would include analysis of any potential host materials in the area. The commenter did not specify whether the Medfly incursions in 2010 and 2011 were determined by the State of Florida to originate from commercial or noncommercial sources, but we would note that accidental incursions of fruit flies from commercially produced fruit represent less phytosanitary risk, as produce grown commercially is less likely to be infested with plant pests than noncommercial consignments due to the standardized way in which it is grown, harvested, and packaged.
A commenter said that the cumulative results of authorizing cold treatment facilities in the Southern and Western States of the United States should not be ignored. The commenter argued that, while individual approvals may create negligible risk, taken as a whole they lead to an overall decline in phytosanitary safety. The commenter further stated that the subsequent establishment of quarantine pests domestically then hampers the ability of domestic producers to export their products due to increased stringency in import markets abroad.
We disagree with the commenter's point. While it is true that cold treatment facilities were and will continue to be evaluated on an individual basis, as stated previously, the fact that pests of concern are more likely to become established in the Southern and Western States of the United States is why we proposed additional safeguards for cold treatment facilities in these States that go beyond the current requirements that apply to all cold treatment facilities. We disagree that any increase in the number of authorized cold treatment facilities will necessarily create an unacceptable level of risk. Prospective facility operators must submit a detailed layout of the facility site and its location to APHIS. Location information would include any nearby facilities and those facilities would be a part of APHIS' overall consideration of plant health risks for the requested location. We also note that the requirements regarding safeguarding during transit to, treatment, and shipment from the facilities will also
Two commenters expressed concern at the elimination of the need for rulemaking for future individual cold treatment facility approvals in Southern and Western States. The commenters were particularly worried about the elimination of a public comment period and other stakeholder outreach methods.
Prior to approving a new cold treatment facility, APHIS will enter into consultation with the State in which the prospective facility will be located. Facility approval will be coordinated through APHIS' Field Operations unit, which routinely keeps potentially affected stakeholders apprised of any pending APHIS approvals. These actions will serve to complement the State's own outreach. As circumstances warrant APHIS may use additional outreach tools.
One commenter was partially supportive of our proposal but suggested that we require that approved cold treatment facilities also be approved to apply alternative treatments, such as fumigation with methyl bromide or irradiation.
While it is certainly possible for a treatment facility to be certified to perform more than one variety of treatment, we see no reason to require that cold treatment facilities be so certified because we are confident that our regulations require that any regulated articles be separated prior to, during, and after treatment. If a facility were to engage in different varieties of treatment those treatments would be required to be completed separate from one another.
Another commenter recommended that we require, whenever possible, that phytosanitary treatments be performed prior to shipment arrival in the United States in order to prevent accidental introduction of pests of concern.
As stated previously, the regulations in § 305.6 allow for cold treatment of articles either prior to or after arrival in the United States, provided that an APHIS-approved facility is available.
The State government of the Southern or Western State in which the facility will be located will also have to concur in writing with the location of the cold treatment facility. If the State government does not concur, it must provide a written explanation of concern based on pest risks. In instances where the State government does not concur with the proposed facility location, and provides a written explanation of concern based on pest risks, then APHIS and the State will need to agree on a strategy to resolve such risks before APHIS approves the facility.
A commenter suggested that we stipulate that written explanations be provided within 60 days of the submission of the required documents by the prospective facility owner. The commenter also suggested that, in instances where the State government does not concur with the proposed facility location, APHIS and the State will agree on a strategy to resolve the pest risk concerns prior to APHIS approval within a reasonable period not to exceed 120 days from the submission of the required documents by the prospective facility owner.
A reasonable length of time to be determined by APHIS will be given for the State to respond after the proposal for the location and layout of the facility site are submitted to APHIS by the prospective facility owner. Time frames for response will be determined on a case-by-case basis, based on APHIS' own evaluation of the submitted materials.
One commenter asked that a State's ability to maintain an objection to the placement of a cold treatment facility beyond the stipulated consultation and negotiation with APHIS be specifically addressed in the regulations.
As stated previously, we will first come to concurrence with the State in which the prospective cold treatment facility will be located before approving the facility. Because concurrence is reached on a case-by-case basis, this allows us to ensure that the State's phytosanitary risk-based concerns have been thoroughly addressed.
Another commenter said that a State should not be able to veto a given proposal simply because it opposes the establishment of cold treatment facilities within its borders or insists upon an unrealistic level of phytosanitary protection. The commenter requested language be included that assures prospective facility owners that reasonable efforts will be made to come to agreement on the establishment of facilities deemed acceptable by APHIS and objectionable by individual States.
The standards are similar to the procedure we successfully use for the approval of irradiation facilities in Southern and Western States as currently described in § 305.9. In instances where the State government does not concur with the proposed facility location, APHIS and the State will collaborate to resolve these concerns. These requirements are intended to give States an opportunity to provide information to APHIS to help ensure that all facilities will have appropriate safeguards in place prior to APHIS approval.
Several commenters argued that cold treatment facilities should not be located in the State of Florida due to its wide range of diverse habitats and climate ranges and the resulting likelihood of accidental exotic plant pest introduction and establishment.
While APHIS acknowledges that Florida's environment is uniquely hospitable to the establishment of certain plant pests, the generic criteria for establishing cold treatment facilities in Southern and Western States include safeguarding measures above and beyond those already in place for facilities located elsewhere in the country. Additionally, when the location of the proposed facility raises phytosanitary concerns that are not addressed by the generic criteria, additional safeguards will be required for any facility established in that area, such as increased inspections and trapping based on quarantine pests associated with specific regulated articles. Any additional measures mandated for a particular facility will be stipulated in the facility compliance agreement. Finally, States will have the opportunity to review the layout of the facility and its proposed location prior to any APHIS approval, and to present pest risk concerns that may be associated with the facility or its location that necessitate further safeguarding. It is possible that, collectively, these safeguards would mitigate phytosanitary risk to a level allowing for the establishment of a facility in the State of Florida. We therefore cannot grant the commenter's request for a blanket prohibition on constructing facilities in that State.
While specific comments on the initial regulatory flexibility analysis are specifically addressed in this document and in the final regulatory flexibility analysis, we received a number of comments concerning the overall economic effect of the rule as it relates to the establishment of generic criteria that would allow for the approval of new cold treatment facilities in the Southern and Western States of the United States.
One commenter cited the World Trade Organization's (WTO) Article 5, “Assessment of Risk and Determination of the Appropriate Level of Sanitary or Phytosanitary Protection,” which states: “In assessing the risk to animal or plant life or health and determining the measure to be applied for achieving the appropriate level of sanitary or phytosanitary protection from such risk, Members shall take into account as relevant economic factors: The potential damage in terms of loss of production or sales in the event of the entry, establishment or spread of a pest or disease; the costs of control or eradication in the territory of the importing Member; and the relative cost-effectiveness of alternative approaches to limiting risks.” The commenter argued that the establishment of generic standards that eliminate the need for rulemaking to approve new facilities, and thus the elimination of the economic analyses that would be prepared as part of the rulemaking process, is in conflict with the WTO mandate, as it will impact APHIS' ability to consider such consequences. The commenter concluded that it is not reasonable for APHIS to make a blanket determination that the future economic impact of unspecified foreign imports entering the United States for cold treatment will always be of little significance.
We disagree that our actions are in conflict with WTO Article 5. While specific economic analyses will not be conducted in connection with approvals of new cold treatment facilities, the potential economic consequences of pest introduction associated with a given commodity are considered at the same time we consider potential mitigation measures during the development of the risk mitigation document that accompanies proposed actions.
Several commenters stated that the financial consequences of pest infestation would be too great to allow for any imported host material to be treated in the Southern or Western States.
We believe that the cold treatment and the additional specific safeguarding measures that will be in place at a given facility under compliance agreement are adequate to mitigate the phytosanitary risks presented by such materials. If the risks cannot be adequately mitigated, a facility or specific commodities would not be approved.
One commenter observed that, while it is true that the rule does not approve individual facilities, it creates the mechanism for all future approvals. The commenter argued that we should therefore project the economic impact of utilization of the new process at various levels of intensity over time.
The commenter is correct that the economic impact of any new facilities is not a direct result of this rulemaking. However, we do recognize that facilities that are currently awaiting approval will reasonably be expected to be evaluated under the new criteria of this rule. We have included a discussion of these facilities in the analysis for the final rule.
The same commenter said that the economic analysis failed to consider the full scope of small entities potentially affected by the rule. The commenter stated that we should include possible impacts on farming activities in Southern and Western States that could be impacted by phytosanitary threats that are intended to be mitigated by cold treatment.
We disagree. As stated previously, we believe that the additional specific safeguarding measures that will be required at a given facility under compliance agreement in a Southern or Western State will adequately mitigate the phytosanitary threats presented. If threats cannot be adequately mitigated, a facility or specific commodities will not be approved.
We proposed to add a section to the regulations concerning fumigation treatment found in § 305.5 to provide that fumigation treatment facilities outside the United States enter into a compliance agreement, or an equivalent agreement such as a workplan agreement, with APHIS.
Upon further consideration, we have decided not to finalize this requirement at this time. The vast majority of fumigations performed outside the United States are done in connection with importation of regulated wood articles, such as Chinese wooden handicrafts, for which there are already compliance agreements or workplan agreements in place with the production facilities, or international agreements on treatment with certification through the International Plant Protection Convention. We will continue to closely monitor the issue and address any problems that arise on a case-by-case basis. If circumstances dictate a need for greater APHIS oversight of these facilities, we will respond accordingly.
We also proposed, when fumigation of imported plants and plant products is conducted domestically, to require that importers enter into a compliance agreement with APHIS, and agree to comply with any requirements deemed necessary by the Administrator.
After further evaluation, we have determined that this proposed requirement is unnecessary. We proposed the requirement in order to establish consistency between requirements for the application of fumigation treatment of imported products, and the application of irradiation treatment for imported products.
In so doing, however, we failed to adequately consider an important distinction between the two types of treatment: Approved irradiation facilities are often not located in port environs, and are sometimes located hundreds of miles from ports of entry, fumigation is almost always conducted within port of entry environs, and, in the few instances when it is not, there are many long-standing mechanisms in place to ensure chain of custody and safeguarded transit to the fumigation facility. Accordingly, while requiring importers to enter into compliance agreements plays a vital role in ensuring adequate safeguarding of imported commodities during their transit from ports of entry to irradiation facilities, there is no corresponding need for compliance agreements for articles destined for fumigation.
Therefore, for the reasons given in the proposed rule and in this document, we are adopting the proposed rule as a final rule, with the changes discussed in this document.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. This rule is not an E.O. 13771 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under E.O. 12866. Further, APHIS considers this rule to be a deregulatory action under E.O. 13771 as it will eliminate the need for specific rulemaking for the establishment of cold treatment facilities, thus reducing the time needed for approval of cold treatment facilities without affecting the analysis or mitigation of risk.
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we have analyzed the potential economic effects of this action on small entities. The analysis is summarized below. Copies of the full analysis are available on the
We are establishing general criteria for new cold treatment facilities in the Southern and Western United States. These general criteria will be supplemented as necessary by additional measures, as described in the facility's compliance agreement and based on its location and on the pests of concern associated with the regulated articles that will be treated at the facility. APHIS approval of new facilities will not require specific rulemaking. By eliminating the need for specific rulemaking for the establishment of cold treatment facilities, considerable time savings in bringing a new facility online may be achieved. A significant portion of the time needed to approve a new facility is due to the rulemaking process. This rule will reduce the time needed for approval of cold treatment facilities without affecting the analysis or mitigation of risk. The rule will simply set forth the general criteria, not approve any new facilities.
Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This program/activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 2 CFR chapter IV.)
This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule; (2) has no retroactive effect; and (3) does not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.
In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to compliance with the EGovernment Act to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. For information pertinent to E-Government Act compliance related to this rule, please contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483.
Irradiation, Phytosanitary treatment, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR part 305 as follows:
7 U.S.C. 7701-7772 and 7781-7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
The additions read as follows:
(c)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(a) * * * A facility will only be certified or recertified if the Administrator determines that the location of the facility is such that those Federal agencies involved in its operation and oversight have adequate resources to conduct the necessary operations at the facility, that the pest risks can be managed at that location, and that the facility meets all criteria for
(2) Be capable of preventing the escape and spread of pests while regulated articles are at the facility; and
(b)(1)
(i) Prospective facility operators must submit a detailed layout of the facility site and its location to APHIS. APHIS will evaluate plant health risks based on the proposed location and layout of the facility site. APHIS will only approve a proposed facility if the Administrator determines that regulated articles can be safely transported to the facility from the port of entry or points of origin in the United States.
(ii) The government of the State in which the facility is to be located must concur in writing with the location of the facility or, if it does not concur, must provide a written explanation of concern based on pest risks. In instances where the State government does not concur with the proposed facility location, and provides a written explanation of concern based on pest risks, APHIS and the State must agree on a strategy to resolve the pest risk concerns prior to APHIS approval. If the State does not provide a written explanation of concern based on pest risks, then State concurrence will not be required before APHIS approves the facility location.
(iii) Untreated articles may not be removed from their packaging prior to treatment under any circumstances.
(iv) The facility must have contingency plans, approved by APHIS, for safely destroying or disposing of regulated articles if the facility is unable to properly treat a shipment.
(v) The facility may only treat articles approved by APHIS for treatment at the facility. Approved articles will be listed in the compliance agreement required in paragraph (f) of this section.
(vi) Arrangements for treatment must be made before the departure of a consignment from its port of entry or points of origin in the United States. APHIS and the facility must agree on all parameters, such as time, routing, and conveyance, by which the consignment will move from the port of entry or points of origin in the United States to the treatment facility. If APHIS and the facility cannot reach agreement in advance on these parameters then no consignments may be moved to that facility until an agreement has been reached.
(vii) Regulated articles must be conveyed to the facility in a refrigerated (via motorized refrigeration equipment) conveyance at a temperature that minimizes the mobility of the pests of concern for the article.
(viii) The facility must apply all post-treatment safeguards required for certification under paragraph (a) of this section before releasing the articles.
(ix) The facility must remain locked when not in operation.
(x) The facility must maintain and provide APHIS with an updated map identifying places where horticultural or other crops are grown within 4 square miles of the facility. Proximity of host material to the facility will necessitate trapping or other pest monitoring activities, funded by the facility, to help prevent establishment of any escaped pests of concern, as approved by APHIS; these activities will be listed in the compliance agreement required in paragraph (f) of this section. The treatment facility must have a pest management plan within the facility.
(xi) The facility must comply with any additional requirements including, but not limited to, the use of pest-proof packaging and container seals, that APHIS may require to prevent the escape of plant pests during transport to and from the cold treatment facility itself, for a particular facility based on local conditions, and for any other risk factors of concern. These activities will be listed in the compliance agreement required in paragraph (f) of this section.
(2) For articles that are moved interstate from areas quarantined for fruit flies, cold treatment facilities may be located either within or outside of the quarantined area. If the articles are treated outside the quarantined area, they must be accompanied to the facility by a limited permit issued in accordance with § 301.32-5(b) of this chapter and must be moved in accordance with any safeguards determined to be appropriate by APHIS.
(d) * * *
(15) An inspector will sample and cut fruit from each consignment after it has been cold treated to monitor treatment effectiveness. If a single live pest of concern in any stage of development is found, the consignment will be held until an investigation is completed and appropriate remedial actions have been implemented. If APHIS determines at any time that the safeguards contained in this section do not appear to be effective against the pests of concern, APHIS may suspend the importation of fruits from the originating country and conduct an investigation into the cause of the deficiency. APHIS may waive the sampling and cutting requirement of paragraph (d)(15) of this section, provided that the national plant protection organization (NPPO) of the exporting country has conducted such sampling and cutting in the exporting country as part of a biometric sampling protocol approved by APHIS.
(e) * * * Facilities must be located within the local commuting area for APHIS employees for inspection purposes. Facilities treating imported articles must also be located within an area over which the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is assigned authority to accept entries of merchandise, to collect duties, and to enforce the provisions of the customs and navigation laws in force.
(f)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) The government of the State in which the facility is to be located must concur in writing with the location of the facility or, if it does not concur, must provide a written explanation of concern based on pest risks. In instances where the State government does not concur with the proposed facility location, and provides a written explanation of concern based on pest risks, APHIS and the State must agree on a strategy to resolve the pest risk concerns prior to APHIS approval. If the State does not provide a written explanation of concern based on pest risks, then State concurrence will not be required before APHIS approves the facility location.
(vi) Arrangements for treatment must be made before the departure of a consignment from its port of entry or points of origin in the United States. APHIS and the facility must agree on all parameters, such as time, routing, and conveyance, by which the consignment will move from the port of entry or points of origin in the United States to the treatment facility. If APHIS and the facility cannot reach agreement in advance on these parameters then no consignments may be moved to that facility until an agreement has been reached.
Federal Housing Finance Agency.
Final rule.
The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) is issuing a final rule on the housing goals for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the Enterprises) for 2018 through 2020. The Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 (the Safety and Soundness Act) requires FHFA to establish annual housing goals for mortgages purchased by the Enterprises. The housing goals include separate categories for single-family and multifamily mortgages on housing that is affordable to low-income and very low-income families, among other categories.
The final rule establishes the benchmark levels for each of the housing goals and subgoals for 2018 through 2020. In addition, the final rule makes a number of clarifying and conforming changes, including revisions to the requirements for the housing plan that an Enterprise may be required to submit to FHFA in response to a failure to achieve one or more of the housing goals or subgoals.
The final rule is effective on March 14, 2018.
Ted Wartell, Manager, Housing & Community Investment, Division of Housing Mission and Goals, at (202) 649-3157. This is not a toll-free number. The mailing address is: Federal Housing Finance Agency, 400 Seventh Street SW, Washington, DC 20219. The telephone number for the Telecommunications Device for the Deaf is (800) 877-8339.
The Safety and Soundness Act requires FHFA to establish annual housing goals for several categories of both single-family and multifamily mortgages purchased by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
The housing goals provisions of the Safety and Soundness Act were substantially revised in 2008 with the enactment of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act, which amended the Safety and Soundness Act.
Under the Safety and Soundness Act, the single-family housing goals are limited to mortgages on owner-occupied housing with one to four units total. The single-family goals cover conventional, conforming mortgages, defined as mortgages that are not insured or
In order to meet a single-family housing goal or subgoal, the percentage of mortgage purchases by an Enterprise that meet each goal or subgoal must meet or exceed either the benchmark level or the market level for that year. The benchmark level is set prospectively by rulemaking based on various factors, including FHFA's forecast of the goal-qualifying share of the overall market for each year. The market level is determined retrospectively each year, based on the actual goal-qualifying share of the overall market as measured by FHFA based on Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data for that year. The overall mortgage market that FHFA uses for both the prospective market forecasts and the retrospective market measurement consists of all single-family owner-occupied conventional conforming mortgages that would be eligible for purchase by either Enterprise. It includes loans reported in HMDA as sold to the Enterprises as well as comparable loans reported to HMDA as held in a lender's portfolio. It also includes comparable loans that are reported in HMDA as “sold to others.” This category includes loans reported as sold to Farmer Mac, private securitization, commercial banks, savings banks, life insurance companies, credit unions, mortgage bank and finance companies and their affiliates. Because HMDA data is reported as of a single point in time, the same loan could be reported in any of these categories in a particular calendar year, regardless of the ultimate disposition of the loan.
The market as measured based on HMDA data is different from the “actual market” of loans that an Enterprise may purchase for purposes of meeting the goals. Both the benchmark level and the retrospective market level measure the goal-qualifying share of the overall market for the year in question and exclude “seasoned loans.” Seasoned loans are loans that were originated in prior years and acquired by the Enterprise in the current year. While both the benchmark and the retrospective market measure are designed to measure the current year's mortgage originations, the performance of the Enterprises on the housing goals includes all Enterprise purchases in that year, regardless of the year in which the loan was originated. This provides housing goals credit when the Enterprises acquire qualified seasoned loans. The Enterprises' acquisition of seasoned loans provides an important source of liquidity for this market segment.
The market as measured based on HMDA data is also different from the “actual market” because the “actual market” includes loans from institutions that are not required to report under HMDA.
The differences between the market as measured based on HMDA data and the “actual market” of loans available for purchase by the Enterprises may help explain why Enterprise performance on the income-based home purchase goals generally do not coincide with the market as measured by HMDA. As noted by commenters on the proposed rule, between 2010-2015, each Enterprise met the retrospective HMDA market level for the low-income home purchase goal in only one year (2014 for Fannie Mae and 2010 for Freddie Mac), and only one Enterprise met the retrospective HMDA market level for the very low-income home purchase goal in one year (2014 for Fannie Mae). While the performance of the Enterprises has generally lagged the retrospective HMDA market levels, particularly for the income-based home purchase goals, FHFA continues to believe that the HMDA market levels represent feasible targets for the Enterprises. FHFA expects the Enterprises to continue to make efforts to meet the retrospective HMDA market levels, consistent with maintaining safe and sound credit quality standards, regardless of whether the market levels exceed or fall below the benchmark levels.
Recent changes to the HMDA regulations will likely result in the HMDA data covering an even greater portion of the single-family mortgage market.
FHFA has considered the possible impact that certain changes to the HMDA regulations may have on the Enterprise housing goals. However, at this time the impact that such changes might have on the retrospective measure of the market is uncertain. FHFA is not making any changes to the Enterprise housing goals in anticipation of the revised HMDA data. FHFA will assess the impact of the changes and, if necessary, may propose changes to the housing goals regulation at a later date.
Under the housing goals regulation first established by FHFA in 2010, as well as under this final rule, FHFA may reduce the benchmark levels for any of the single-family or multifamily housing goals in a particular year without going through notice and comment rulemaking based on a determination by FHFA that (1) market and economic conditions or the financial condition of the Enterprise require a reduction, or (2) “efforts to meet the goal or subgoal would result in the constraint of liquidity, over-investment in certain market segments, or other consequences contrary to the intent of the Safety and Soundness Act or the purposes of the Charter Acts.”
If after publication of this final rule FHFA determines that any of the single-family or multifamily housing goals should be adjusted in light of market conditions, to ensure the safety and soundness of the Enterprises, or for any other reason, FHFA will take steps as necessary and appropriate to adjust that goal. Such steps could include adjusting the benchmark levels through the processes in the existing regulation or establishing revised housing goal levels through notice and comment rulemaking.
On September 6, 2008, FHFA placed each Enterprise into conservatorship. Although the Enterprises remain in conservatorship at this time, they continue to have the mission of supporting a stable and liquid national market for residential mortgage financing. FHFA has continued to establish annual housing goals for the Enterprises and to assess their performance under the housing goals each year during conservatorship.
FHFA published a proposed rule in the
FHFA received 24 comment letters on the proposed rule, representing the views of more than 40 organizations and individuals. Comments were submitted by seven individuals; eight policy advocacy organizations; seven trade associations representing lenders, home builders, credit unions, and other mortgage market participants; and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. FHFA has reviewed and considered all of the comments. A number of comment letters raised issues unrelated to the housing goals or beyond the scope of the proposed rule, and those comments are not addressed in this final rule. Specific provisions of the proposed rule, and the comments received on those provisions, are discussed below and throughout this final rule.
The other comment letter (from a trade organization) encouraged FHFA to develop an approach to single-family rental as a part of the multifamily goals and to provide clarity on whether single-family rental will be counted for multifamily housing goals, and if so, how it will be categorized and measured.
FHFA is actively monitoring this market segment and developing an overall regulatory approach to single-family rental. The housing goals regulation permits FHFA to “determine whether and how any transaction or class of transactions shall be counted for purposes of the housing goals.”
In December 2016, FHFA published a final rule implementing the statutory requirements for the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Duty to Serve underserved markets. The Duty to Serve final rule does not require the Enterprises to purchase chattel loans on manufactured housing, but the final rule does permit the Enterprises to receive Duty to Serve credit for such purchases to the extent that the Enterprises choose to pursue a pilot initiative for chattel loans on manufactured housing and any required FHFA approvals are received.
While both Enterprises have adopted Duty to Serve plans to pursue pilot initiatives for chattel loans on manufactured housing, those plans are still in the early stages. In addition, because neither Enterprise has purchased chattel loans on manufactured housing in recent years, there is limited data available on the market for such loans or their performance. As a result, FHFA would be unable to set benchmark levels for this market segment or assess the impact of any Enterprise purchases on their housing goals performance. Due to the limited information available at this time, the final rule does not make any change to the housing goals treatment of chattel loans on manufactured housing. FHFA may propose changes in a future rulemaking based on its assessment of additional information that may become available, especially from Enterprise chattel pilot activities. If FHFA does propose a change in the definition of the term “mortgage” to include chattel loans on manufactured housing, FHFA will also need to size this market segment and appropriately adjust the benchmark levels upwards to reflect the new definition.
One commenter on the July 17, 2017 proposed rule stated that blanket loans on MHCs should be included for counting toward the housing goals, arguing that it would be inconsistent to include them in the Duty to Serve regulation but not in the housing goals regulation. The commenter stated that goals eligibility should include investor-owned rental communities as well as resident-owned communities, arguing that the former are the dominant segment of the MHC segment. The commenter further argued that housing goals credit should be limited to occupied units located in the community rather than the total number of rental spaces available. Given the large volume of the segment, the commenter asserted the proposed multifamily goals should be increased to “reflect the expanded scope of the housing goals.”
Both Enterprises renewed their requests for FHFA to provide housing goals credit for blanket loans on manufactured housing communities (MHCs). Freddie Mac also suggested a different affordability standard than either of the two affordability methods defined in the Duty to Serve regulation. The Duty to Serve regulation includes two methods for estimating the number of units that could be counted as “affordable” for purposes of receiving Duty to Serve credit. For an MHC owned by a government unit or instrumentality, a nonprofit organization, or the residents, units in the MHC may be treated as affordable for Duty to Serve purposes if they are subject to affordability restrictions under laws or regulations governing the affordability of the community, or the community's or ownership entity's founding, chartering, governing, or financing documents. The Duty to Serve regulation also allows affordability for blanket loans on MHCs to be determined by estimating the affordability of units in the community based on the median income of the census tract in which the MHC is located. Freddie Mac proposed instead that FHFA determine affordability under the housing goals for blanket loans on MHCs based on an estimated “MHC Adjustment Factor” that would estimate the total housing cost for manufactured housing units based on the actual site rent plus an estimated utility allowance and an estimated additional amount to reflect the cost of the unit itself (including insurance and taxes).
FHFA does not believe that it would be inconsistent to allow credit for blanket loans on MHCs under Duty to Serve while not allowing credit for such loans under the housing goals. The scope of activities included under the Duty to Serve regulation differs from the scope of activities covered by the housing goals. The Duty to Serve regulation addresses certain specific market segments identified by Congress in the Safety and Soundness Act, one of which is manufactured housing, and appropriately includes credit related to blanket loans on MHCs. In contrast, the housing goals are directed at the full range of Enterprise loan purchase activities and are designed to evaluate the performance of the Enterprises particularly in serving low- and very low-income borrowers and renters. While FHFA has determined not to include credit for blanket loans on MHCs in this final rule, FHFA will continue to monitor this market segment. Moreover, as discussed in more detail below, FHFA exempts
The final rule establishes the benchmark levels for the single-family housing goals and subgoal for 2018-2020 as follows:
The final rule establishes the levels for the multifamily goal and subgoals for 2018-2020 as follows:
The final rule makes changes and clarifications to the existing regulation, including minor technical changes to some regulatory definitions. The final rule also revises the requirements applicable to the housing plan an Enterprise may be required to submit based on a failure to achieve one or more of the
This final rule establishes the single-family housing goals for 2018-2020. FHFA considered the required statutory factors described below in setting the benchmark levels for the single-family housing goals. FHFA's analysis and goal setting process includes developing market forecast models for each of the single-family housing goals, as well as considering a number of other variables that impact affordable homeownership. Many of these variables indicate that low-income and very low-income households are facing, and will continue to face, difficulties in achieving homeownership or in refinancing an existing mortgage. These factors, such as rising property values and stagnant household incomes, also impact the Enterprises' ability to meet their mission and facilitate affordable homeownership for low-income and very low-income households. Nevertheless, FHFA expects and encourages the Enterprises to work toward meeting their housing goal requirements in a safe and sound manner. This may include steps the Enterprises take to fulfill FHFA's expectations for supporting access to credit expressed in the Conservatorship Scorecard, which requires the Enterprises to undertake a number of
Section 1332(e)(2) of the Safety and Soundness Act requires FHFA to consider the following seven factors in setting the single-family housing goals:
1. National housing needs;
2. Economic, housing, and demographic conditions, including expected market developments;
3. The performance and effort of the Enterprises toward achieving the housing goals in previous years;
4. The ability of the Enterprises to lead the industry in making mortgage credit available;
5. Such other reliable mortgage data as may be available;
6. The size of the purchase money conventional mortgage market, or refinance conventional mortgage market, as applicable, serving each of the types of families described, relative to the size of the overall purchase money mortgage market or the overall refinance mortgage market, respectively; and
7. The need to maintain the sound financial condition of the Enterprises.
FHFA has considered each of these seven statutory factors in setting the benchmark levels for each of the single-family housing goals and subgoal.
Recognizing that some of the factors required by statute to be considered can be readily captured using reliable data series while others cannot, FHFA implemented the following approach. FHFA's statistical market models considered factors that are captured through well-known and established data series, and these are then used to generate a point forecast for each goal, as well as a confidence interval for the point forecast. FHFA then considered the remaining statutory factors, as well as other relevant policy factors, in selecting the specific point forecast within the confidence interval as the benchmark level. FHFA's market forecast models incorporate four of the seven statutory factors: National housing needs; economic, housing, and demographic conditions; other reliable mortgage data; and the size of the purchase money conventional mortgage market or refinance conventional mortgage market for each single-family housing goal. The market forecast models generated a point estimate, as well as a confidence interval. FHFA then considered the remaining three statutory factors (historical performance and effort of the Enterprises toward achieving the housing goal; ability of the Enterprises to lead the industry in making mortgage credit available; and need to maintain the sound financial condition of the Enterprises), as well as other relevant policy factors, in selecting the specific point forecast within the confidence interval as the benchmark level for the goal period.
FHFA has employed similar models in past housing goals rulemakings to generate market forecasts. The models were developed using monthly series generated from HMDA and other data sources, and the resulting monthly forecasts were then averaged into an annual forecast for each of the three years in the goal period. The models rely on 13 years of HMDA data, from 2004 to 2016, the latest year for which HMDA data are available. Additional discussion of the market forecast models can be found in an updated research paper, available at
In the final rule establishing the housing goals for 2015-2017, FHFA stated that it would engage directly with commenters to obtain detailed feedback on FHFA's econometric models for the housing goals. Throughout 2016, FHFA met with industry modeling experts about potential improvements to the econometric models. Considering input received, FHFA has revised the market forecast models to include better specifications and new variables for all goal-qualifying shares, while still following generally accepted practices and standards adopted by economists, including those at other federal agencies. During the model development process, FHFA grouped factors that are expected by housing market economists to have an impact on the market share of affordable housing into seven broad categories. For each category of variables, many variables were tested but only retained when they exhibited predictive power. The new set of models includes new driver variables that reflect factors that impact the affordable housing market—for example, household debt service ratio, labor force participation rate, and underwriting standards.
As is the case with any forecasting model, the accuracy of the forecast will vary depending on the accuracy of the inputs to the model and the length of the forecast period. FHFA has attempted to minimize the first source of variability by using third party forecasts published by Moody's and other accredited mortgage market forecasters. The second source of variability is harder to address. The models underlying this final rule rely on the most up-to-date data available as of November 2017, and use forecasted input values for the rest of 2017 (depending on the data series) to produce the forecasts for 2018-2020. The confidence intervals for the benchmark levels become wider as the forecast period lengthens. In other words, it becomes more likely that the actual market levels will be different from the forecasts the farther into the future the forecasts attempt to make predictions. Predicting three years out is not the usual practice in forecasting. A number of industry forecasters, including the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA), Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, do not publish forecasts beyond two years because accuracy of forecasts decreases substantially beyond a two-year period.
Interest rates are arguably one of the most important variables in determining the trajectory of the mortgage market. The Federal Reserve launched its “interest rate normalization” process in December 2015 with a 0.25 percentage point increase. In the September 2017 meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), the FOMC indicated a commitment to a low federal funds rate policy for the time being. Storm-related disruptions and rebuilding, resulting from hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria, are expected to affect economic activity in the near term.
The unemployment rate has fallen steadily over the last few years to 4.1 percent in November 2017.
Industry analysts generally expect the overall housing market to continue its recovery, although the growth of house prices is not expected to be as large as in the last few years given the interest rate environment. As forecast by Moody's, FHFA's purchase-only House Price Index (HPI) is forecast to increase at the annual rates of 3.8, 4.8, and 2.9 percent in 2018, 2019, and 2020, respectively.
The expected increase in mortgage interest rates and house prices will likely impact the ability of low- and very low-income households to purchase homes. Housing affordability, as measured by Moody's forecast of the National Association of Realtors' (NAR) Housing Affordability Index (HAI), is expected to decline from an index value of 156.5 in 2017 to 148.3 in 2020.
Over the past few years, low interest rates coupled with rising house prices have created an incentive for many homeowners to refinance. The refinance share has increased from 39.9 percent of overall mortgage originations in 2014 to 47.4 percent in 2016. However, assuming that interest rates are going to rise over the next few years, Moody's forecasts that the refinance rate is expected to fall as low as 27 percent during the 2018 to 2020 period.
Throughout 2016 and 2017, the economy and the housing market continued to recover from the financial crisis, but the recovery has been uneven across the country.
AMI shifts reflect changes in borrower income levels at the census tract level. In general, a decrease in an area's AMI represents a decline in housing affordability in the area because the
Overall, there are multiple trends in the single-family market that indicate that lower income households that are seeking to buy a home are likely to continue to face difficulty affording homes. While mortgage rates and home prices are projected to rise, the backdrop remains one of slow increases in average household income (as indicated by the AMI), and it is likely that the resources for lower income households seeking to buy a home will remain stretched. The current high house price appreciation, which is projected to continue even at the lower end of the house price spectrum, coupled with a limited supply of lower priced homes (largely due to the lack of construction of lower priced homes) suggests that it will be more challenging for the Enterprises to meet the single-family home purchase goals.
Additionally, many households have experienced stagnant wages or limited wage growth even though unemployment levels have decreased significantly since the peak of the financial crisis. Data released by the U.S. Census Bureau show that while median household income increased by 3.2 percent from 2015 to 2016, it was only the second year since 2007 that median household income increased.
FHFA is committed to identifying new market conditions and challenges and working with the Enterprises to identify solutions to help meet these challenges. The effectiveness of these solutions, however, cannot be accounted for in a model.
As discussed in the proposed rule, FHFA's analysis of the mortgage insurance market indicates that a substantial share of the conforming market could switch from private mortgage insurance to FHA insurance if FHA premiums are reduced by similar magnitudes as in the past. FHFA will continue to pay close attention to any changes in the mortgage insurance market.
As discussed above, multiple factors impact the Enterprises' ability to meet their mission and support affordable homeownership through the housing finance market. Nevertheless, FHFA expects the Enterprises to continue efforts in a safe and sound manner to support affordable homeownership under the single-family housing goals categories.
The low-income home purchase goal is based on the percentage of all single-family, owner-occupied home purchase mortgages purchased by an Enterprise that are for low-income families, defined as families with incomes less than or equal to 80 percent of AMI. The final rule sets the annual low-income home purchase housing goal benchmark level for 2018-2020 at 24 percent, the same as the 2015-2017 benchmark level. FHFA has determined that, despite the various challenges to affordability highlighted above, the Enterprises will be able to take steps to maintain or increase their performance on this goal. The 24 percent benchmark level will serve as an appropriate target that will channel Enterprise efforts in this segment.
From 2013 to 2014, the low-income home purchase market decreased from 24.0 percent to 22.8 percent. In 2015, the market rebounded to 23.6 percent and then decreased to 22.9 percent in 2016. FHFA's current model forecasts that the market for this goal will continue to decrease to 21.9 percent in 2017 before increasing to 22.7 percent in 2018, 24.4 percent in 2019 and 24.3 in 2020. The actual market for each of these years will be calculated by FHFA using HMDA data for the year when it becomes available.
Although the Enterprises have been challenged in meeting the single-family housing goal levels in recent years, each Enterprise has increased the number of single-family home purchase loans it has purchased that were made to low-income households. Fannie Mae's eligible single-family loan purchases increased from 193,712 loans in 2013 to 221,628 in 2016. Freddie Mac's eligible single-family loan purchases increased from 93,478 in 2013 to 153,434 in 2016.
Five comment letters expressed support for the proposed benchmark levels for the single-family goals, including the low-income home purchase goal. Commenters commended FHFA for appropriately challenging the Enterprises while taking into account safety and soundness and the realities of the mortgage market. Four comments endorsed a higher benchmark level for the low-income home purchase goal. These commenters recommended setting the low-income goal benchmark at levels between 27 and 30 percent, arguing that more aggressive targets will encourage focus on this income segment, which will benefit consumers and improve access to credit. Only one commenter (Fannie Mae) asserted that the proposed benchmark level for the low-income home purchase goal was too high, and should be lowered to 21 percent. The letter cited ongoing market challenges that make it difficult to meet the benchmark level, including the lack of supply of moderately-priced homes and limited job growth.
The very low-income home purchase goal is based on the percentage of all single-family, owner-occupied home purchase mortgages purchased by an Enterprise that are for very low-income families, defined as families with incomes less than or equal to 50 percent of the area median income. The final rule sets the annual very low-income home purchase housing goal benchmark level for 2018 through 2020 at 6 percent. FHFA has determined that, despite the various challenges to affordability highlighted above, the Enterprises will be able to take steps to maintain or increase their performance on this goal. The 6 percent benchmark level will serve as an appropriate target that will channel Enterprise efforts in this segment.
FHFA's models forecast this segment to remain between 5.1 percent and 5.9 percent for 2017-2020. For the 2018-2020 goal period, FHFA's forecast indicates an increase from 5.1 percent in 2017 to 5.3 percent in 2018 and to 5.9 percent in 2019 and 2020. As noted earlier, the confidence intervals widen as the forecast period lengthens.
As highlighted in the low-income goal discussion above, there were five comment letters that expressed support for the proposed benchmark levels for the single-family goals, including the very low-income home purchase goal at 6 percent. Commenters commended FHFA for appropriately challenging the Enterprises while taking into account safety and soundness and the realities of the mortgage market. Four comments endorsed a higher benchmark level for the very low-income home purchase goal. Commenters recommended setting the very low-income goal benchmark at levels between 7 and 10 percent. These commenters argued that more aggressive targets will encourage the Enterprises to focus on this income segment, which will benefit consumers and improve access to credit. Only one commenter (Fannie Mae) asserted that the proposed benchmark level for the very low-income home purchase goal was too high, and should be lowered to 5 percent. Fannie Mae cited ongoing market challenges that make it difficult to meet the benchmark level, including lack of supply of moderately-priced homes and limited job growth.
FHFA will continue to monitor the Enterprises' performance on this goal and, if FHFA determines in later years that the benchmark level for the very low-income areas home purchase housing goal is no longer feasible for the Enterprises to achieve in light of market conditions or for any other reason, FHFA may take appropriate steps to adjust the benchmark level.
The low-income areas home purchase subgoal is based on the percentage of all single-family, owner-occupied home purchase mortgages purchased by an Enterprise that are either: (1) For families in low-income areas, defined to include census tracts with median income less than or equal to 80 percent of AMI; or (2) for families with incomes less than or equal to AMI who reside in minority census tracts (defined as census tracts with a minority population of at least 30 percent and a tract median income of less than 100 percent of AMI). Mortgage loans may qualify under either or both conditions. As discussed in the proposed rule, mortgages satisfying condition (1) above, or borrowers in low-income areas, are typically almost double the share of mortgages satisfying condition (2), or moderate-income borrowers in minority census tracts. The share of mortgages that satisfy both conditions is generally small (for example, 4.6 percent of low-income areas subgoal mortgages in 2015).
The final rule sets the annual low-income areas home purchase subgoal benchmark level for 2018 through 2020 at 14 percent, which is lower than the 15 percent in the proposed rule, based on comments received by FHFA. FHFA has determined that this benchmark level will serve as an appropriate target for the Enterprises. FHFA will continue to evaluate the impact and efficacy of this subgoal.
The forecast for this subgoal was obtained by generating separate forecasts for the two sub-populations (the low-income areas component and the high-minority component). FHFA has tested alternate model specifications for this subgoal and determined that aligning the overlapping portion with the low-income areas component yields forecast estimates that are more precise (in terms of a narrower confidence interval).
FHFA sought comment on this issue in its proposed rule and received two comment letters that addressed this issue. Both commenters agreed with FHFA's concerns. One encouraged FHFA to continue to carefully monitor the policy objectives and efficacy of this goal. The other commenter opposed raising the benchmark levels for this goal. After considering these and other comments, FHFA is setting the very low-income areas home purchase housing subgoal benchmark level at 14 percent, which is lower than the current 16.6 percent average market forecast.
The low-income areas home purchase goal covers the same categories as the low-income areas home purchase subgoal, but it also includes moderate income families in designated disaster areas. As a result, the low-income areas home purchase goal is based on the percentage of all single-family, owner-occupied home purchase mortgages purchased by an Enterprise that are: (1) For families in low-income areas, defined to include census tracts with median income less than or equal to 80 percent of AMI; (2) for families with incomes less than or equal to AMI who reside in minority census tracts (defined as census tracts with a minority population of at least 30 percent and a tract median income of less than 100 percent of AMI); or (3) for families with incomes less than or equal to 100 percent of AMI who reside in designated disaster areas.
The low-income areas goal benchmark level is established by a two-step process. The first step is setting the benchmark level for the low-income areas subgoal, as established by this final rule. The second step is establishing an additional increment for mortgages to families with incomes less than or equal to AMI located in federally-declared disaster areas.
The low-income refinancing goal is based on the percentage of all single-family, owner-occupied refinance mortgages purchased by an Enterprise that are for low-income families, defined as families with incomes less than or equal to 80 percent of AMI. The final rule sets the annual low-income refinancing housing goal benchmark level for 2018 through 2020 at 21 percent. FHFA has determined that this benchmark level will serve as an appropriate target for the Enterprises. While this benchmark level is unchanged from the current 2015 to 2017 benchmark level, it will nevertheless be challenging for the Enterprises given the current level of interest rates (which are at historic low levels) and the likelihood of interest rate hikes. Because of the significant impact interest rate changes have on this market, Enterprise and market performance on this goal are particularly susceptible to fluctuation. Moderation in the setting of this goal is also supported by the fact that many borrowers have already refinanced during the recent extended period of historically low interest rates.
The low-income share of the refinance market as measured by HMDA data has changed dramatically in recent years, increasing from 20.2 percent in 2010 to a peak of 25 percent in 2014, and dropping from 22.5 percent in 2015 to 19.8 percent in 2016. FHFA's model predicts that this share will increase to 23.4 percent in 2017 and 2018, and then decline to 20.6 percent in 2019 and 18.0 percent in 2020. The confidence intervals for this model are fairly wide because of the considerable uncertainty around interest rates. Recent macroeconomic forecasts have predicted interest rate hikes that have yet to materialize in any substantive way.
Since 2010, the low-income refinancing housing goal has included modifications under the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP).
This final rule also establishes the multifamily housing goals for 2018-2020. FHFA considered the required statutory factors described below in setting the benchmark levels for the multifamily housing goals. Two divergent trends underlie FHFA's analysis: a strong multifamily mortgage market for units that are affordable to higher-income households but a continued gap in the supply of units affordable to lower-income households. There are some forecasts that support a softening of the first trend but all forecasts uniformly expect the second trend to continue during the goal period. FHFA expects and encourages the Enterprises to fully support affordable multifamily housing, in part by fulfilling the multifamily housing goals in a safe and sound manner.
In setting the benchmark levels for the multifamily housing goals, FHFA considered the statutory factors outlined in section 1333(a)(4) of the Safety and Soundness Act. These factors include:
1. National multifamily mortgage credit needs and the ability of the Enterprises to provide additional liquidity and stability for the multifamily mortgage market;
2. The performance and effort of the Enterprises in making mortgage credit available for multifamily housing in previous years;
3. The size of the multifamily mortgage market for housing affordable to low-income and very low-income families, including the size of the multifamily markets for housing of a smaller or limited size;
4. The ability of the Enterprises to lead the market in making multifamily mortgage credit available, especially for multifamily housing affordable to low-income and very low-income families;
5. The availability of public subsidies; and
6. The need to maintain the sound financial condition of the Enterprises.
Unlike the single-family housing goals, performance on the multifamily housing goals is measured solely against a benchmark level, without any retrospective market measure. The absence of a retrospective market measure for the multifamily housing goals results, in part, from the lack of comprehensive data about the multifamily mortgage market. Unlike the single-family market, for which HMDA provides a reasonably comprehensive dataset about single-family mortgage originations each year, the multifamily market (including the affordable multifamily market segment) has no comparable source of data. Consequently, it can be difficult to correlate different datasets on the multifamily market because they usually rely on different reporting formats. For example, some data are available by dollar volume of mortgages while other data are available by unit production.
Another difference between the single-family and multifamily goals is that there are separate single-family housing goals for home purchase and refinance mortgages, while the multifamily goals include all Enterprise multifamily mortgage purchases, regardless of the purpose of the loan. In addition, unlike the single-family housing goals, the multifamily housing goals are measured based on the total volume of affordable multifamily
The lack of comprehensive data for the multifamily mortgage market is even more acute with respect to the segments of the market that are targeted to low-income families, defined as families with incomes at or below 80 percent of AMI, and very low-income families, defined as families with incomes at or below 50 percent of AMI. As required by the Safety and Soundness Act, FHFA determines affordability of multifamily units based on maximum rent levels not exceeding 30 percent of the area median income standard for low- and very low-income families.
The total number of renter households grew from 35 million in 2005 to 44 million in 2015, an increase of about one quarter.
The Joint Center for Housing Studies (JCHS) has released two reports noting concerning trends in the supply of affordable multifamily units. The overall inventory of affordable multifamily units is low, and rent on most newly built units are out of reach for lower-income families. As the JCHS's 2017 Report on America's Rental Housing notes:
“Soaring demand sparked a sharp expansion of the rental stock over the past decade. Initially, most of the additions to supply came from conversions of formerly owner-occupied units, particularly single family homes, which provided housing for the increasing number of families with children in the rental market. Between 2006 and 2016, the number of single-family homes available for rent increased by nearly 4 million, lifting the total to 18.2 million. While single-family homes have always accounted for a large share of rental housing, they now make up 39 percent of the stock. More recently, though, growth in the single-family supply has slowed. The American Community Survey shows that the number of single-family rentals (including detached, attached, and mobile homes) increased by only 74,000 units between 2015 and 2016, substantially below the 400,000 annual increase averaged in 2005-2015. With this slowdown in single-family conversions and a boom in multifamily construction, new multifamily units have come to account for a growing share of new rentals.”
The Report on America's Rental Housing goes on to note that much of this new multifamily construction is aimed at higher income households and located primarily in high-rise buildings in downtown neighborhoods while the supply of moderate and lower cost units has only grown modestly. The Report on America's Rental Housing notes that the share of new units renting for less than $850 a month has actually declined from two-fifths to one-fifth between 2001 and 2016.
The JCHS's 2017 State of the Nation's Housing Report indicates that the majority of growth in rental housing stock in recent years was primarily the result of new multifamily construction. Moreover, most of this new construction consists of apartments with fewer
The State of the Nation's Housing Report also notes the significant prevalence of cost-burdened renters. In 2015, nearly one-third of all tenants paid more than 30 percent of their household income for rental housing, especially in high-cost urban markets where most renters reside and where a majority of the multifamily loans purchased by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been located. Among lower-income households, cost burdens are especially severe.
One source of growth in the stock of lower-rent apartments is “filtering,” a process by which existing units become more affordable as they age. However, in recent years, this downward filtering of rental units has occurred at a slow pace in most markets. Coupled with the permanent loss of affordable units, as these units fall into disrepair or units are demolished to create new higher-rent or higher-valued ownership units, this trend has severely limited the supply of lower rent units. As a result, there is an acute shortfall of affordable units for extremely low-income renters (earning up to 30 percent of AMI) and very low-income renters (earning up to 50 percent of AMI). This supply gap is especially wide in certain metropolitan areas in the southern and western United States.
The combination of the supply gap in affordable units, which has resulted in significant increases in rental rates, and the prevalence of cost-burdened renters resulting from largely flat real incomes has led to an erosion of affordability, with fewer units qualifying for the housing goals.
Small multifamily properties with 5 to 50 units are also an important source of affordable rental housing and represent approximately one-third of the affordable rental market. Because they have different operating and ownership characteristics than larger properties, small multifamily properties often have different financing needs. For example, small multifamily properties are more likely to be owned by an individual or small investor and less likely to be managed by a third party property management firm.
Financing for affordable multifamily buildings—particularly those affordable to very low-income families—often uses an array of state and federal supply-side housing subsidies, such as LIHTC, tax-exempt bonds, project-based rental assistance, or soft subordinate financing.
Subject to the continuing availability of these subsidies, there should continue to be opportunities in the multifamily market to provide permanent financing for properties with LIHTC during the 2018-2020 period. There should also be opportunities for market participants, including the Enterprises, to purchase mortgages that finance the preservation of existing affordable housing units, especially for restructurings of older properties that reach the end of their initial 15-year LIHTC compliance periods and for refinancing properties with expiring Section 8 rental assistance contracts.
In recent years, demand-side public subsidies and the availability of public housing have not kept pace with the growing number of low-income and very low-income households in need of federal housing assistance. As a result,
Despite the Enterprises' reduced market share in the overall multifamily market and due to the segmented nature of the multifamily market noted earlier, FHFA expects the Enterprises to continue to demonstrate leadership in multifamily affordable housing by providing liquidity and supporting housing for tenants at different income levels in various geographic markets and in various market segments.
In 2015, FHFA established a cap of $30 billion on new conventional multifamily loan purchases for each Enterprise in response to increased participation in the market from private sector capital. In 2016, the cap increased from $30 billion to $36.5 billion in response to growth of the overall multifamily origination market throughout the year. This increase maintained the Enterprises' current market share at about 40 percent. In 2017, FHFA kept the cap at $36.5 billion. In 2018, the cap has been reduced to $35 billion.
FHFA reviews the market size estimates quarterly, using current market data provided by the MBA, the National Multifamily Housing Council, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. FHFA also produces an internal forecast. If FHFA determines during the year that the actual market size is greater than was projected, FHFA will consider an increase to the capped (conventional market-rate) category of the Conservatorship Scorecard for each Enterprise. In light of the need for market participants to be able to plan sales of mortgages during long origination processes, if FHFA determines that the actual market size is smaller than projected, there will be no reduction to the capped volume for the current year from the amount initially established under the Conservatorship Scorecard.
As noted earlier, in order to encourage affordable lending activities, FHFA excludes many types of loans in underserved markets from the Conservatorship Scorecard cap on conventional multifamily loans. The Conservatorship Scorecard has no volume targets in the market segments excluded from the cap. There is significant overlap between the types of multifamily mortgages that are excluded from the Conservatorship Scorecard cap and the multifamily mortgages that contribute to the performance of the Enterprises under the affordable housing goals. The 2018 Conservatorship Scorecard excludes either the entirety of the loan amount or a
The final rule sets the multifamily housing goals at benchmark levels intended to encourage the Enterprises to provide liquidity and to support various multifamily finance market segments in a safe and sound manner. The Enterprises have served as a stabilizing force in the multifamily market in the years since the financial crisis. During the conservatorship period, the Enterprise portfolios of loans on multifamily affordable housing properties have experienced low levels of delinquency and default, similar to the performance of Enterprise loans on market rate properties. In light of this performance, the Enterprises should be able to sustain or increase their volume of purchases of loans on affordable multifamily housing properties without adversely impacting the Enterprises' safety and soundness or negatively affecting the performance of their total loan portfolios.
FHFA continues to monitor the activities of the Enterprises, both in FHFA's capacity as regulator and as conservator. If necessary, FHFA will make appropriate changes in the benchmark levels for the multifamily housing goals to ensure the Enterprises' continued safety and soundness.
The multifamily low-income housing goal is based on the total number of rental units in multifamily properties financed by mortgages purchased by the Enterprises that are affordable to low-income families, defined as families with incomes less than or equal to 80 percent of AMI. The final rule sets the annual benchmark level for the low-income multifamily housing goal for each Enterprise at 315,000 units in each year from 2018 through 2020.
In 2016, the goal for each Enterprise was 300,000 units. Fannie Mae purchased mortgages financing 352,368 low-income units, and Freddie Mac purchased mortgages financing 406,958 low-income units. While total volumes have increased, the share of low-income units financed at each Enterprise has been declining from peak levels in 2012.
Industry forecasts and FHFA internal forecasts for the overall multifamily originations market indicate a modest increase in 2017 over 2016 and a decrease in 2018.
Given recent Enterprise performance and balancing these considerations, the final rule sets the annual benchmark level for the low-income multifamily housing goal for each Enterprise at 315,000 units in each year from 2018 through 2020, a modest increase from the 300,000 unit goal for each Enterprise in 2015-2017.
The multifamily very low-income housing subgoal is based on the total number of rental units in multifamily properties financed by mortgages purchased by the Enterprises that are affordable to very low-income families, defined as families with incomes no greater than 50 percent of AMI. The final rule sets the benchmark level for the very low-income multifamily housing subgoal for each Enterprise at 60,000 units for each year from 2018 through 2020.
As discussed above, industry forecasts and FHFA internal forecasts for the overall multifamily originations market indicate a modest increase in 2017 over 2016 and a decrease in 2018.
Given the challenges associated with the Enterprises meeting this housing goal and the trends described, the final rule sets the benchmark level for the very low-income multifamily housing subgoal for each Enterprise at 60,000 units for each year from 2018 through 2020, the same as the 60,000 unit goal for each Enterprise in 2015-2017.
A small multifamily property is defined for purposes of the housing goals as a property with 5 to 50 units. The small multifamily low-income housing subgoal is based on the total number of units in small multifamily properties financed by mortgages purchased by the Enterprises that are affordable to low-income families, defined as families with incomes less than or equal to 80 percent of AMI. The final rule sets the benchmark level for the small multifamily subgoal for each Enterprise at 10,000 units for each year from 2018 through 2020.
Given the importance of this market segment, the final rule sets the benchmark level for the small multifamily subgoal for each Enterprise at 10,000 units for each year from 2018 through 2020, the same as the 10,000 unit subgoal for each Enterprise in 2017.
The final rule also revises other provisions of the housing goals regulation, as discussed below.
Consistent with the proposed rule, the final rule includes changes to definitions used in the current housing goals regulation. Specifically, the final rule revises the definitions of “median income,” “metropolitan area,” and “non-metropolitan area” and removes the definition of “AHS.”
The current regulation defines “median income” as the unadjusted median family income estimates for an area as most recently determined by HUD. While this definition accurately identifies the source that FHFA uses to determine median incomes each year, the definition does not reflect the longstanding practice FHFA has followed in providing the Enterprises with the median incomes that the Enterprises must use each year. The final rule revises the definition to be clear that the Enterprises are required to use the median incomes provided by FHFA each year in determining affordability for purposes of the housing goals.
The final rule also makes two additional technical changes to the definition of “median income.” First, the final rule adds a reference to “non-metropolitan areas” in the definition because FHFA determines median incomes for both metropolitan areas and non-metropolitan areas each year. Second, the final rule removes the word “family” in one place so that the term “median income” is used consistently throughout the regulation.
The revised definition reads: “Median income means, with respect to an area, the unadjusted median family income for the area as determined by FHFA. FHFA will provide the Enterprises annually with information specifying how the median family income estimates for metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas are to be applied for purposes of determining median income.”
The current regulation defines both “metropolitan area” and “non-metropolitan area” based on the areas for which HUD defines median family incomes. The definition of “metropolitan area” refers to median family income estimates “determined by HUD,” while the definition of “non-metropolitan area” refers to median family income estimates “published annually by HUD.”
To be consistent with the changes to the definition of “median income,” the final rule revises the definition of “metropolitan area” by replacing the phrase “for which median family income estimates are determined by HUD” with the phrase “for which median incomes are determined by FHFA.” For the same reason, the final rule revises the definition of “non-metropolitan area” by replacing the phrase “for which median family income estimates are published annually by HUD” with the phrase “, for which median incomes are determined by FHFA.”
Consistent with the proposed rule, the final rule removes the definition of “AHS” from § 1282.1 because the term is no longer used in the Enterprise housing goals regulation.
Prior to the 2015 amendments to the Enterprise housing goals regulation, the term “AHS” was used to specify the data source from which FHFA derives the utility allowances used to determine the total rent for a rental unit which, in turn, is used to determine the affordability of the unit when actual utility costs are not available. The 2015 amendments consolidated and simplified the definitions applicable to determining the total rent and eliminated the reference to AHS in the part of the definition related to utility allowances, providing FHFA with flexibility in how it determines the nationwide average utility allowances. The current nationwide average utility allowances are still fixed numbers based on AHS data, but the regulation does not require FHFA to rely solely on AHS data to determine those utility allowances. The term “AHS” is not used anywhere else in the regulation, so the final rule removes the definition from § 1282.1.
The final rule revises § 1282.15(e)(2) to update the data source used by FHFA to estimate affordability where actual information about rental units in a multifamily property is not available.
Section 1282.15(e)(3) permits the Enterprises to use estimated affordability information to determine the affordability of multifamily rental units for up to 5 percent of the total multifamily rental units in properties securing mortgages purchased by the Enterprise each year when actual rental information about the units is not available. The estimations are based on the affordable percentage of all rental units in the census tract in which the property for which the Enterprise is estimating affordability is located.
The current regulation provides that the affordable percentage of all rental units in the census tract will be determined by FHFA based on the most recent decennial census. However, the 2000 decennial census was the last decennial census that collected this information. The U.S. Census Bureau now collects this information through the ACS. Since 2011, FHFA has used the most recent data available from the ACS to determine the affordable percentage of rental units in a census tract for purposes of estimating affordability. The final rule revises § 1282.15(e)(2) to reflect this change. To take into account possible future changes in how rental affordability data is collected, the revised sentence does not refer specifically to data derived from the ACS. The final rule revises § 1282.15(e)(2) to replace the phrase “as determined by FHFA based on the most recent decennial census” with the phrase “as determined by FHFA.”
Consistent with the proposed rule, the final rule revises § 1282.15(g) to remove paragraph (g)(2), an obsolete provision describing the method that the Enterprises were required to use to determine the median income for a census tract where the census tract was split between two areas with different median incomes.
Current § 1282.15(g)(2) requires the Enterprises to use the method prescribed by the Federal Financial
As discussed above regarding the definition of “median income,” the process of determining median incomes has changed over the years, so that the Enterprises are now required to use median incomes provided by FHFA each year when determining affordability for purposes of the housing goals. Because FHFA provides median incomes for every location in the United States, it is no longer necessary for the regulation to set forth a process for the Enterprises to use when it is not certain what the applicable median income would be for a particular location. Consequently, the final rule removes § 1282.15(g)(2) from the regulation and renumbers § 1282.15(g)(1).
Consistent with the proposed rule, the final rule revises § 1282.21(b)(3) to make clear that the Director has discretion to determine the appropriate period of time that an Enterprise may be subject to a housing plan to address a failure to meet a housing goal.
The final rule revises § 1282.21(b)(3) to state explicitly that a housing plan that is required based on an Enterprise's failure to achieve a housing goal will be required to address a time period determined by the Director. If FHFA requires an Enterprise to submit a housing plan, FHFA will notify the Enterprise of the applicable time period in FHFA's final determination on the housing goals performance of the Enterprise for a particular year. This change is based on (1) FHFA's experience in overseeing the housing goals, in particular the experience in requiring Freddie Mac to submit a housing plan based on its failure to achieve certain housing goals in 2014 and 2015, (2) the inherent conflict in the timeframes set out in the Safety and Soundness Act, and (3) the importance of ensuring that any housing plans are focused on sustainable improvements in Enterprise goals performance.
FHFA is committed to enforcing the housing goals as provided in the Safety and Soundness Act. FHFA required that an Enterprise submit a housing plan for the first time in 2015. FHFA required Freddie Mac to submit a housing plan for 2016-2017 based on Freddie Mac's failure to meet the low-income and very low-income housing goals in 2013 and 2014. FHFA extended the housing plan through 2018 after Freddie Mac failed to meet the same goals in 2015. Freddie Mac submitted detailed proposals for improving its performance on those housing goals in the housing plan, and Freddie Mac continues to provide regular updates to FHFA. The Safety and Soundness Act provides for enforcement through civil money penalties and cease and desist orders if an Enterprise refuses to submit a housing plan when required, submits an unacceptable plan, or fails to comply with a housing plan.
When FHFA has required an Enterprise to submit a housing plan based on a failure to meet one or more housing goals, FHFA has required that the housing plan include detailed plans for future business initiatives and other actions that the Enterprise will take to improve its performance on the housing goals. For example, the Freddie Mac housing plan included proprietary forecasts for specific initiatives and programs that Freddie Mac is undertaking to improve its performance on the applicable housing goals. The level of detail required means that almost all of the information in the housing plan will be competitively sensitive. For that reason, the final rule does not provide for publication of any housing plan that an Enterprise may be required to submit. FHFA values the input of external entities on this process and recognizes commenters' desires for more information. FHFA will continue to review policies and procedures related to housing goals enforcement and may consider options to increase transparency related to Enterprise housing plans, either by future rulemaking or other changes to FHFA's processes.
This final rule does not contain any information collection requirement that would require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Mortgages, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the
12 U.S.C. 4501, 4502, 4511, 4513, 4526, 4561-4566.
The revisions read as follows:
(c) * * *
(2) The benchmark level, which for 2018, 2019 and 2020 shall be 24 percent of the total number of purchase money mortgages purchased by that Enterprise in each year that finance owner-occupied single-family properties.
(d) * * *
(2) The benchmark level, which for 2018, 2019 and 2020 shall be 6 percent of the total number of purchase money mortgages purchased by that Enterprise in each year that finance owner-occupied single-family properties.
(f) * * *
(2) The benchmark level, which for 2018, 2019 and 2020 shall be 14 percent of the total number of purchase money mortgages purchased by that Enterprise in each year that finance owner-occupied single-family properties.
(g) * * *
(2) The benchmark level, which for 2018, 2019 and 2020 shall be 21 percent of the total number of refinancing mortgages purchased by that Enterprise in each year that finance owner-occupied single-family properties.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
The revisions read as follows:
(g)
(1) The metropolitan area, if the property which is the subject of the mortgage is in a metropolitan area; and
(2) In all other areas, the county in which the property is located, except that where the State non-metropolitan median income is higher than the county's median income, the area is the State non-metropolitan area.
(b) * * *
(3) Describe the specific actions that the Enterprise will take in a time period determined by the Director to improve the Enterprise's performance under the housing goal; and
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes; Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes; Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes; and Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report of rudder yoke components that had not been properly inspected at the supplier. This AD requires replacement of the left and right rudder yoke assemblies. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective March 19, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of March 19, 2018.
For service information identified in this final rule, 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, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone: 516-228-7329; fax: 516-794-5531.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes; Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes; Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes; and Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. The NPRM published in the
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD CF-2017-10, dated February 27, 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-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes; Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes; Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes; and Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. The MCAI states:
Bombardier Aerospace has informed Transport Canada that a number of rudder yoke components were received which had not been properly inspected at the supplier. The rudder yoke supplier discovered that the crack detection inspection was omitted following the manufacturing of some components. A cracked rudder yoke may affect rudder function on the affected side and could result in difficulties in maneuvering the aeroplane.
This [Canadian] AD was issued to mandate the replacement of the left and right rudder yoke assemblies.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. We considered the comment received. The Air Line Pilots Association, International supported the NPRM.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
Bombardier, Inc., has issued Service Bulletin 670BA-27-073, dated November 23, 2016. This service information describes procedures for replacement of the left and right rudder yoke assemblies. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 48 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all available costs in our cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective March 19, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to the airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD, certificated in any category.
(1) Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes, serial number 10343.
(2) Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes and Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes, serial numbers 15326 through 15370 inclusive.
(3) Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes, serial numbers 19041 and 19042.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight controls.
This AD was prompted by a report of rudder yoke components that had not been properly inspected at the supplier. We are issuing this AD to prevent a cracked rudder yoke, which may affect rudder function on the affected side and could result in difficulties in maneuvering the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 6,600 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, replace the left and right rudder yoke assemblies, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-27-073, dated November 23, 2016.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian AD CF-2017-10, dated February 27, 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: 516-228-7329; fax: 516-794-5531.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-27-073, dated November 23, 2016.
(ii) Reserved.
(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: 1-866-538-1247 or direct-dial telephone: 1-514-855-2999; fax: 514-855-7401; email:
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A330-202, -203, -223, and -243 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 design review of the airplane configuration incorporating certain fire extinguisher bottles and an optional galley cooling rack installation, which revealed that the air cooling rack is installed too close to the supply hose of a high rate fire extinguishing bottle. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD becomes effective February 27, 2018.
We must receive comments on this AD by March 29, 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
Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1138; 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 2014-0248, dated November 19, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A330-202, -203, -223, and -243 airplanes. The MCAI states:
During a design review of aeroplane configuration incorporating Kidde fire extinguisher bottles and optional galley cooling rack installation, it was identified that the air cooling rack is installed too close to the supply hose of the high rated fire extinguishing bottle in the area of frame (FR)34. Inadequate physical separation between the flexible hose and the air cooling rack could lead to chafing, likely resulting in loss of the Fire Extinguishing System for the Lower Deck Cargo Compartment.
This condition, if not corrected, could lead, in case of fire, to an uncontrolled fire in the cargo compartment, which could ultimately jeopardise the aeroplane's safe flight.
To address this unsafe condition, Airbus developed an improved flexible hose assembly (Airbus mod 200195, available for in-service aeroplanes through Airbus SB A330-26-3046) and EASA issued AD 2013-0250 (later revised) to require replacement of Part Number (P/N) P/N A2627045200000 flexible hose assembly of the Fire Extinguisher System at FR34.
Since EASA AD 2013-0250R1 was issued, it was discovered that another flexible hose assembly, P/N A2627045400200, is also affected by this chafing issue.
Prompted by this finding, Airbus issued SB A330-26-3046 Revision 02 to incorporate this additional affected P/N and to provide additional work instructions for aeroplanes which accomplished the SB at a previous revision.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2013-0250R1, which is superseded, and requires additional work on aeroplanes that have already been modified in accordance with the instructions of the original issue or Revision 01 of the SB.
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
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 27, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to Airbus Model A330-202, -203, -223, and -243 airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers which incorporate the Airbus modifications specified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), or (c)(3) of this AD; except those airplanes which incorporate Airbus modification 200195, or Airbus modification 40487 (in production modification for installation of Pacific-Scientific fire extinguisher bottles), or Airbus Service Bulletin A330-26-3013 (in-service modification for installation of Pacific-Scientific fire extinguisher bottles).
(1) Airbus modification 45785.
(2) Airbus modification 45883.
(3) Airbus modification 46616.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 26, Fire protection.
This AD was prompted by a design review of the airplane configuration incorporating Kidde fire extinguisher bottles and an optional galley cooling rack installation, which revealed that the air cooling rack is installed too close to the supply hose of the high rate fire extinguishing bottle in the area of frame (FR) 34. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct inadequate physical separation between the flexible supply hose and the air cooling rack and consequent chafing and possible loss of the fire extinguishing system for the lower deck cargo compartment. Such a condition could result in an uncontrolled fire in the cargo compartment.
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 actions 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 2014-0248, dated November 19, 2014.
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 2014-0248, dated November 19, 2014, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1138; fax: 425-227-1149.
None.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A330-300 series 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 report indicating that a pipe of the fire extinguishing system in the forward cargo compartment was too long, and therefore could be installed only under stress, which applies pressure to the pipe clamp. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD becomes effective February 27, 2018.
We must receive comments on this AD by March 29, 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
Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1138; 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 2013-0291, dated December 9, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A330-300 series airplanes. The MCAI states:
During installation of the fire extinguishing system in the forward cargo compartment in production, it was established that one pipe was too long and could therefore only be installed under stress. This affected pipe was developed in the frame of Airbus mod 58244 and mod 58245 related to Cabin Intercommunication Data System-Based smoke detection system (CIDS-Based SDS) for A330-300 aeroplanes only.
Investigation revealed that due to loads transfer, the clamp could break and the pipe would come into contact with the structure, possibly resulting in leakage in the Halon piping due to chafing, in the forward lower deck cargo compartment (LDCC), which could lead to (potentially undetected) functional loss of fire extinguishing system.
This condition, if not corrected, in combination with a fire, could lead to an uncontrolled fire in LDCC, possibly resulting in the loss of aeroplane.
To address this unsafe condition, Airbus developed a mod. which consists in installation of a shorter pipe, to be embodied in production with mod 202779 and in-service through Airbus Service Bulletin (SB) A330-26-3053.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires modification of the affected fire extinguishing pipe between [frame] FR34 and FR36 in the forward LDCC.
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
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 27, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to Airbus Model A330-301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers on which Airbus modification 58244 or modification 58245 has been embodied in production, except those on which modification 202779 has been embodied in production.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 26, Fire protection.
This AD was prompted by a report indicating that a pipe of the fire extinguishing system in the forward cargo compartment was too long, and therefore could be installed only under stress, which applies pressure to the pipe clamp. We are issuing this AD to prevent this pipe clamp from breaking, allowing the pipe to come into contact with the structure, possibly resulting in leakage in the Halon piping. This condition could lead to functional loss of the fire extinguishing system, which, in combination with a fire, could lead to an uncontrolled fire in the lower deck cargo compartment, and possible loss 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 actions 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 2013-0291, dated December 9, 2013.
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 2013-0291, dated December 9, 2013, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1138; fax: 425-227-1149.
None.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A318 series airplanes; Model A319 series airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of fatigue damage in the structure for the door stop fittings on certain fuselage frames (FR). This AD requires repetitive rototest inspections for cracking of the fastener holes in certain door stop fittings, and repair if necessary. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective March 19, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of March 19, 2018.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 44 51; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1405; fax: 425-227-1149.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Model A318 series airplanes; Model A319 series airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. The NPRM published in the
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2016-0238, dated December 2, 2016; corrected January 4, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A318 series airplanes; Model A319 series airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. The MCAI states:
During an A320 fatigue test campaign, it was determined that fatigue damage could appear at the door stop fitting holes of fuselage frame (FR) 66 and FR 68 on left hand (LH) and right hand (RH) sides.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could affect the structural integrity of the airframe.
Two inspections, Airworthiness Limitations Item (ALI) tasks 534129 and 534130, were introduced in the Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 2 with the April 2012 revision and with some compliance time changes with Revision 3 of ALS Part 2 of October 2014.
Since these ALI tasks were implemented, a significant number of reports [were] received concerning non-critical damage and early crack findings. Prompted by these reports, Airbus published SB A320-53-1288 and SB A320-53-1290, providing inspection instructions to improve damage management and modification instructions.
Consequently, EASA issued AD 2016-0015, requiring repetitive rototest inspections of the affected door stop fitting holes and, depending on findings, repair of any cracked area(s).
Since that [EASA] AD was issued, ALS Part 2 Revision 04 and later on Revision 05 were published, introducing updated thresholds and/or intervals for some tasks as specified in Airbus SB A320-53-1288, introducing new configuration of aeroplane with RETRO WING having accomplished SB A320-57-1193 (mod 160080), and keeping the threshold or interval only in flight cycles (FC).
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2016-0015, which is superseded, but requires those actions within the updated thresholds and intervals. In addition, a corrected threshold for pre-mod 160021 A321 aeroplanes is introduced and the Applicability is reduced to exclude configurations that are not affected.
This [EASA] AD is republished to clarify some requirements in Appendix 1 [in this EASA AD].
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
United Airlines (UAL) requested that we revise paragraph (h) of the proposed AD to allow a 60-day grace period after
We agree with the commenter's request to add a grace period to paragraph (h) of this AD to allow operators to plan for the new inspection interval. However, since the commenter did not provide adequate justification to support a 60-day grace period, we have determined that a 30-day grace period is appropriate. Additionally, under the provisions of paragraph (q)(1) of this AD, we will consider requests for approval of an extension of the compliance time if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that the new compliance time would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have revised paragraph (h) of this AD to include a 30-day grace period.
UAL requested that either the service information or the proposed AD be revised to provide alternate instructions for airplanes with modified hardware. UAL noted that “paragraph (i)” of the proposed AD requires repetitive inspections on airplanes modified by cold working fastener holes, which includes installing oversize hardware. UAL pointed out that the inspections must be done in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1288, Revision 01, including Appendixes 01, 02, and 03, dated October 3, 2016, which requires using nominal size hardware that no longer exists on modified airplanes.
We infer that the commenter meant to refer to paragraph (j) of the proposed AD, which discusses post-modification inspections, rather than paragraph (i) of the proposed AD, which discusses an optional modification. We agree with the commenter's request. We acknowledge that Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1288, Revision 01, including Appendixes 01, 02, and 03, dated October 3, 2016, does not specifically address oversize hardware; however, EASA has stated that “the same inspection principle applies for post SB [Service Bulletin] 53-1290 configuration.” Therefore, we have retained Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1288, Revision 01, including Appendixes 01, 02, and 03, dated October 3, 2016, in paragraph (j) of this AD. We have also revised paragraph (j) of this AD to include an option for operators to obtain inspection instructions using a method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).
UAL requested that we remove the statement “repair of an airplane as required by this paragraph does not constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) or (j) of this AD for that repair, unless specified otherwise” from paragraph (k) of the proposed AD. UAL suggested that statement be replaced with one instructing operators to accomplish inspections as specified in the repair instructions.
UAL noted that paragraph (k) of the proposed AD states that a crack repair must be done using a method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA and says that such a repair does not constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspections done in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1288, Revision 01, including Appendixes 01, 02, and 03, dated October 3, 2016, unless specified otherwise.
UAL pointed out that Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1288, Revision 01, including Appendixes 01, 02, and 03, dated October 3, 2016, contains language to allow operators to accomplish crack repairs in accordance with structural repair manual (SRM) 53-41-12, and then perform inspections of the repaired area in accordance with SRM 53-41-12. UAL noted that the SRM repair instructions do not state that they terminate the inspections in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1288, Revision 01, including Appendixes 01, 02, and 03, dated October 3, 2016. UAL further noted that Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1288, Revision 01, including Appendixes 01, 02, and 03, dated October 3, 2016, only applies to unrepaired areas with nominal size holes (the repaired areas would have oversized holes).
We disagree with the commenter's request. We acknowledge that Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1288, Revision 01, including Appendixes 01, 02, and 03, dated October 3, 2016, allows repairs to be done using an SRM. However, this AD does not include that allowance since SRMs published before the effective date of this AD might not address the unsafe condition identified in this AD. Therefore, paragraph (k) of this AD requires repairs to be done using a method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA.
Additionally, the statement that the commenter requested us to remove from paragraph (k) of this proposed AD aligns with the MCAI. The statement is meant to clarify that doing a repair does not necessarily terminate the repetitive inspections; the repetitive inspections would only be terminated if the repair approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA specifically states that the inspections are terminated. If the approved repair does not state that the inspections are terminated, operators must continue to inspect using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1288, Revision 01, including Appendixes 01, 02, and 03, dated October 3, 2016, or using a method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA. Therefore, we have not changed the requirements in paragraph (k) of this AD nor have we removed the statement identified by the commenter. However, we have revised paragraph (g) of this AD to include an option for operators to obtain inspection instructions using a method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA.
UAL requested that we remove paragraph (l)(2) of the proposed AD because it has no real purpose. UAL noted that paragraph (l)(2) of the proposed AD requires operators to obtain inspection instructions and corrective actions for all repaired fastener holes by contacting the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA. UAL claimed that if a repair was accomplished using the instructions in an SRM or repair design approval sheet (RDAS), the repair approval contains, at a minimum, the initial compliance threshold. UAL added that it is standard
We disagree with the commenter's request. Airbus intends to provide specific instructions for airplanes inspected in accordance with ALI task 534129 or task 534130 and repaired in accordance with an SRM or RDAS published before the effective date of this AD. Since repair instructions published before the effective date of this AD might not address the unsafe condition identified in this AD, the SRM or RDAS instructions might need to be re-evaluated or revised to address the unsafe condition. In addition, we do not rely on an operator's standard practices, and instead require operators to obtain inspections and corrective actions to address the unsafe condition. We have not revised this AD regarding this issue.
UAL requested that we delete paragraph (n) of the proposed AD. UAL noted that paragraph (n) of the proposed AD requires operators to determine if a repair was done using an RDAS that is unrelated to ALI task 534129 or task 534130. UAL suggested that the repair instructions would have to state that the damage was found as a result of the applicable ALI, but noted that the ALI task is an inspection that may not be referenced in a documented repair. UAL questioned the relevance of whether or not a repair was related to ALI task 534129 or task 534130, noting that the same considerations are given to repair instructions, regardless of how damage was found. UAL stated that operators would know to seek an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) if they cannot inspect a previously repaired area in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1288, Revision 01, including Appendixes 01, 02, and 03, dated October 3, 2016.
We disagree with the commenter's request. The intent of paragraph (n) of the proposed AD is to require operators to re-evaluate existing repairs performed using an Airbus RDAS unrelated to ALI task 534129 or task 534130 because those repairs may not address the findings from the specific inspection types required by the ALI tasks. Therefore, the corresponding repairs might not address the unsafe condition and operators might need new instructions. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
UAL requested that, prior to the release of this final rule, we verify that we are referencing the latest revisions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1288, Revision 01, including Appendixes 01, 02, and 03, dated October 3, 2016; and Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1290, Revision 01, dated October 3, 2016.
We agree with the commenter's request. We have verified that no later revisions of the service information have been issued, and no change is needed to this AD.
In the proposed AD, Table 1 to paragraphs (g) and (j) of this AD and Table 2 to paragraphs (g) and (j) of this AD included a compliance time that stated “. . . or before November 30, 2017. . . .” Since this final rule will become effective after November 30, 2017, we have changed this statement to read “. . . or within 30 days after the effective date of this AD. . . .” We have determined that this revised compliance time addresses the unsafe condition.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.
Airbus has issued the following service information.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1288, Revision 01, including Appendixes 01, 02, and 03, dated October 3, 2016. This service information describes procedures for rototest inspections for cracking of the fastener holes in the airframe structure for the door stop fittings installation in FR66 and FR68.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1290, Revision 01, dated October 3, 2016. This service information describes procedures for cold working the fastener holes in the airframe structure for the door stop fittings installation in FR66 and FR68.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 1,084 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repairs that would be required based on the results of the required 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 AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective March 19, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to Airbus Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, 231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes; certificated in any category; all manufacturer serial numbers, except airplanes specified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD.
(1) Airplanes on which Airbus modification (Mod) 157039 has been embodied in production.
(2) Model A319 series airplanes on which Mod 28238, Mod 28162, and Mod 28342 have been embodied in production.
(3) Model A318 series airplanes on which Mod 39195 has been embodied in production or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-00-1219 has been embodied in service.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by reports of fatigue damage in the structure for the door stop fittings on certain fuselage frames (FR). We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking at the door stop fitting holes of fuselage FR66 and FR68. Such cracking could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane due to the failure of structural components.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within the applicable compliance times specified in table 1 to paragraphs (g) and (j) of this AD and table 2 to paragraphs (g) and (j) of this AD: Do a rototest inspection of all holes below each door stop fitting at fuselage FR66 and FR68, both left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) sides, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1288, Revision 01, including Appendixes 01, 02, and 03, dated October 3, 2016; or 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). Repeat the inspections thereafter at the applicable compliance times specified in table 1 to paragraphs (g) and (j) of this AD and table 2 to paragraphs (g) and (j) of this AD, until the modification specified in paragraph (i) of this AD is done. Where the “Threshold” column of table 1 to paragraphs (g) and (j) of this AD and table 2 to paragraphs (g) and (j) of this AD, specifies compliance times in “FC” (flight cycles), those compliance times are total flight cycles since the first flight of the airplane.
Inspections accomplished as specified in ALI task 534129 or task 534130 before the effective date of this AD are acceptable for compliance with the initial inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD. As of 30 days after the effective date of this AD, repetitive inspections must be continued as required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
For airplanes on which no cracks were detected during any rototest inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD: Modifying the affected area by cold working the fastener holes before further flight after no cracks were detected, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1290, Revision 01, dated October 3, 2016, terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD for the modified area only.
For airplanes on which the modification specified in paragraph (i) of this AD has been done: At the compliance time specified in paragraphs (j)(1), (j)(2), or (j)(3) of this AD, as applicable, accomplish a rototest inspection of all holes at the door stop fitting locations at fuselage FR66 and FR68, both LH and RH sides, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1288, Revision 01, including Appendixes 01, 02, and 03, dated October 3, 2016; or 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). Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed the applicable compliance times specified in table 1 to paragraphs (g) and (j) of this AD and table 2 to paragraphs (g) and (j) of this AD.
(1) For airplanes with less than 1,800 flight cycles accumulated since first flight of the airplane at the time of accomplishing the modification specified in paragraph (i) of this AD: At the applicable initial compliance time specified in table 1 to paragraphs (g) and (j) of this AD and table 2 to paragraphs (g) and (j) of this AD.
(2) For airplanes with 1,800 flight cycles or more and less than 13,800 flight cycles accumulated since first flight of the airplane at the time of accomplishing the modification specified in paragraph (i) of this AD: Before the accumulation of 48,000 flight cycles since first flight of the airplane.
(3) For airplanes with 13,800 flight cycles or more accumulated since first flight of the airplane at the time of accomplishing the modification specified in paragraph (i) of this AD: Before the accumulation of 60,000 flight cycles since first flight of the airplane.
If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g) or (j) of this AD, any crack is detected, before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA. Repair of an airplane as required by this paragraph does not constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) or (j) of this AD for that airplane, unless specified otherwise in instructions obtained using a method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA.
For an airplane that has been inspected as specified in ALI task 534129 or task 534130 and repaired before the effective date of this AD as specified in the applicable structural repair manual (SRM) or as specified in an Airbus repair design approval sheet (RDAS): Comply with the requirements of paragraphs (l)(1) and (l)(2) of this AD.
(1) For all fastener holes where no damage or cracks were detected (
(2) For all repaired fastener holes: Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, or within a compliance time approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA, whichever occurs later, contact the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA; for inspection instructions and applicable corrective actions, and do the inspections and applicable corrective actions accordingly.
For airplanes that have been inspected, as specified in ALI task 534129 or task 534130, and repaired before the effective date of this AD, as specified in the applicable SRM, or as specified in an Airbus RDAS: Modification of the four fastener holes at door stop locations where no damage or crack was detected (
For an airplane that has been repaired before the effective date of this AD in the areas described in this AD using an Airbus RDAS unrelated to ALI task 534129 or task 534130: Before exceeding the compliance times specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, contact the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA; for corrective action instructions and accomplish those instructions accordingly. Accomplishment of corrective action(s) on an airplane, as required by this paragraph, does not constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspections as required by paragraphs (g) or (j) of this AD for that airplane, as applicable, unless specified otherwise in the instructions.
(1) Accomplishment of inspections on an airplane, as required by paragraphs (g), (j), or (l) of this AD, as applicable, constitutes terminating action for the inspection requirements of ALI task 534129 or task 534130, as applicable, for that airplane.
(2) Modification of the four fastener holes at a door stop location of an airplane as specified in paragraphs (i) or (m) of this AD, as applicable, and subsequent initial inspection required by paragraph (j) of this AD, constitutes terminating action for the inspection requirements of ALI task 534129 or task 534130, as applicable, for those holes for that airplane. Subsequent repetitive inspections are required by paragraph (j) of this AD.
(1) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraphs (g) and (j) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1288, including Appendixes 01 and 02, dated October 10, 2014.
(2) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraphs (i) and (m) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1290, dated October 10, 2014.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2016-0238, dated December 2, 2016; corrected January 4, 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 Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1405; fax: 425-227-1149.
(3) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (s)(3) and (s)(4) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1288, Revision 01, including Appendixes 01, 02, and 03, dated October 3, 2016.
(ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1290, Revision 01, dated October 3, 2016.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 44 51; email:
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing Company Model 757-300 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of scribe line damage on fuselage skin. This AD requires detailed inspections of fuselage skin for the presence of scribe lines, and applicable on-condition actions. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective March 19, 2018.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of March 19, 2018.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; internet
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
David Truong, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5224; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all The Boeing Company Model 757-300 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We are issuing this AD to detect and correct scribe line damage. Failure to detect and completely remove scribe lines may lead to fatigue cracking, rapid decompression, and inability of the principal structural element to sustain limit load.
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
The Boeing Company and United Airlines supported the NPRM.
Delta Air Lines (Delta) asserted that any FAA-approved repair installed after the original issue date of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0107, dated July 20, 2017, would not have the scribe line issue because operators are using the approved sealant removal tools and instructions specified in the Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0107, dated July 20, 2017, which would prevent the occurrence of scribe line damage. Delta requested that a paragraph be added to the proposed AD specifying that such a repair would be exempt from the requirements of the proposed AD.
We agree with the commenter's request because the Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0107, dated July 20, 2017, provides an exception to inspection requirements for external and internal approved repairs that are installed under certain conditions, including the use and recording of the correct sealant removal procedure. An FAA-approved repair that is installed under the same conditions would also be provided the same exception to the inspection requirements. We have added paragraph (h)(3) to this AD to specify that, for the purposes of determining compliance with the requirements of this AD, the phrase “FAA-approved repair” may be substituted for “approved repair”, as specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0107, dated July 20, 2017.
Aviation Partners Boeing stated that accomplishing the Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01518SE does not affect the actions specified in the NPRM.
We concur with the commenter. We have redesignated paragraph (c) of the proposed AD as paragraph (c)(1) and added paragraph (c)(2) to this AD to state that installation of STC ST01518SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01518SE is installed, a “change in product” alternative method of compliance (AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final rule.
We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0107, dated July 20, 2017. The service information describes procedures for detecting and correcting scribe line damage on fuselage skin. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 37 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.
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
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.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective March 19, 2018.
None.
(1) This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 757-300 series airplanes, certificated in any category.
(2) Installation of Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01518SE (
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by reports of scribe line damage on fuselage skin, caused by sharp tools used during fuselage maintenance. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct scribe line damage. Failure to detect and completely remove scribe lines may lead to fatigue cracking, rapid decompression, and inability of the principal structural element to sustain limit load.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as provided by paragraph (h) of this AD: At the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0107, dated July 20, 2017, do all applicable actions identified as “RC” (required for compliance) in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0107, dated July 20, 2017.
(1) For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements of this AD, the phrase “the effective date of this AD” may be substituted for “the original issue date of this service bulletin,” as specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0107, dated July 20, 2017.
(2) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0107, dated July 20, 2017, specifies contacting Boeing, and specifies that action as RC: This AD requires repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.
(3) For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements of this AD, the phrase “FAA-approved repair” may be substituted for “approved repair,” as specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0107, dated July 20, 2017.
(1) The Manager, Los Angeles 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 (j) 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, Los Angeles 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.
(4) Except as required by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD: For service information that contains steps that are labeled as RC, the provisions of paragraphs (i)(4)(i) and (i)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.
(i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled “RC Exempt,” then the RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.
(ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.
For more information about this AD, contact David Truong, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5224; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0107, dated July 20, 2017.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is amending a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) that addresses regional haze for the first planning period for Arkansas that was published in the
This final rule will be effective March 14, 2018.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0189. All documents in the dockets are listed on the
Dayana Medina, (214) 665-7241;
Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.
Arkansas submitted a SIP revision on September 9, 2008, to address the first regional haze implementation period. On August 3, 2010, Arkansas submitted a SIP revision with non-substantive revisions to the Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission (APCEC) Regulation 19, Chapter 15; this Chapter identified the BART-eligible and subject-to-BART sources in Arkansas and established the BART emission limits for subject-to-BART sources. On September 27, 2011, the State submitted supplemental information to address the regional haze requirements. We are hereafter referring to these regional haze submittals collectively as the “2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP.” On March 12, 2012, we partially approved and partially disapproved the 2008 Arkansas Regional Haze SIP.
In response to petitions submitted by the State of Arkansas and industry parties seeking reconsideration and an administrative stay of the final Arkansas Regional Haze FIP,
On July 12, 2017, Arkansas submitted a proposed SIP revision with a request for parallel processing, addressing the NO
The background for this final rule and the separate action also being published in this
We are withdrawing those portions of the Arkansas Regional Haze FIP at 40 CFR 52.173 that impose NO
As explained in our September 11, 2017 proposal,
EPA has made the determination that the Arkansas Regional Haze NOx SIP revision is approvable because the plan's provisions meet all applicable requirements of the CAA and EPA implementing regulations. EPA is finalizing this action under section 110 and part C of the Act.
We received a total of three comment letters concerning our proposed action. The issues raised in those comment letters are summarized, along with our response to each, in the separate document being published in this
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. This final rule revises a FIP to withdraw source-specific NO
This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the PRA. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). This final rule revises a FIP to withdraw source-specific NO
I certify that this final action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This final action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This final action revises a FIP to withdraw source-specific NO
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, will result from this action.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175, because this partial FIP withdrawal does not apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. This final action revises a FIP to withdraw source-specific NO
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potentially disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations.
Pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(1)(B), this action is subject to the requirements of CAA section 307(d), as it revises a FIP under CAA section 110(c).
This rule is exempt from the CRA because it is a rule of particular applicably. EPA is not required to submit a rule report regarding this action under section 801 because this is a rule of particular applicability that only affects six facilities in Arkansas.
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 13, 2018. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule 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)).
Air pollution control, Best available retrofit technology, Environmental protection, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Regional haze, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Visibility.
Title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The revisions read as follows:
(c) * * *
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(ii) The owner or operator shall continue to maintain and operate a CEMS for SO
(iii) Continuous emissions monitoring shall apply during all periods of operation of the units listed in paragraph (c)(6) of this section, including periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, except for CEMS breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, and zero and span adjustments. Continuous monitoring systems for measuring SO
(9)
(10)
(12)
(14)
(15)
(B) The owner or operator must confirm the site-specific curve equation through stack testing. By October 27, 2017, the owner or operator must
(ii) If the air permit is revised such that Power Boiler No. 1 is permitted to burn only pipeline quality natural gas, this is sufficient to demonstrate that the boiler is complying with the SO
(iii) To demonstrate compliance with the NO
(iv) If the air permit is revised such that Power Boiler No. 1 is permitted to burn only pipeline quality natural gas, the owner or operator may demonstrate compliance with the NO
(17)
(18)
(ii) The owner or operator shall continue to maintain and operate a CEMS for SO
(iii) Continuous emissions monitoring shall apply during all periods of operation of the boiler listed in paragraph (c)(16) of this section, including periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, except for CEMS breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, and zero and span adjustments. Continuous monitoring systems for measuring SO
(iv) If the air permit is revised such that Power Boiler No. 2 is permitted to burn only pipeline quality natural gas, this is sufficient to demonstrate that the boiler is complying with the SO
(v) If the air permit is revised such that Power Boiler No. 2 is permitted to burn only pipeline quality natural gas and the operation of the CEMS is not required under other applicable requirements, the owner or operator may demonstrate compliance with the NO
(20)
(21) Alternative
(22)
(23)
(24)
(ii) The owner or operator shall continue to maintain and operate a CEMS for SO
(iii) Continuous emissions monitoring shall apply during all periods of operation of the units listed in paragraph (c)(22) of this section, including periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, except for CEMS breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, and zero and span adjustments. Continuous monitoring systems for measuring SO
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve and conditionally approve revisions to the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD or “District”) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern the District's demonstration regarding Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone and the 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or “standard”) in the portion of the Western Mojave Desert ozone nonattainment area under the jurisdiction of the MDAQMD. The EPA is also taking final action to approve MDAQMD negative declarations into the SIP for the 2008 ozone standard. We are approving and conditionally approving local SIP revisions under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).
This rule is effective on March 14, 2018.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0564. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Nancy Levin, EPA Region IX, (415) 942-3848,
Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to the EPA.
On November 17, 2017 (82 FR 54309), the EPA proposed to approve the following documents into the California SIP.
Specifically, the EPA proposed to partially conditionally approve MDAQMD's 2006 and 2015 RACT SIPs with respect to Rule 461,
We proposed to approve and conditionally approve these submittals because we determined that they mostly complied with the relevant CAA requirements, and where deficiencies were identified, the District issued a commitment to address these deficiencies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(4). Our proposed action contains more information on the submittals and our evaluation.
The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. During this period, we received four anonymous comments. Commenters generally raised issues that are outside of the scope of this rulemaking, including forest management, wildfire suppression, greenhouse-gas and other non-ozone-precursor emissions from wildfires, and the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. While some commenters suggested that ozone precursor emissions from wildfires should be regulated, wildfires do not fall within a category for which a RACT submission is required under section 182(b)(2) of the Act, and thus fall outside the scope of the present rulemaking. The EPA is required to approve a state submittal if the submittal meets all applicable requirements. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(3). Commenters did not raise any specific issues germane to the approvability of the MDAQMD RACT SIPs and negative declarations.
No comments were submitted that change our assessment of the SIP submittals as described in our proposed action. Therefore, as authorized in section 110(k)(3) and (4) of the Act, the EPA is conditionally approving MDAQMD's 2006 and 2015 RACT SIPs with respect to Rule 461,
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• 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 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).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 13, 2018. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The revision and addtions read as follows:
(c) * * *
(382) * * *
(ii)
(E) Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District.
(
(499) The following plan was submitted on September 9, 2015 by the Governor's designee.
(i) [Reserved]
(ii) Additional materials.
(A) Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District.
(
(
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(vii) The following negative declarations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS were adopted by the District on February 23, 2015 and submitted to EPA on September 9, 2015.
(d) The EPA is conditionally approving portions of the California SIP revisions submitted on July 11, 2007 and September 9, 2015, demonstrating control measures in the Mojave Desert portion of the Los Angeles-San Bernardino Counties (West Mojave Desert) nonattainment area implement RACT for the 1997 and 2008 ozone standards. The conditional approval is based on a commitment from the state to submit new or revised rules that will correct deficiencies in the following rules for the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District: (i) Rule 461,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the Reasonably Available Control Measures/Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACM/RACT) and Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) elements of California's Moderate area
This rule is effective on March 14, 2018.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0204. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Wienke Tax, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-4192,
Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to the EPA.
On October 10, 2017 (82 FR 46951) we proposed to determine that certain amendments to the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD or “District”) Regional Clean Air Incentives Program (RECLAIM) submitted by California corrected the deficiency in the RACM/RACT and RFP elements of the Moderate area plan for the 2006 PM
Simultaneously, we published an interim final determination to defer sanctions based on our proposed finding that the SCAQMD's amendments to RECLAIM corrected the deficiency in the RACM/RACT and RFP elements of the 2012 PM
The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period, which ended on November 9, 2017. During this period, we received one comment letter from Earthjustice on behalf of the Sierra Club and several anonymous comments. We summarize these comments and provide our responses below.
Earthjustice asserts that the EPA's longstanding definition of RACT supports an interpretation of the RACT requirement as applicable to each and every major NO
The 2012 PM
Our reclassification of the South Coast area from Moderate to Serious for the 2006 PM
We note that we approved the amended RECLAIM rules into the SIP in a previous rulemaking action (82 FR 43176, September 14, 2017) in which we determined,
The EPA is finalizing approval of the following elements of the 2012 PM
• The RACM/RACT element as meeting the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C); and
• the RFP element as meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(2).
As a result of this approval, the offset sanction in CAA section 179(b)(2), which would have applied in the South Coast PM
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• 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
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 13, 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, Ammonia, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(439) * * *
(ii) * * *
(B) * * *
(
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing an approval of a revision to the Arkansas State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of Arkansas through the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) that addresses regional haze for the first planning period. ADEQ submitted this revision to address certain requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the EPA's regional haze rules for the protection of visibility. The EPA is taking final action to approve the State's SIP revision, which addresses nitrogen oxide (NO
This rule is effective on March 14, 2018.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0189. All documents in the dockets are listed on the
Dayana Medina, 214-665-7241.
Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” means the EPA.
Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a multitude of sources and activities that are located across a broad geographic area and emit fine particulates (PM
Data from the existing visibility monitoring network, “Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments” (IMPROVE), shows that visibility impairment caused by air pollution occurs virtually all of the time at most national parks and wilderness areas. In 1999, the average visual range
CAA requirements to address the problem of visibility impairment continue to be implemented. In Section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national goal the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, man-made impairment of visibility in 156 national parks and wilderness areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas.
Section 169A of the CAA directs states to evaluate the use of retrofit controls at certain larger, often under-controlled, older stationary sources in order to address visibility impacts from these sources. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states to revise their SIPs to contain such measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress toward the natural visibility goal, including a requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary sources
Arkansas submitted a SIP revision on September 9, 2008, to address the requirements of the first regional haze implementation period. On August 3, 2010, Arkansas submitted a SIP revision with non-substantive revisions to the Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission (APCEC) Regulation 19, Chapter 15; this Chapter identified the BART-eligible and subject-to-BART sources in Arkansas and established BART emission limits for subject-to-BART sources. On September 27, 2011, the State submitted supplemental information to address the regional haze
Following the issuance of the Arkansas Regional Haze FIP, the State of Arkansas and several industry parties filed petitions for reconsideration and an administrative stay of the final rule.
On July 12, 2017, Arkansas submitted a proposed SIP revision with a request for parallel processing, addressing the NO
Arkansas' proposed July 2017 Regional Haze NO
In 2005, the EPA published the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), which required 27 states and the District of Columbia to reduce emissions of SO
On July 11, 2008, the D.C. Circuit found CAIR was fatally flawed and on December 23, 2008, the Court remanded CAIR to EPA without vacatur to “preserve the environmental benefits provided by CAIR.”
In 2012, we issued a limited disapproval of several states' regional haze SIPs because of reliance on CAIR as an alternative to EGU BART for SO
CSAPR has been subject to extensive litigation, and on July 28, 2015, the DC Circuit issued a decision generally upholding CSAPR but remanding without vacating the CSAPR emissions budgets for a number of states.
This action finalizes our proposed approval of the Arkansas Regional Haze NO
We also find that Arkansas reasonably determined that additional NO
We are finalizing our approval of the Arkansas Regional Haze NO
We are approving the October 2017 Arkansas Regional Haze NO
The public comments received on our proposed rule are included in the publicly posted docket associated with this action at
EPA compared CSAPR to BART in the Better than BART rule by using CSAPR allocations that are more stringent than now required as well as by using presumptive BART limits that are less stringent than required under the statute. These assumptions tilted the scales in favor of CSAPR. It would be arbitrary and capricious for EPA to rely on such an inaccurate, faulty comparison to conclude that CSAPR will achieve greater reasonable progress than will BART. Even under EPA's skewed comparison, CSAPR achieves barely more visibility improvement than BART at the Breton and Caney Creek National Wilderness Areas. If EPA had modeled accurate BART limits and up-to-date CSAPR allocations, then EPA would likely find that CSAPR would lead to less visibility improvement than BART.
EPA cannot lawfully rely on the Better than BART rule because the rule is based on a version of CSAPR that no longer exists. Accordingly, any conclusion that EPA made in the 2012 Better than BART rule regarding whether CSAPR achieves greater reasonable progress than BART is no longer valid. Since 2012, EPA has significantly changed the allocations and the compliance deadlines for CSAPR. Of particular relevance here, after 2012, EPA increased the total ozone season CSAPR allocations for every covered EGU in Arkansas. EPA also extended the compliance deadlines by three years, such that the phase 1 emissions budgets take effect in 2015-2016 and the phase 2 emissions budgets take effect in 2017 and beyond.
In addition to EPA's increased emissions budgets and extended compliance timeline, the D.C. Circuit's decision in
Even within the five-month ozone season, CSAPR allows for temporal variability such that a facility could emit at high levels within a shorter time period, creating higher than anticipated visibility impacts. Because of the high degree of variability and flexibility, power plants may exercise options that would lead to little or no emission reductions. For example, a facility in Arkansas might purchase emission credits from a source beyond the air shed of the Class I area the Arkansas source impairs. Because CSAPR requirements only pertain to the Arkansas source for a fraction of the year, that source may be even more incentivized to purchase emission credits from elsewhere than a source in a fully covered CSAPR state. Thus, without knowing which Arkansas EGUs will reduce pollutants by what amounts under CSAPR, or when they will do so, and because these emissions reductions are applicable for less than half the year, Arkansas simply cannot know the impact of CSAPR upon Breton and other affected Class I areas.
For these reasons, reliance on CSAPR to satisfy the NO
Moreover, the State's comparison of NO
ADEQ further claims in its SIP that it “anticipates that some EGUs will choose to install combustion controls to comply with CSAPR that would reduce emissions year-round, not just in the ozone season.” ADEQ provides no evidence for this assumption. More importantly, ADEQ wrongly conflates installation of controls with operation and optimized operation of controls. Even if it were true that some EGUs will install controls to comply with CSAPR, ADEQ provides no reason to assume that EGUs will operate those controls when they are not legally required to do so. ADEQ has advanced no basis for assuming that Arkansas EGUs will spend additional money to run NO
With regard to the comment that “the State's comparison of NO
The SIP's failure to consider any of the four factors for NO
Arkansas' conclusions with regard to the percentage contribution to light extinction from NO
We are finalizing our approval of Arkansas' determination that Arkansas EGU participation in CSAPR for ozone season NO
The current version of the regional haze rule clarifies, but does not alter, this obligation. As EPA noted in the 2017 revisions to the regional haze rule, states have an “independent obligation to include in their SIPs enforceable emission limits and other measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress at all affected Class I areas, as determined by considering the four factors.” Despite the requirement to consider whether measures are needed to make reasonable progress at out of state Class I areas, the State's analysis focuses exclusively on the two Class I areas within Arkansas. Yet the State acknowledges that emissions from Arkansas sources impact visibility at Class I areas in Missouri. EPA's analysis of the SIP revision commits the same mistake as the SIP revision itself. EPA fails to analyze whether the State has complied with Clean Air Act requirements to determine whether measures are needed to make reasonable progress at out-of-state Class I areas. By failing to consider whether measures are necessary to make reasonable progress at Missouri Class I areas, the draft SIP violates the Regional Haze Rule, and is unapprovable.
Reasonable progress controls during the first planning period clearly are not necessary for Arkansas sources. Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) monitoring data show that the haze index has been consistently below the glidepath in Arkansas' Class I areas—Caney Creek and Upper Buffalo—and Entergy's analysis demonstrates that it is projected to remain so through the end of the second planning period.
Even if controls were required for reasonable progress during the first planning period, NO
In the 2016 FIP, EPA determined that reasonable progress requires that Independence Units 1 and 2 meet NO
Section 110(l) states that the Administrator shall not approve a revision of a plan if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirement of this chapter. Section 110(l) is the Act's “anti-backsliding” provision. The anti-backsliding provision prohibits plan revisions that would interfere with attainment of the NAAQS or other “applicable requirements” of the Act. Section 110(l) prohibits plan revisions that would interfere with an existing requirement to make reasonable further progress, including a BART determination, as the Act's “applicable requirement[s]” include the regional haze program's BART requirements. When determining whether a plan revision interferes with NAAQS attainment, EPA has interpreted section 110(l) as preventing plan revisions that would increase overall air pollution or worsen air quality. For example, the Eleventh Circuit has upheld EPA's section 110(l) interpretation as prohibiting plan revisions that would increase emissions or worsen air quality. In
The existing reasonable progress determination in the FIP requires Independence Units 1 and 2 to meet emission limits based on the use of low-NO
We also do not find that our approval of the Arkansas NO
Further, our proposed approval was based on a proposed SIP revision submitted by ADEQ on July 12, 2017, with a request for parallel processing. As we explained in our September 11, 2017 proposal, we proposed action on the SIP revision at the same time that ADEQ was completing the corresponding public comment and rulemaking process at the state level.
The proposed rule also contains a number of miscalculations unrelated to the total light extinction error. These miscalculations relate to EPA's characterization of the CENRAP PSAT results. While sufficiently minor that they do not affect the outcome of EPA's determination, Entergy lists these errors here in the interest of correcting the record:
• EPA states that the remaining source categories each contribute between 2% and 6% of total light extinction at Arkansas' Class I areas. The high-end rounded value should be changed from 6% to 7%, as the true range is 1.83% to 6.72%, pursuant to the CENRAP PSAT results.
• EPA states that the PSAT results show that natural, on-road, and non-road sources are projected to continue to contribute a very small portion of total light extinction at Arkansas' Class I areas on the 20% worst days in 2018. According to the CENRAP PSAT results, the contribution of natural, on-road, and non-road sources is 8.5% to 9.4% of the total light extinction. This amount should not be characterized as “a very small portion.”
• EPA states that the other species (
• EPA states that the other source categories in Arkansas each contribute between 7% and 14% to light extinction attributed to Arkansas sources at Caney Creek and Upper Buffalo. According to the CENRAP PSAT results, the correct range is 7% to 8%.
• EPA states that CM from Arkansas sources, primarily area sources,
• The commenter is correct that our proposed action stated that total light extinction on the 20% worst days in 2002 was 115.87 Mm
• The commenter pointed out that we stated in our proposal that the PSAT results show that natural, on-road, and non-road sources are projected to contribute a very small portion of total light extinction at Arkansas' Class I areas on the 20% worst days in 2018.
• The commenter pointed out that our statement that the light extinction due to species other than SO
We are approving a revision to the Arkansas SIP submitted on October 31, 2017, as meeting the regional haze requirements for the first implementation period. This action includes the finding that the submittal meets the applicable regional haze requirements as set forth in sections 169A and 169B of the CAA and 40 CFR 51.300-51.308. The EPA is approving the SIP revision submittal as meeting the following: the core requirements for regional haze SIPs found in 40 CFR 51.308(d) such as the reasonable progress requirement for NO
We also agree that Arkansas' conclusion that given the relatively small level of visibility impairment due to NO
Concurrent with our final approval of the Arkansas Regional Haze NO
We find that an approval of the SIP revision meets the Clean Air Act's 110(1) provisions. No areas in Arkansas are currently designated nonattainment for any NAAQS pollutants. Approval of the Arkansas NO
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• 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, described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the 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 13, 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).)
Air pollution control, Best available retrofit technology, Environmental protection, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Regional haze, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Visibility.
Title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
(e)
(f)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve a revision to the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from marine and pleasure craft coating operations. We are approving a local rule that regulates these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).
This rule is effective on March 14, 2018.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0573. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Arnold Lazarus, EPA Region IX, (415) 972- 3024,
Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to the EPA.
On November 17, 2017 (82 FR 54307), the EPA proposed to approve the following rule into the California SIP.
We proposed to approve this rule because we determined that it complies with the relevant CAA requirements. Our proposed action contains more information on the rule and our evaluation.
The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. During this period, we received three comments stating,
No comments were submitted that change our assessment of the rule as described in our proposed action. Therefore, as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is fully approving this rule into the California SIP.
In addition, the EPA is fixing typographical errors in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 52.220, subparagraph (c)(350)(i). On June 30, 2017, the EPA took final action to approve an updated version of Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District Rule 431 into the California SIP (82 FR 29762). In that action, we
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 MDAQMD rule described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents available through
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• 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 (Public Law 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). In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 13, 2018. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(350) * * *
(i)
(A) Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District.
(
(
(
(B) Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District.
(
(
(
(498) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District.
(
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes tolerances, including tolerances with regional registration, for residues of rimsulfuron in or on multiple commodities that are identified and discussed later in this document. In addition, this regulation removes several previously established tolerances that are superseded by this final rule. Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
This regulation is effective February 12, 2018. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before April 13, 2018, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0516, is available at
Michael L. Goodis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0516 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before April 13, 2018. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0516, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
In the
Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA is establishing tolerance levels that vary from what the petition requested. The reason for these changes are explained in Unit IV.C.
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue . . . .”
Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for rimsulfuron including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with rimsulfuron follows.
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.
The toxicity database indicates that target organs for rimsulfuron are the liver and kidney in the rat and dog, along with the testis and blood in the mouse and dog. In the mouse, the stomach was also a target organ.
Adverse changes in body weight and food consumption were observed in rats, mice and dogs. In subchronic and chronic toxicity studies in rats, toxic effects included decreased body weight, decreased body weight gain, increased relative liver and absolute kidney weights, and diuresis. In the subchronic study in mice, increased red blood cell and hemoglobin, and decreased body weight gain and food efficiency were observed. In the chronic study in mice, decreased body weight, increased incidences of dilation and cysts in the glandular stomach, and degeneration of the testicular artery and tunica albuginea were observed. In the subchronic study in dogs, diuresis was indicated by urinary volume, platelet concentration and kidney weights accompanied by decreased urinary osmolality. In the chronic study in dogs, increased absolute liver and kidney weights, increased seminiferous tubule degeneration, and increased number of spermatid giant cells present in epididymides in males were observed.
In the developmental toxicity study in rats, no toxicity was seen at the highest dose tested (HDT). In the developmental toxicity study in rabbits, and in the 2-generation reproduction toxicity study in rats, developmental/offspring toxicity was seen in the presence of maternal/systemic toxicity and at similar dose levels. There is no quantitative or qualitative evidence of increased susceptibility following pre- and/or post-natal exposures in the developmental and reproduction studies.
There is no indication in the database that rimsulfuron is neurotoxic or immunotoxic. Rimsulfuron is not mutagenic and has been classified as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans,” based on the lack of evidence for carcinogenicity in studies conducted in rats and mice.
Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by rimsulfuron as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at
Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see
A summary of the toxicological endpoints for rimsulfuron used for human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.
1.
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
2.
Based on the Pesticides in Flooded Applications Model (PFAM) and the Wisconsin cranberry (worst case) scenario to conduct an assessment of surface water exposure to total toxic residue (TTR) of rimsulfuron (PFAM model was developed specifically for regulatory applications to estimate exposure for pesticides used in flooded agriculture such as rice paddies and cranberry bogs) and Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM GW) and the Tier I assessment for applications of rimsulfuron to corn in Wisconsin (worst case), the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of rimsulfuron for acute exposures are estimated to be 9.59 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 22.2 ppb for ground water. Chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 1.70 ppb for surface water and 19.7 ppb for ground water.
Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 19.7 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.
3.
Rimsulfuron is not registered for any specific use patterns that would result in residential exposure.
4.
Rimsulfuron belongs to the class of pesticides known as sulfonylureas (SUs). The SUs share a core chemical structure with varying degrees of structural similarity. In addition, the SUs share a pesticidal mode of action (
Based on the weight of the evidence, considering the lack of common toxicological profile of the SUs, the uncertainty in the human relevance of ALS inhibition, and the lack of
For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at
1.
2.
3.
i. The toxicity database for rimsulfuron is complete.
ii. There is no indication that rimsulfuron is a neurotoxic chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or increased SF to account for neurotoxicity.
iii. There is no evidence that rimsulfuron results in increased susceptibility in
iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. No acute toxicological endpoint was identified. The chronic dietary food and drinking water exposure assessment utilizes tolerance-level residues and 100 PCT information for all commodities. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to rimsulfuron in drinking water. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by rimsulfuron.
EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Adequate enforcement methodology, DuPont method 15033 using high-performance liquid chromatography/electrospray ionization tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC/ESI-MS/MS), is available for determination of residues of rimsulfuron in petitioned-for commodities.
The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address:
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
The Codex has not established MRLs for residues of rimsulfuron in/on any commodity associated with this action.
In this final rule, EPA is establishing a crop subgroup tolerance for subgroup
In accordance with the World Trade Organization's (WTO) Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) Agreement, EPA intends to promptly publish this action with the WTO. Although he subgroup 1C tolerance is being established at 0.10 ppm and is unlikely to impact trade, EPA is establishing an expiration date for the existing potato tolerance following publication of this rule in order to provide a six-month reasonable interval for producers in exporting countries to adapt the modified tolerance. Before that date, residues of rimsulfuron on potato will be permitted under the current tolerance of 0.1 ppm; after that date, residues will need to be in compliance with the new 0.10 ppm subgroup 1C tolerance level.
The tolerance level is appropriate based on available data and residues levels resulting from registered use patterns. The tolerance level for all subgroup 1C commodities is not discriminatory; the same food safety standard contained in the FFDCA applies equally to domestically produced and imported foods. None of the other tolerance actions taken in this rulemaking restrict permissible pesticide residues below currently allowed levels in the United States.
Any commodities listed in the regulatory text of this document that are treated with the pesticides subject to this final rule, and that are in the channels of trade following the tolerance revocation, shall be subject to FFDCA section 408(1)(5), as established by FQPA. Under this unit, any residues of these pesticides in or on such food shall not render the food adulterated so long as it is shown to the satisfaction of the Food and Drug Administration that:
1. The residue is present as the result of an application or use of the pesticide at a time and in a manner that was lawful under FIFRA.
2. The residue does not exceed the level that was authorized at the time of the application or use to be present on the food under a tolerance or exemption from tolerance. Evidence to show that food was lawfully treated may include records that verify the dates that the pesticide was applied to such food.
EPA is establishing the tolerance level for “Berry, low growing, except strawberry, subgroup 13-07H” at 0.02 ppm, instead of 0.01 ppm as requested, to fully account for residue loss in the field trial samples during freezer storage from the time of harvest to the time of analysis. Concurrent storage stability samples indicate that as much as half of the residue present in the samples may have been lost between the time of harvest and the time of analysis; therefore, 0.02 ppm (twice LOQ) was selected as the appropriate tolerance for subgroup 13-07H. In addition, the tolerance for subgroup 1C is being established as 0.10 ppm rather than 0.1 ppm to conform with the Agency's practice of using two significant figures.
Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of rimsulfuron, N-[[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)amino] carbonyl]-3-(ethylsulfonyl)-2-pyridinesulfonamide, to be determined by measuring only rimsulfuron, in or on Berry, low growing, except strawberry, subgroup 13-07H at 0.02 ppm; Fruit, citrus, group 10-10 at 0.01 ppm; Fruit, pome, group 11-10 at 0.01 ppm; Fruit, small, vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F at 0.01 ppm; Fruit, stone, group 12-12 at 0.01 ppm; Nut, tree, group 14-12 at 0.01 ppm; Vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C at 0.10 ppm; and tolerances with regional restriction on Fescue, forage at 0.01 ppm; Fescue, hay at 0.01 ppm; Ryegrass, perennial, forage at 0.01 ppm; and Ryegrass, perennial, hay at 0.01 ppm. In addition, the Agency is removing the existing tolerances for “fruit, citrus, group 10”, “fruit, pome, group 11”, “fruit, pome, group 12”, “grape”, “nut, tree, group 14”, and “pistachio” since they are superseded by the tolerances being established in this action. Finally, the Agency is establishing a six-month expiration date for the existing “potato” tolerance at 0.1 ppm.
This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); or Executive Order 13771, entitled “Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs” (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501
This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(c)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is granting the State of Ohio Final Authorization of the requested changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as set forth below. The Agency published a proposed rule on September 15, 2017 and provided opportunity for public comment. EPA received no comments. No further opportunity for comment will be provided. EPA has determined that these changes satisfy all requirements needed to qualify for final authorization.
The final authorization is effective on February 12, 2018.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R05-RCRA-2017-0381. All documents in the docket are listed in the
Gary Westefer, Ohio Regulatory Specialist, U.S. EPA Region 5, LR-17J, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-7450, email
States which have received final authorization from EPA under RCRA Section 3006(b) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous waste program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the federal program. As the federal program changes, states must change their programs and request EPA to authorize the changes. Changes to state programs may be necessary when federal or state statutory or regulatory authority is modified or when certain other changes occur. Most commonly, states must change their programs because of changes to EPA's regulations in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124, 260 through 268, 270, 273 and 279.
We conclude that Ohio's application to revise its authorized program meets all of the statutory and regulatory requirements established by RCRA. Therefore, we are granting Ohio final authorization to operate its hazardous waste program with the changes described in the authorization application. Ohio will have responsibility for permitting treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs) within its borders (except in Indian Country) and for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program described in its revised program application, subject to the limitations of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). New federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by federal regulations that EPA promulgates under the authority of HSWA take effect in authorized states before they are authorized for the requirements. Thus, EPA will implement those requirements and prohibitions in Ohio, including issuing permits, until the state is granted authorization to do so.
This final rule requires all facilities in Ohio that are subject to RCRA to comply with the newly-authorized state requirements instead of the equivalent Federal requirements. Ohio has enforcement responsibilities under its state hazardous waste program for RCRA violations, but EPA retains its authority under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, which include among others, authority for EPA to:
1. Conduct inspections which may include but are not limited to requiring monitoring, tests, analyses and/or reports;
2. Enforce RCRA requirements which may include but are not limited to suspending, terminating, modifying and/or revoking permits; and
3. Take enforcement actions regardless of whether the state has taken its own actions.
The action to approve these revisions will not impose additional requirements on the regulated community because the regulations for which Ohio is requesting authorization are already effective under state law, and will not be changed by the act of authorization.
On September 15, 2017 (82 FR 43316), EPA proposed to authorize these changes to Ohio's hazardous waste program and opened the decision to public comment. The Agency received no comments on this proposal. EPA has determined that Ohio's application satisfies the requirements for authorization set forth in RCRA Section 3006(b) and 40 CFR part 271.
Ohio initially received final authorization on June 28, 1989, effective June 30, 1989 (54 FR 27170, June 28, 1989) to implement the RCRA hazardous waste management program. Subsequently the EPA granted authorization for changes to the Ohio program effective June 7, 1991 (56 FR 14203, April 8, 1991) as corrected June 19, 1991, effective August 19, 1991 (56 FR 28088); effective September 25, 1995 (60 FR 38502. July 27, 1995); effective December 23, 1996 (61 FR 54950, October 23, 1996); effective January 24, 2003 (68 FR 3429, January 24, 2003); effective January 20, 2006, (71 FR 3220, January 20, 2006); effective October 29, 2007, (72 FR 61063, October 29, 2007), and effective March 19, 2012 (77 FR 25966, March 19, 2012).
On June 13, 2017, Ohio submitted a final program revision application, seeking authorization of changes in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. We have determined that Ohio's hazardous waste program revisions satisfy all of the requirements necessary to qualify for Final Authorization. Therefore, we are granting Ohio Final Authorization for the following program changes (a table with the complete state analogues is provided in the September 15, 2017 proposed rule):
Deferral of LDR Phase IV Standards for PCB's as a Constituent Subject to Treatment
Zinc Fertilizers Made from Recycled Hazardous Secondary Materials, Checklist 200, July 24, 2002, 67 FR 48393.
Land Disposal Restrictions: National Treatment Variance to Designate New Treatment Subcategories for Radioactively Contaminated Cadmium, Mercury, and Silver Containing Batteries, Checklist 201, October 7, 2002, 67 FR 62617.
Hazardous Waste Management System: Modification of the Hazardous Waste Program: Mercury Containing Equipment, Checklist 209, August 5, 2005, 70 FR 45507.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Burden Reduction Initiative, Checklist 213, April 4, 2006, 71 FR 16861.
Hazardous Waste Management System: Modification of the Hazardous Waste Program: Cathode Ray Tubes, Checklist 215, July 28, 2006, 71 FR 42927.
Regulation of Oil-Bearing Hazardous Secondary Materials from the Petroleum Refining Industry Processed in a Gasification System to Produce Synthesis Gas, Checklist 216, January 2, 2008, 73 FR 57.
NESHAP: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Standards for Hazardous Waste Combustors; Amendments, Checklist 217, April 8, 2008, 73 FR 18970.
Hazardous Waste Management System: Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste: Amendment to Hazardous Waste Code F 019, Checklist 218, June 4, 2008, 73 FR 31756.
Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste: Alternative Requirements for Hazardous Waste Determination and Accumulation of Unwanted Material at Laboratories Owned by Colleges and Universities and Other Eligible Academic Entities Formally Affiliated with Colleges and Universities, Checklist 220, December 1, 2008, 73 FR 72991.
Equivalent State Initiated Changes:
State Initiated Change: Manifest Rules, Ohio rules amended per request of an EPA memorandum dated May 14, 2007, regarding manifest rule errors.
State Initiated Change: Performance Track, Ohio rules amended per an EPA memorandum dated March 16, 2009, that ended the Performance Track Program.
State Initiated Change: Hazardous Waste and Used Oil: Corrections to 40 CFR, Hazardous Waste and Used Oil: Corrections to 40 CFR (Additional corrections from Checklist 214).
State Initiated Changes: Ohio Rules Reviewed per Ohio Revised Code 119.032, State Initiated Changes (housekeeping).
Ohio has excluded the non-delegable federal requirements at 40 CFR 268.5, 268.6, 268.42(b), 268.44, and 270.3. EPA will continue to implement those requirements.
Only recently receiving the statutory authority, Ohio has not adopted the rules for Subparts AA, BB and CC of 40 CFR part 264. Until Ohio is authorized for such rules, the federal rules at 40 CFR part 264 subpart AA, BB and CC and Part 265 subpart AA, BB and CC, which are promulgated under HSWA, still apply in Ohio. On July 14, 2006, U.S. EPA issued a rule making several hundred corrections to errors that had appeared in the
Broader in Scope Rules:
Ohio recently promulgated regulations adding Antifreeze, Aerosol Cans and Paint Wastes to its list of Universal Wastes and now regulates such wastes under state law. Ohio EPA's application did not include these additions, however, and EPA does not address them in this action.
Ohio will issue permits for the provisions for which it is authorized and will administer the permits it issues. EPA will continue to administer any RCRA hazardous waste permits or portions of permits which EPA issues prior to the effective date of the proposed authorization until they expire or are terminated. We will not issue any more new permits or new portions of permits for the provisions listed in the Table above after the effective date of the authorization. EPA will continue to implement and issue permits for HSWA requirements for which Ohio is not yet authorized.
Ohio is not authorized to carry out its hazardous waste program in “Indian Country,” as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. Indian Country includes:
1. All lands within the exterior boundaries of Indian Reservations within or abutting the State of Ohio;
2. Any land held in trust by the U.S. for an Indian tribe; and
3. Any other land, whether on or off an Indian reservation that qualifies as Indian Country.
Therefore, this action has no effect on Indian Country. EPA retains the authority to implement and administer the RCRA program on these lands.
Codification is the process of placing the state's statutes and regulations that comprise the state's authorized hazardous waste program into the Code of Federal Regulations. We do this by referencing the authorized state rules in 40 CFR part 272. Ohio's authorized rules, up to and including those revised June 7, 1991, have previously been codified through the incorporation-by-reference effective February 4, 1992 (57 FR 4162). We reserve the amendment of 40 CFR part 272, subpart KK for the codification of Ohio's program changes until a later date.
This final rule only authorizes hazardous waste requirements pursuant to RCRA 3006 and imposes no requirements other than those imposed by state law (see
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this rule from its review under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821 January 21, 2011).
This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
This rule authorizes state requirements for the purpose of RCRA 3006 and imposes no additional requirements beyond those required by state law. Accordingly, I certify that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) does not apply to this proposed rule because it will not have federalism implications (
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) does not apply to this rule because it will not have tribal implications (
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866 and because the EPA does not have reason to believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children.
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866.
EPA approves state programs as long as they meet criteria required by RCRA, so it would be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, in its review of a state program, to require the use of any particular voluntary consensus standard in place of another standard that meets the requirements of RCRA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply to this proposed rule.
As required by Section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct.
EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 18, 1988) by examining the takings implications of these rules in accordance with the Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings issued under the executive order.
Because this rulemaking proposes authorization of pre-existing state rules and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law and there are no anticipated significant adverse human health or environmental effects, the rule is not subject to Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
This action is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017) regulatory action because actions such as today's final authorization of Ohio's revised hazardous program under RCRA are exempted under Executive Order 12866.
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other information required by the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection; Administrative practice and procedure; Confidential business information; Hazardous materials transportation; Hazardous waste; Indians—lands; Intergovernmental relations; Penalties; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
This action is issued under the authority of Sections 2002(a), 3006 and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b).
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Final rule.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or we) is issuing this final rule, in accordance with the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (Inflation Adjustment Act) and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance, to adjust for inflation the statutory civil monetary penalties that may be assessed for violations of Service-administered statutes and their implementing regulations. We are required to adjust civil monetary penalties annually for inflation according to a formula specified in the Inflation Adjustment Act. This rule replaces the previously issued amounts with the updated amounts after using the 2018 inflation adjustment multiplier provided in the OMB guidance.
This rule is effective February 12, 2018.
This rule may be found on the internet at
Neil Gardner, Special Agent in Charge, Branch of Investigations, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Law Enforcement, (703) 358-1949.
The regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations at 50 CFR part 11 provide uniform rules and procedures for the assessment of civil penalties resulting from violations of certain laws and regulations enforced by the Service.
On November 2, 2015, the President signed into law the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (sec. 701 of Pub. L. 114-74) (Inflation Adjustment Act). The Inflation Adjustment Act requires Federal agencies to adjust the level of civil monetary penalties with an initial “catch up” adjustment through rulemaking and then make subsequent annual adjustments for inflation. The purpose of these adjustments is to maintain the deterrent effect of civil penalties and to further the policy goals of the underlying statutes.
Under Section 4 of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. 2461 note, as amended by the Inflation Adjustment Act, Public Law 114-74, 129 Stat. 584 (2015), each Federal agency is required to issue regulations adjusting for inflation the statutory civil monetary penalties (civil penalties) that can be imposed under the laws administered by that agency. The Inflation Adjustment Act provided for an initial “catch up adjustment” to take effect no later than August 1, 2016, followed by subsequent adjustments to be made no later than January 15 every year thereafter. This final rule adjusts the civil penalty amounts that may be imposed pursuant to each statutory provision beginning on the date specified above in
On June 28, 2016, the Service published in the
OMB issued a memorandum, M-18-03, entitled “Implementation of Penalty Inflation Adjustments for 2018, Pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015,” which provides the cost-of-living adjustment multiplier for 2018: 1.02041. Therefore, we multiplied each penalty in the table published in the final rule on January 19, 2017 (82 FR 6307), by 1.02041 to obtain the 2018 annual adjustment. The new amounts are reflected in the table in the rule portion of this document and replace the current amounts in 50 CFR 11.33.
In this final rule, we are affirming our required determinations made in the June 28, 2016, interim rule (81 FR 41862); for descriptions of our actions to ensure compliance with the following statutes and Executive Orders, see that rule:
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2));
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
Executive Orders 12630, 12866, 12988, 13132, 13175, 13211, and 13563; and
Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs
This rule is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
As stated above, under Section 4 of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. 2461 note, as amended by the Inflation Adjustment Act, Public Law 114-74, 129 Stat. 584 (2015), each Federal agency is required to issue regulations adjusting for inflation the statutory civil monetary penalties that can be imposed under the laws administered by that agency. The Inflation Adjustment Act provided for an initial “catch up adjustment” to take effect no later than August 1, 2016, followed by subsequent adjustments to be made no later than January 15 every year thereafter. This final rule adjusts the civil penalty amounts that may be imposed pursuant to each statutory provision beginning on the effective date of this rule. To comply with the Inflation Adjustment Act, we are issuing these regulations as a final rule.
Section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551
Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Fish, Imports, Penalties, Plants, Transportation, Wildlife.
For the reasons described above, we amend part 11, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below.
16 U.S.C. 470aa-470mm, 470aaa-470aaa-11, 668-668d, 1361-1384, 1401-1407, 1531-1544, 3371-3378, 4201-4245, 4901-4916, 5201-5207, 5301-5306; 18 U.S.C. 42-43; 25 U.S.C. 3001-3013; and Sec. 107, Pub. L. 114-74, 129 Stat. 599, unless otherwise noted.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; reapportionment of tribal Pacific whiting allocation and widow rockfish allocation.
This document announces the reapportionment of 41,000 metric tons (mt) of Pacific whiting from the tribal allocation to the non-tribal commercial fishery sectors via automatic action on September 15, 2017, in order to allow full utilization of the Pacific whiting resource, and the reapportionment of 47 mt of widow rockfish in the Pacific whiting fishery via automatic action on August 30, 2017. The reapportionment of widow rockfish from the Mothership Cooperative to the Catcher Processor Cooperative was necessary to prevent the Catcher Processor Cooperative from reaching its quota for widow rockfish early, thereby closing the fishery before the end of the season and preventing attainment of their Pacific whiting allocation.
The reapportionment of Pacific whiting was applicable from 12 p.m. Pacific standard time, September 15, 2017, until December 31, 2017. The reapportionment of widow rockfish was applicable from 8 p.m. Pacific standard time, August 30, 2017, until December 31, 2017. Comments will be accepted through February 26, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2017-0136 by any of the following methods:
•
•
Keeley Kent (West Coast Region, NMFS), phone: 206-526-4655 or email:
This notification is accessible via the internet at the Office of the Federal Register's website at
Pacific whiting (
This notification announces the reapportionment of 41,000 mt of Pacific whiting from the tribal allocation to the non-tribal commercial sectors on September 15, 2017. Regulations at § 660.131(h) contain provisions that allow the Regional Administrator to reapportion Pacific whiting from the tribal allocation, specified at § 660.50, that will not be harvested by the end of the fishing year to other sectors.
For 2017, the Pacific Coast treaty tribes were allocated 77,251 mt of Pacific whiting. The best available information in early September 2017 indicated that there had been no annual harvest by the tribes to date, and at least 41,000 mt of the tribal allocation would not be harvested by December 31, 2017. To allow for increased utilization of the resource, NMFS reapportioned 41,000 mt on September 15, 2017 from the Tribal fisheries to the Shorebased IFQ Program, C/P Coop, and MS Coop. The reapportionment occurred in proportion to each sector's original allocation. Reapportioning this amount was expected to allow for greater attainment of the TAC while not limiting tribal harvest opportunities for the remainder of the year. On September 15, 2017, emails sent directly to fishing businesses and individuals, and postings on the West Coast Region's internet site were used to provide actual notice to the affected fishers. Reapportionment was effective the same day as the notice.
Amounts of Pacific whiting available for 2017 before and after the reapportionment were:
Widow rockfish (
In accordance with the FMP, the non-tribal limited entry groundfish trawl fishery is allocated 91 percent of the widow rockfish ACL with the remaining 9 percent going to non-tribal non-trawl commercial, and recreational fisheries. The allocation for widow rockfish is split between the at-sea and shorebased sectors in accordance with an allocation formula established under Amendment 21 to the FMP. Under this formula, the greater of 10 percent or 500 mt of the trawl fishery allocation is allocated to all Pacific whiting sectors (at-sea and shorebased) with the remainder going to the non-whiting portion of the Shorebased IFQ Program. Of the amount allocated to the Pacific whiting sectors, 42 percent is allocated to the Shorebased IFQ Program. This 42 percent is combined with the remainder that went to the non-whiting portion of the Shorebased IFQ Program to create a single allocation for the Shorebased IFQ Program. Further information on the 2017 allocations for widow rockfish is provided in the final rule for the 2017-2018 biennial specifications for the Pacific coast groundfish fishery, which published on February 7, 2017 (82 FR 9634).
This notification announces the reapportionment of 47 mt of widow rockfish from the C/P Coop allocation to the MS Coop that was effective on August 30, 2017. Regulations at § 660.60(d) contain provisions that allow the Regional Administrator to reapportion non-whiting groundfish species between the C/P and MS cooperatives.
For 2017, the C/P Coop was allocated 411.2 mt of widow rockfish, while the MS Coop was allocated 290.3 mt. On August 14, 2017 the MS Coop submitted a cease fishing report to NMFS indicating that they do not intend to use 47 mt of their allocation of widow rockfish which is therefore available to redistribute to the C/P Coop. The MS Coop indicated that they will cease fishing for Pacific whiting for the remainder of 2017 upon harvesting all Pacific whiting quota available to that cooperative, or harvesting the remaining 243.3 mt of widow rockfish, whichever occurs first.
As of August 23, 2017, the best available information indicated that the MS Coop of the Pacific whiting fishery had taken only seven percent of its 2017 widow rockfish allocation of 290.3 mt. At the same time, the C/P Coop had taken more than 50 percent of its 2017 allocation of 411.2 mt. Therefore, on August 30, 2017, NMFS reapportioned 47 mt widow rockfish from the MS Coop to the C/P Coop. Emails sent directly to fishing businesses and individuals and postings on the West Coast Region's internet site on August 30, 2017, were used to provide actual notice to the affected fishers. Reapportionment was effective the same day as the notice.
Reapportionment of unused portions of non-whiting groundfish species between the MS Coop and the C/P Coop of the Pacific whiting fishery when participants in the one cooperative do not intend to harvest the remaining allocation, are described at § 660.150(c)(4)(ii). This reapportionment was expected to allow for the Pacific whiting fishery to continue for a longer period without the C/P Coop exceeding its 2017 allocation of widow rockfish and reduce the risk of the C/P Coop not attaining its Pacific whiting allocation based on incidental catch of widow rockfish.
Amounts of widow rockfish available for 2017 before and after the reapportionment were:
The Assistant Administrator for NMFS's Sustainable Fisheries finds that good cause exists for this notification to be issued without affording prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) because such notification would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. As previously noted, actual notice of the reapportionments was provided to fishers at the times of the actions. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment on these reapportionments was impracticable because NMFS had insufficient time to provide prior notice and the opportunity for public comment between the time the information about the progress of the fishery needed to make this determination became available and the time at which fishery modifications had to be implemented in order to allow fishers access to the available fish during the remainder of the fishing season. For the same reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness for these actions, required under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
These actions are authorized by §§ 660.55(i), 660.60(d), 660.131(h), and 660.150(c)(4)(ii) and are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Notification of referendum order.
This document directs that a referendum be conducted among eligible domestic (U.S.) manufacturers and importers of softwood lumber to determine whether they favor continuance of the Agricultural Marketing Service's (AMS) regulations regarding a national softwood lumber research and promotion program.
The referendum will be conducted by mail ballot from April 17 through May 14, 2018. Ballots must be received by the referendum agents no later than the close of business on May 14, 2018, to be counted.
Copies of the softwood lumber program may be obtained from: Referendum Agent, Promotion and Economics Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Room 1406-S, Stop 0244, Washington, DC 20250-0244, telephone: (202) 720-9915; facsimile: (202) 205-2800; or contact Maureen Pello at (503) 632-8848 or via electronic mail:
Maureen Pello, Marketing Specialist, Promotion and Economics Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Room 1406-S, Stop 0244, Washington, DC 20250-0244; telephone: (202) 720-9915, (503) 632-8848 (direct line); facsimile: (202) 205-2800; or electronic mail:
Pursuant to the Commodity Promotion, Research, and Information Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7411-7425) (1996 Act), it is hereby directed that a referendum be conducted to ascertain whether continuance of the Softwood Lumber Research, Promotion, Consumer Education and Industry Information Order (7 CFR part 1217) is favored by eligible domestic manufacturers and importers of softwood lumber. The program is authorized under the 1996 Act.
The representative period for establishing voter eligibility for the referendum shall be the period from January 1 through December 31, 2017. Persons who domestically manufactured and shipped or imported 15 million board feet or more of softwood lumber during the representative period, were subject to assessments during that period, and are currently softwood lumber manufacturers or importers subject to assessment under the part are eligible to vote. Persons who received an exemption from assessments pursuant to § 1217.53 for the entire representative period are ineligible to vote. The referendum will be conducted by mail ballot from April 17 through May 14, 2018.
Section 518 of the 1996 Act (7 U.S.C. 7417) authorizes continuance referenda. Under § 1217.81(b), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) must conduct a referendum seven years after the program became effective to determine whether persons subject to assessment favor continuance of the program. The program took effect in 2011. USDA would continue the program if continuance is favored by a majority of the domestic manufacturers and importers voting in the referendum, who also represent a majority of the volume of softwood lumber represented in the referendum.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the referendum ballot has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581-0093. It has been estimated that approximately 210 entities will be eligible to vote in the referendum. It will take an average of 15 minutes for each voter to read the voting instructions and complete the referendum ballot.
Maureen Pello, Marketing Specialist, and Heather Pichelman, Director, Promotion and Economics Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, Stop 0244, Room 1406-S, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-0244, are designated as the referendum agents to conduct this referendum. The referendum procedures at 7 CFR 1217.100 through 1217.108, which were issued pursuant to the 1996 Act, shall be used to conduct the referendum.
The referendum agents will mail the ballots to be cast in the referendum and voting instructions to all known, eligible domestic manufacturers and importers prior to the first day of the voting period. Persons who domestically manufactured and shipped or imported 15 million board feet or more of softwood lumber during the representative period, were subject to assessment during that period, and are currently softwood lumber domestic manufacturers or importers subject to assessment under the part are eligible to vote. Persons who received an exemption from assessments pursuant to § 1217.53 during the entire representative period are ineligible to vote. Any eligible domestic manufacturer or importer who does not receive a ballot should contact a referendum agent no later than one week before the end of the voting period. Ballots must be received by the referendum agent by 4:30 p.m. Eastern time, May 14, 2018, in order to be counted.
Administrative practice and procedure, Advertising, Consumer information, Marketing agreements, Promotion, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Softwood lumber.
7 U.S.C. 7411-7425; 7 U.S.C. 7401.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2017-11-03 for DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Model DG-500MB gliders that are equipped with a Solo 2625 02 engine modified with a fuel injection system following the instructions of Solo Kleinmoteren GmbH Technische Mitteilung (TM)/Service Bulletin (SB) 4600-3 “Fuel Injection System” and identified as Solo 2625 02i. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as failure of the connecting rod bearing resulting from too much load on the rod bearings from the engine control unit. This proposed AD adds DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Model DG-1000M gliders equipped with Solo 2625 02i engines to the applicability. We are issuing this proposed AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 29, 2018.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH, Postfach 600152, 71050 Sindelfingen, Germany; telephone: +49 703 1301-0; fax: +49 703 1301-136; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Standards Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4165; fax: (816) 329-4090; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We issued AD 2017-11-03, Amendment 39-18902 (82 FR 24015; May 25, 2017) (“AD 2017-11-03”). That AD required actions intended to address an unsafe condition on DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Model DG-500MB gliders and was based on mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community. That MCAI is EASA AD No.: 2016-0254, dated December 15, 2016, correction dated January 4, 2017 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”).
Since we issued AD 2017-11-03, the FAA has now type certificated the DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Model DG-1000M glider and that glider model is equipped with a Solo 2625 02i engine. Since this model has the same engine, it is subject to the same unsafe condition in AD 2017-11-03.
You may examine the MCAI on the internet at
Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH has issued Technische Mitteilung (English translation: Service Bulletin) Nr. 4600-6, Ausgabe 1 (English translation: Issue 1), dated November 16, 2016, approved for incorporation by reference on June 29, 2017 (82 FR 24015; May 25, 2017). The service information describes procedures for a software update that provides new settings to the engine control unit (ECU) to lower the load on the bearings of the crankshaft. 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 this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 6 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $1,020, or $170 per product.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to small airplanes, gliders, balloons, airships, domestic business jet transport airplanes, and associated appliances to the Director of the Policy and Innovation Division.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by March 29, 2018.
This AD replaces AD 2017-11-03, Amendment 39-18902 (82 FR 24015; May 25, 2017) (“AD 2017-11-03”).
This AD applies to DG Flugzeugbau GmbH DG-500MB and DG-1000M gliders, all serial numbers, certificated in any category, that are equipped with Solo 2625 02 engines modified with a fuel injection system following the instructions of Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH Service Bulletin (SB)/Technische Mitteilung (TM) 4600-3 “Fuel Injection System” and re-identified as Solo 2625 02i, or equipped with a Solo 2625 02i engine at manufacture, and have engine serial numbers (S/N) through 369/207, except engine S/N's 354/194, 356/196, 357/197, 358/198, 361/201, 362/202, 363/203, 364/204, and 368/206.
Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 73: Engine fuel and control.
This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. AD 2017-11-03 resulted from failure of the connecting rod bearing because of too much load on the rod bearings from the engine control unit. This AD results from the need to add an airplane model to the applicability. We are issuing this AD to prevent such failure that could lead to the potential of an in-flight shut-down and engine fire and result in loss of control and to include FAA type certificated DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Model DG-1000M gliders with Solo 2625 02i engines.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.: 2016-0254, dated December 15, 2016, correction dated January 4, 2017, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the internet at
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2015-24-06, which applies to certain Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Model GVI airplanes. AD 2015-24-06 requires repetitive breakaway torque checks and torqueing of the main landing gear (MLG) brake inlet self-sealing couplings and inserting a dispatch and takeoff limitation to the Limitations section of the airplane flight manual. Since we issued AD 2015-24-06, a modification of the MLG and brake assembly has been developed that when incorporated would terminate the need for the repetitive actions of AD 2015-24-06. This proposed AD would require modifying the MLG and brake assembly. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 29, 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 Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, P.O. Box 2206, Savannah, Georgia 31404-2206; telephone: (912) 965-3000; fax: (912) 965-3520; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Gideon Jose, Aerospace Engineer, Altanta ACO Branch, FAA, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337; phone: 404-474-5569; fax: 404-474-5606; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We issued AD 2015-24-06, Amendment 39-18338 (80 FR 75788, December 4, 2015) (“AD 2015-24-06”), for certain Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation (Gulfstream) Model GVI airplanes. AD 2015-24-06 requires repetitive breakaway torque checks and torqueing of the MLG brake inlet self-sealing couplings. AD 2015-24-06 also requires inserting a dispatch and takeoff limitation to the Limitations section of the airplane flight manual to include procedures to follow if certain display indications occur. AD 2015-24-06 resulted from reports of the self-sealing couplings on the MLG brake inlet fitting backing out of the fully seated position. This unsafe condition could lead to loss of hydraulic pressure to the affected brake. We issued AD 2015-24-06 to detect and correct inadequate torque on the self-sealing couplings and prevent loss of braking capability on one or multiple brakes, which could lead to runway overrun or asymmetrical braking that could result in lateral runway excursion.
Since we issued AD 2015-24-06, a modification for the MLG and brake assembly has been developed that eliminates the self-sealing coupling and uses a permanent hose design. This modification when incorporated would terminate the need for the repetitive breakaway torque checks and torqueing of the brake inlet self-sealing couplings.
We reviewed Gulfstream G650 Customer Bulletin Number 155B, dated July 26, 2017; and Gulfstream G650ER Customer Bulletin Number 155B, dated July 26, 2017. For the applicable model designations, this service information describes procedures to modify the MLG and brake assemblies. 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 retain none of the requirements of AD 2015-24-06. This proposed AD would require modifying the MLG with new tube assemblies without self-sealing couplings and add lock wire. This proposed AD would also require inspecting and modifying the brake assembly.
Although Gulfstream G650 Customer Bulletin Number 155B, dated July 26, 2017; and Gulfstream G650ER Customer Bulletin Number 155B, dated July 26, 2017, both contain reporting requirements and return of certain parts to the manufacturer, this proposed AD does not include those requirements.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 162 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to small airplanes, gliders, balloons, airships, domestic business jet transport airplanes, and associated appliances to the Director of the Policy and Innovation Division.
We have 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 that the 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.
The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by March 29, 2018.
This AD replaces AD 2015-24-06, Amendment 39-18338 (80 FR 75788, December 4, 2015) (“AD 2015-24-06”).
This AD applies to Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Model GVI airplanes, serial numbers 6001 and 6003 through 6163, certificated in any category.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing Gear.
AD 2015-24-06 was prompted by reports of the main landing gear (MLG) self-sealing couplings on the MLG brake inlet fitting backing out of the fully seated position. This AD was prompted by the development of modifications that when incorporated would terminate the need for repetitive breakaway torque checks and torqueing of the brake
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, modify the MLG and brake assemblies following the Accomplishment Instructions in Gulfstream G650 Customer Bulletin Number 155B, dated July 26, 2017; and Gulfstream G650ER Customer Bulletin Number 155B, dated July 26, 2017.
(2) Although Gulfstream G650 Customer Bulletin Number 155B, dated July 26, 2017; and Gulfstream G650ER Customer Bulletin Number 155B, dated July 26, 2017, both contain reporting requirements and return of certain parts to the manufacturer, this proposed AD does not include those requirements.
(3) AD 2015-24-06 required a dispatch and takeoff limitation in the airplane flight manual. Although we did not retain that requirement in this AD, if not already removed, this limitation should be removed after the modification in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD is done.
If done before the effective date of this AD, this AD allows credit for the actions in paragraph (g) of this AD following Gulfstream G650 Customer Bulletin 155, dated July 29, 2016; and Gulfstream G650ER Customer Bulletin 155, dated July 29, 2016.
(1) The Manager, Atlanta ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD.
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (j)(3)(i) and (ii) of this AD apply.
(i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.
(ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Gideon Jose, Aerospace Engineer, Altanta ACO Branch, FAA, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337; phone: 404-474-5569; fax: 404-474-5606; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, P.O. Box 2206, Savannah, Georgia 31404-2206; telephone: (912) 965-3000; fax: (912) 965-3520; email:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A319 and A320 series airplanes; and A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of battery retaining rod failures due to quality defects of the material used during parts manufacturing. This proposed AD would require a detailed inspection of the battery retaining rods to identify the rod manufacturer, replacement of the battery retaining rods with serviceable rods if necessary, and the addition of the applicable service information label on each rod if necessary. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 29, 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, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-1149.
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 European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2017-0161R1, dated September 19, 2017; corrected September 20, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A319 and A320 series airplanes; and A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. The MCAI states:
Several occurrences have been reported of battery rod failures on certain Airbus aeroplanes. Subsequent examination of broken rod parts determined that these failures were due to quality defects of the material used during parts manufacturing. Each battery is secured on an aeroplane by two rods. Failure of one rod, in case of severe turbulence during flight or hard landing, could lead to battery displacement, or roll on the remaining rod side, up to a point where the remaining rod could be disengaged. The battery could ultimately detach from its housing and damage relays, connectors, contactor boxes, air ducts and surrounding structure.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to the loss of the normal electrical generation not followed by an automatic recovery of essential network.
To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus issued Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) A92N001-16 (later revised) and EASA issued AD 2016-0204 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2016-25-24 (81 FR 90958, December 16, 2016)] requiring repetitive general visual inspections (GVI) of the four battery rods (two per battery), and, in case of findings, replacement of battery rods.
Since that [EASA] AD was issued, the manufacturer of the broken battery retaining rods has been identified, which allows proper identification of the affected parts and their withdrawal from service. Consequently, Airbus issued [service bulletin] SB A320-92-1116 and SB A320-92-1118 to provide the necessary instructions to the affected operators. No rods delivered as spare parts are affected by the manufacturing issue.
For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2016-0204, which is superseded, and requires replacement of battery retaining rods depending on manufacturer identification. This [EASA] AD also provides a terminating action for the repetitive inspections.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
Although the MCAI has superseded EASA AD 2016-0204, this NPRM would not supersede AD 2016-25-24. Rather, we have determined that a stand-alone AD would be more appropriate to address the changes in the MCAI. This NPRM would require a detailed inspection of the battery retaining rods to identify the rod manufacturer, replacement of the battery retaining rods with serviceable rods if necessary, and the addition of the applicable service information label on each rod if necessary. Accomplishment of the proposed actions would then terminate all requirements of AD 2016-25-24.
Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-92-1116, Revision 00, dated January 31, 2017; and Service Bulletin A320-92-1118, Revision 00, dated January 31, 2017. This service information describes a detailed inspection of the battery retaining rods to identify the rod manufacturer, replacement of the battery retaining rods with serviceable rods if necessary, and adding the applicable service information label on each rod if necessary. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
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 330 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacement that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this replacement:
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 29, 2018.
This AD affects AD 2016-25-24, Amendment 39-18750 (81 FR 90958, December 16, 2016) (“AD 2016-25-24”).
This AD applies to Airbus Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, -233, -251N, and -271N airplanes; and A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-92-1116, Revision 00, dated January 31, 2017; or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-92-1118, Revision 00, dated January 31, 2017.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 92, Electrical system installation.
This AD was prompted by reports of battery rod failures due to quality defects of the material used during parts manufacturing. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct broken battery retaining rods, which, in the event of a hard landing or severe turbulence, could cause the battery to detach from its housing, resulting in damage to other electrical equipment and surrounding structure. This condition could lead to loss of normal electrical power generation and subsequent inability to restore electrical power to essential airplane systems.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
For the purpose of this AD, a serviceable battery retaining rod is defined in paragraphs (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD.
(1) A battery retaining rod provided as a spare part by Airbus.
(2) A battery retaining rod previously fitted on a battery support assembly installed on an airplane manufacturer serial number that is not specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-92-1116, Revision 00, dated January 31, 2017 (for Airbus Model A319 and A320 series airplanes; and A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes); or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-92-1118, Revision 00, dated January 31, 2017 (for Airbus Model A320-251N and -271N airplanes).
Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD: Accomplish a detailed inspection of the battery retaining rods to identify the rod manufacturer, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the Airbus Service Bulletin A320-92-1116, Revision 00, dated January 31, 2017 (for Airbus Model A319 and A320 series airplanes; and A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes); or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-92-1118, Revision 00, dated January 31, 2017 (for Airbus Model A320-251N and -271N airplanes).
If, during the inspection specified in paragraph (h) of this AD, the quality stamp on the battery support assembly is found marked with an “SA” manufacturer identification, before further flight, replace the battery retaining rods with serviceable rods, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the Airbus Service Bulletin A320-92-1116, Revision 00, dated January 31, 2017 (for Airbus Model A319 and A320 series airplanes; and A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes); or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-92-1118, Revision 00, dated January 31, 2017 (for Airbus Model A320-251N and -271N airplanes).
If, during the inspection specified in paragraph (h) of this AD, no marking is found on the quality stamp of the battery support assembly, add the applicable service information label on each battery retaining rod (replacement of the battery retaining rods is not required), in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-92-1116, Revision 00, dated January 31, 2017 (for Airbus Model A319 and A320 series airplanes; and A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes); or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-92-1118, Revision 00, dated January 31, 2017 (for Airbus Model A320-251N and -271N airplanes).
As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install, on any airplane, a non-serviceable battery retaining rod.
Replacement of all battery retaining rods marked “SA” with a serviceable rod as required by paragraph (i) of this AD, or application of service information label on each rod, as required by paragraph (j) of this AD, as applicable, constitutes terminating action for all requirements of AD 2016-25-24 for that airplane.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2017-0161R1, dated September 19, 2017; corrected September 20, 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 Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-1149.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG (RRD) BR700-710A2-20 and BR700-710C4-11 turbofan engines. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of deterioration of the intumescent heat resistant paint system on the electronic engine controller (EEC) firebox assembly that was found to be beyond acceptable limits. This proposed AD would require replacement of affected EEC firebox assembly parts with improved parts, which have a more durable paint system. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this NPRM by March 29, 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 proposed AD, contact Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG, Eschenweg 11, Dahlewitz, 15827 Blankenfelde-Mahlow, Germany; phone: +49 (0) 33 7086 2673; fax: +49 (0) 33 7086 3276. You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Standards Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7759.
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Martin Adler, Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7157; fax: 781-238-7199; 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 European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA AD No. 2017-0198, dated October 10, 2017 (referred to hereinafter as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
Occurrences were reported where deterioration of an Electronic Engine Controller (EEC) firebox assembly
This condition, if not corrected, could reduce the fire protection capability of the EEC firebox, possibly leading to reduced control of an engine during engine fire, engine overspeed and release of high-energy debris, resulting in damage to, and/or reduced control of, the aeroplane.
To address this potential unsafe condition, RRD issued Alert SB SB-BR700-73-A101977, SB-BR700-73-A101981 and SB-BR700-73-A101985 to provide modification instructions introducing improved new or reworked EEC firebox assembly parts, which have a more durable paint system.
For the reason described above, this AD requires replacement of affected EEC firebox assembly parts with improved parts.
You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
We reviewed RRD Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) SB-BR700-73-A101977, Revision 3, dated July 10, 2017; RRD ASB SB-BR700-73-A101981, Revision 3, dated July 10, 2017; and RRD ASB SB-BR700-73-A101985, Revision 3, dated July 10, 2017. The service information describes procedures for installing new or reworked EEC firebox assembly parts for BR700-710A2-20, BR700-710C4-11, and BR700-710C4-11/10 engines, respectively.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of Germany, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the European Community, EASA has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. 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 replacement of affected EEC firebox assembly parts with improved parts, which have a more durable paint system.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 842 engines installed on 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 AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to engines, propellers, and associated appliances to the Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division.
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 29, 2018.
None.
This AD applies to:
(1) Rolls-Royce Deutschland (RRD) BR700-710A2-20 turbofan engines with any of the following electronic engine controller (EEC) firebox assembly part numbers (P/Ns)
(2) RRD BR700-710C4-11 turbofan engines with any of the following EEC firebox assembly P/Ns installed: FW38504, FW38503, FW38590, FW38591, or FW58255.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7600, Engine Controls.
This AD was prompted by reports of deterioration of the intumescent heat resistant paint system on the EEC firebox assembly that was found to be beyond acceptable limits. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the EEC. The unsafe condition, if not corrected, could result in failure of the EEC, loss of engine thrust control, and reduced control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, perform the following:
(i) For RRD BR700-710A2-20 engines, remove from service the EEC firebox assembly components with P/N FW42888, FW42886, FW38590, FW38591, and FW58255 and replace with parts eligible for installation.
(ii) For RRD BR700-710C4-11 engines, remove from service the EEC firebox assembly components with P/N FW38504, FW38503, FW38590, FW38591, and FW58255 and replace with parts eligible for installation.
(2) Reserved.
(1) The Manager, ECO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (i)(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.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Martin Adler, Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7157; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
(2) Refer to MCAI EASA AD No. 2017-0198, dated October 10, 2017, for more information. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to remove Class E airspace at Seven Springs, PA, as Seven Springs Borough Airport has been abandoned, and controlled airspace is no longer required. This proposal would also remove reference to the Seven Springs, PA, Class E airspace area from the Somerset County Airport, Somerset, PA, description, and update the geographic coordinates of Somerset County Airport to coincide with the FAA's database. This action would enhance the safety and management of controlled airspace within the national airspace system.
Comments must be received on or before March 29, 2018.
Send comments on this rule to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001; Telephone: (800) 647-5527, or (202) 366-9826. You must identify the Docket No. FAA-2017-0783; Airspace Docket No. 17-AEA-13, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at
FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701 Columbia Ave., College Park, GA 30337; telephone (404) 305-6364.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This proposed rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would remove Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Seven Springs Borough Airport, Seven Springs, PA, due to the closing of the airport.
Interested persons are invited to comment on this rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2017-0783 and Airspace Docket No. 17-AEA-13) and be submitted in triplicate to the DOT Docket Operations (see
Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2017-0783; Airspace Docket No. 17-AEA-13.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the comment closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and comments submitted through
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to remove Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Seven Springs Borough Airport, Seven Springs, PA, as the airport has been abandoned. Therefore, the airspace is no longer necessary. Also, this action would remove the words “excluding that portion that coincides with the Seven Springs, PA, Class E airspace area” from the regulatory text In Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface for Somerset County Airport, Somerset, PA, and update the geographic coordinates of Somerset County Airport, to be in concert with the FAA's aeronautical database.
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 designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore, (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal would be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
(Lat. 40°05′09″ N, long. 78°55′00″ W)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of Somerset County Airport and within 3.1 miles each side of the 058° bearing from the Stoystown NDB extending from the 6.4-mile radius to 9.6 miles northeast of the NDB and 4 miles each side of the 236° bearing from the Somerset County Airport extending from the 6.4-mile radius to 9.5 miles southwest of the airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend Class D airspace, and Class E surface area airspace at Greenwood-Leflore Airport, Greenwood, MS, by making an editorial change to the legal
Comments must be received on or before March 29, 2018.
Send comments on this proposal to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg. Ground Floor Rm. W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; Telephone: (800) 647-5527, or (202) 366-9826. You must identify the Docket No. FAA-2017-0994; Airspace Docket No. 17-ASO-21, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit and review received comments through the internet at
FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701 Columbia Ave., College Park, GA 30337; telephone (404) 305-6364.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend Class D and Class E airspace at Greenwood-Leflore Airport, Greenwood, MS, to ensure the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.
Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. You may also submit comments through the internet at
Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2017-0994; Airspace Docket No. 17-ASO-21.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to amend Class D airspace, Class E surface airspace, Class E airspace designated as an extension, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth at Greenwood-Leflore Airport, Greenwood, MS.
This action would make an editorial change replacing “Airport/Facility Directory” with the term “Chart Supplement” in the legal descriptions of the Class D airspace and Class E surface airspace.
This action also would remove the NOTAM part-time status under Class E airspace designated as an extension at the airport. This action is for continued safety and management of IFR operations in the area. Additionally, the geographic coordinates of the airport would be adjusted in the associated class D and E airspace to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
Class D and E airspace designations are published in Paragraphs 5000, 6002, 6004 and 6005, respectively 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 D and Class E airspace
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 2,700 feet MSL within a 4.4-mile radius of Greenwood-Leflore Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective dates and times will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
Within a 4.4-mile radius of Greenwood-Leflore Airport. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
That airspace extending upward from the surface within 1.4 miles each side of the Sidon VORTAC 079° radial, extending from the 4.4-miles radius of Greenwood-Leflore Airport to 4 miles east of the VORTAC.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.9-mile radius of Greenwood-Leflore Airport and within 1.2 miles each side of the Sidon VORTAC 079° radial, extending from the 6.9-mile radius to 2 miles each of the VORTAC.
Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.
Notice of Inquiry; request for comments.
The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), Department of Commerce, is seeking public comments to perform a complementary review of items on the Commerce Control List concurrent with the Department of State's review of the controls implemented in its recent revisions of parts of the United States Munitions List (which control explosives and energetic materials, propellants, incendiary agents and their constituents; personal protective equipment; and military electronics), to ensure that the descriptions of these items on the CCL are clear, items for normal commercial use are not inadvertently controlled as military items on the USML, technological developments are accounted for on the control lists, and controls properly implement the national security and foreign policy objectives of the United States. This Notice of Inquiry also furthers the regulatory reform agenda directed by the President in Executive Order 13777.
Comments must be received by BIS no later than April 13, 2018.
Comments may be submitted through the Federal rulemaking portal (
The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), Department of Commerce, maintains the Export Administration Regulations, including the Commerce Control List (CCL). The items controlled under the “600 series” entries on the CCL were previously controlled on the United States Munitions List (USML), which is part of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), maintained by the Department of State. These items, including energetic materials, armored and protective “equipment” and military electronics, were determined by the President to not warrant control on the USML.
Through this Notice of Inquiry (NOI), BIS is seeking public comments to perform a complementary review of energetic materials, armored and protective “equipment” and military electronics and related items therefor, on the CCL, concurrent with the Department of State's review of the controls implemented in its recent revisions to Categories V, X and XI of the USML (which control explosives and energetic materials, propellants, incendiary agents and their constituents, personal protective equipment, and military electronics), to ensure that the descriptions of these items on the CCL are clear, items for normal commercial use are not inadvertently controlled as military items on the USML, technological developments are accounted for on the control lists, and controls properly implement the national security and foreign policy objectives of the United States.
Specifically, BIS is soliciting comments on the clarity, usability and any other matters related to implementation of the “600 series” Export Control Classification Numbers (ECCNs) that control the following items, as well as certain items related thereto: energetic materials (ECCNs 1B608, 1C608, 1D608 and 1E608); armored and protective “equipment” (ECCNs 1A613, 1B613, 1D613, 1E613); military electronics (ECCNs 3A611, 3B611, 3D611 and 3E611); and cryogenic and superconducting equipment (ECCNs 9A620, 9B620, 9D620 and 9E620).
A core element of the transfer of certain articles on the USML to “600 series” ECCNs on the CCL has been the streamlining of categories on the USML, resulting in the control on the CCL of items that the President determines do not warrant USML control. On December 10, 2010, the Department of State provided notice to the public of its intent to revise the USML to create a more “positive list” that describes controlled items using, to the extent possible, objective criteria rather than broad, open-ended, subjective, or design intent-based criteria (see 75 FR 76935). As a practical matter, this meant revising USML categories so that, with some exceptions, the descriptions of defense articles that continued to warrant control under the USML did not use catch-all phrases to control unspecified items. With limited exceptions, the defense articles that warranted control under the USML were those that provided the United States with a critical military or intelligence advantage. All other items were to become subject to the export licensing jurisdiction of the EAR. Since that time, the Department of State has published final rules setting forth revisions for eighteen USML categories, each of which has been reorganized into a uniform and more “positive list” structure. In coordination with the Department of State, the Department of Commerce has published final rules that made corresponding revisions to the CCL by controlling items that the President has determined do not warrant control on the USML.
The advantage of revising the USML into a positive list is that its controls can be tailored to satisfy the national security and foreign policy objectives of the U.S. Government by maintaining control over those defense articles that provide a critical military or intelligence advantage, or otherwise warrant control under the ITAR, without inadvertently controlling items in normal commercial use. However, this approach requires that the USML and the CCL be regularly reviewed and updated to account for the following: technological developments; issues identified by exporters and reexporters involving the practical application of these controls; and changes in the military and commercial applications of items affected by the USML or by the corresponding “600 series” ECCNs on the CCL.
Consistent with the approach described above, this NOI requests public comments as part of a review of changes to the EAR that complements a similar review the Department of State is performing with respect to the ITAR. As discussed above, the Departments of State and Commerce reviews are being undertaken to follow up on sets of rules published by the Departments of State and Commerce. These rules implemented revisions to the following categories of the USML: Category V (explosives and energetic materials, propellants, incendiary agents and their constituents), effective July 1, 2014 (see 79 FR 34); Category X (protective personnel equipment), effective July 1, 2014 (see 79 FR 34); and Category XI (military electronics), effective December 30, 2014 (see 79 FR 37536). These rules also added the following “600 series” ECCNs to the CCL: ECCNs 1B608, 1C608, 1D608, 1E608, 1A613, 1B613, 1D613 and 1E613, effective July 1, 2014 (see 79 FR 264), and ECCNs 3A611, 3B611, 3D611, 3E611, 9A620, 9B620, 9D620 and 9E620, effective December 30, 2014 (see 79 FR 37551). The Department of State is seeking comments from the public on the condition and efficacy of the revised Categories V, X, and XI and whether they are meeting the objectives for the list revisions. BIS will make any changes to the CCL that it determines are necessary to complement revisions to the USML by the Department of State. In addition, through this NOI, BIS is independently seeking comments on how to improve the implementation of these “600 series” ECCNs on the CCL.
BIS is also seeking comments on potential cost savings to private entities from shifting control of specific commercial items from USML to the CCL. To the extent possible, please quantify the cost of compliance with USML control of commercial items, to include the time saved, the reduction in paperwork, and any other cost savings for a particular change.
Department of State.
Notice of Inquiry; request for comments.
The Department of State requests comments from the public to inform its review of the controls implemented in recent revisions to Categories V, X, and XI of the United States Munitions List (USML). The Department periodically reviews USML categories to ensure that they are clear, do not inadvertently control items in normal commercial use, account for technological developments, and properly implement the national security and foreign policy objectives of the United States.
The Department will accept comments on the Notice of Inquiry up to April 13, 2018.
You may send comments, identified by docket number DOS-2017-0017, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Comments submitted through
Ms. Engda Wubneh, Office of Defense Trade Controls Policy, Department of State, telephone (202) 663-2816; email
On December 10, 2010, the Department provided notice to the public of its intent to revise the USML to create a “positive list” that describes controlled items using, to the extent possible, objective criteria rather than broad, open-ended, subjective, catch-all, or design intent-based criteria (
The advantage of revising the USML into a more positive list is that its controls can be tailored to satisfy the national security and foreign policy objectives of the U.S. government by maintaining control over those defense articles that provide a critical military or intelligence advantage, or otherwise warrant control under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), without inadvertently controlling items in normal commercial use. This approach, however, requires that the lists be regularly revised and updated to account for technological developments, practical application issues identified by exporters and reexporters, and changes in the military and commercial applications of items affected by the list.
This Notice of Inquiry is the third in a series of solicitations requesting feedback on revised USML categories. Previous Notices of Inquiry requested comments on Categories VIII and XIX (
The Department requests public comment on USML Categories V, X and XI. General comments on other aspects of the ITAR, to include other categories of the USML, are outside of the scope of this inquiry. In order to contribute effectively to the USML review process, all commenters are encouraged to provide comments that are responsive specifically to the prompts set forth below.
The Department requests comment on the following topics, as they relate to Categories V, X and XI:
1. Emerging and new technologies that are appropriately controlled by one of the referenced categories, but which are not currently described in subject categories or not described with sufficient clarity.
2. Defense articles that are described in subject categories, but which have entered into normal commercial use since the most recent revisions to the category at issue. For such comments, be sure to include documentation to support claims that defense articles have entered into normal commercial use.
3. Defense articles for which commercial use is proposed, intended, or anticipated in the next 5 years.
4. Drafting or other technical issues in the text of all of the referenced categories.
5. Comments regarding USML Category XI paragraph (b) modification.
6. Potential cost savings to private entities from shifting control of specific commercial items from USML to the Export Administration Regulations. To the extent possible, please quantify the cost of compliance with USML control
The Department will review all comments from the public. If a rulemaking is warranted based on the comments received, the Department will respond to comments received in a proposed rulemaking in the
Environmental Protection Agency.
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to update a portion of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Air Regulations. Requirements applying to OCS sources located within 25 miles of states' seaward boundaries must be updated periodically to remain consistent with the requirements of the corresponding onshore area (COA), as mandated by section 328(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act. The portion of the OCS air regulations that is being updated pertains to the requirements for OCS sources for which Massachusetts is the designated COA. The intended effect of approving the OCS requirements for the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection is to regulate emissions from OCS sources in accordance with the requirements for onshore sources. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts' requirements discussed in this document are proposed to be incorporated by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations and listed in the appendix to the OCS air regulations.
Written comments must be received on or before March 14, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2018-0011 at
Eric Wortman, Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square (Mail Code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109, (617) 918-1624,
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.
On September 4, 1992, the EPA promulgated 40 CFR part 55,
Pursuant to 40 CFR 55.12, consistency reviews will occur (1) at least annually; (2) upon receipt of a Notice of Intent (NOI) under 40 CFR 55.4; or (3) when a state or local agency submits a rule to the EPA to be considered for incorporation by reference in 40 CFR part 55. This proposed action is being taken in response to the submittal of a NOI on December 11, 2017 by Vineyard Wind, LLC. Public comments received in writing within 30 days of publication of this document will be considered by the EPA before publishing a final rule.
Section 328(a) of the CAA requires that the EPA establish requirements to control air pollution from OCS sources located within 25 miles of States' seaward boundaries that are the same as onshore requirements. To comply with this statutory mandate, the EPA must incorporate applicable onshore rules into 40 CFR part 55 as they exist onshore. This limits the EPA's flexibility in deciding which requirements will be incorporated into 40 CFR part 55 and prevents the EPA from making substantive changes to the requirements it incorporates. As a result, the EPA may be incorporating rules into 40 CFR part 55 that do not conform to all of the EPA's state implementation plan (SIP) guidance or certain requirements of the CAA. Consistency updates may result in the inclusion of state or local rules or regulations into 40 CFR part 55, even
In updating 40 CFR part 55, the EPA reviewed the rules for inclusion in 40 CFR part 55 to ensure that they are rationally related to the attainment or maintenance of federal or state ambient air quality standards and compliance with part C of title I of the CAA, that they are not designed expressly to prevent exploration and development of the OCS, and that they are potentially applicable to OCS sources.
The EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document or on other relevant matters. These comments will be considered before taking final action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to the EPA New England Region Office listed in the
The EPA is proposing to incorporate the rules potentially applicable to sources for which the Commonwealth of Massachusetts will be the COA. The rules that the EPA proposes to incorporate are applicable provisions of (1) 310 Code of Massachusetts Regulations (CMR) 4.00: Timely Action Schedule and Fee Provisions; (2) 310 CMR 6.00: Ambient Air Quality Standards for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; (3) 310 CMR 7.00: Air Pollution Control; and (4) 310 CMR 8.00: The Prevention and/or Abatement of Air Pollution Episode and Air Pollution Incident Emergencies as amended through January 16, 2018. The rules that EPA proposes to incorporate in this action will replace the rules previously incorporated into 40 CFR part 55 for Massachusetts.
With respect to the Air Pollution Control regulations at 310 CMR 7.00, Massachusetts is divided into six regions known as air pollution control districts, three of which (Merrimack Valley, Metropolitan Boston, and Southeastern Massachusetts) are coastal.
In interpreting such provisions as they are incorporated into 40 CFR part 55, the EPA proposes to treat any existing or proposed OCS source as if it were located in the specific air pollution control district that is geographically closest to the source. The EPA is relying on this interpretation for purposes of this action. If the EPA does not receive comments to the contrary from any party during the public comment period, the interpretation stated above will represent the EPA's formal interpretations of the provisions incorporated into 40 CFR part 55 for the purposes of federal law.
With respect to the Prevention and/or Abatement of Air Pollution Episode and Air Pollution Incident Emergencies regulations at 310 CMR 8.00, the EPA proposes to rely on the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection's evaluation, declaration, and notice of an Air Pollution Episode or Incident Emergency applicable to the point on land nearest to an OCS source. Specifically, in interpreting the Massachusetts Prevention and/or Abatement of Air Pollution Episode and Air Pollution Incident Emergencies regulations as they are incorporated into 40 CFR part 55, the EPA proposes to treat any existing or proposed OCS source as if it were located at the point on land that is geographically closest to the source. The restrictions that the Department of Environmental Protection applies to onshore sources on that point of land pursuant to these regulations would then apply to the OCS source as if it were located on that point of land. The EPA is relying on this interpretation for purposes of this action. If the EPA does not receive comments to the contrary from any party during the public comment period, the interpretation stated above will represent the EPA's formal interpretations of the provisions incorporated into 40 CFR part 55 for the purposes of federal law.
The interpretations discussed above are consistent with the interpretations of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts regulations in prior Agency actions for the purposes of consistency updates under 40 CFR part 55.
In this rule, the 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, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the Code of Massachusetts Regulations rules set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials available through
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to establish requirements to control air pollution from OCS sources located within 25 miles of states' seaward boundaries that are the same as onshore air pollution control requirements. To comply with this statutory mandate, the EPA must incorporate applicable onshore rules into 40 CFR part 55 as they exist onshore.
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• 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).
In addition, this rule does have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, nor does it impose substantial direct compliance costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C 3501
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Outer continental shelf, Ozone, Particulate matter, Permits, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 55, is proposed to be amended as follows:
Section 328 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401,
(e) * * *
(11) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) Commonwealth of Massachusetts Requirements Applicable to OCS Sources, January 16, 2018.
(a) State requirements.
(1) The following Commonwealth of Massachusetts requirements are applicable to OCS Sources, January 16, 2018, Commonwealth of Massachusetts—Department of Environmental Protection. The following sections of 310 CMR 4.00, 310 CMR 6.00, 310 CMR 7.00 and 310 CMR 8.00:
Commodity Credit Corporation and Farm Service Agency, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) and the Farm Service Agency (FSA) are requesting comments from all interested individuals and organizations on an extension and revision of a currently approved information collection that supports CCC and FSA loan programs. The information collection is necessary to gather data regarding the applicant which is required on a financing statement, and to obtain the applicant's permission to file a financing statement prior to the execution of a security agreement.
We invite you to submit comments on this notice. In your comment, include date, volume, and page number of this issue of the
•
•
You may also send comments to the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. Copies of the information collection may be requested by contacting Angela Payton at the phone number below or the above address.
Angela Payton; (202) 720-0482.
(a) Gather or verify basic data, provided by a CCC or FSA loan applicant, that is required on a financing statement filed by CCC or FSA to perfect a security interest in collateral used to secure a loan; and
(b) Obtain applicant permission to file a financing statement prior to the execution of a security agreement.
FSA's Farm Loan Programs (FLP) uses the CCC-10 when a nonapplicant third party pledges the full value of chattel security to FSA as adequate security required for an FLP loan.
Both CCC's Marketing Assistance Loan and Farm Storage Facility Loan programs also use the CCC-10, but are exempt from the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act according to the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Pub. L. 113-79, Title I, Subtitle F—Administration).
FSA is increasing the number of respondents by 360, since the last request. The burden hours will decrease by 2,088 hours due to not needing to account for the travel time in the burden hours.
For the following estimated total annual burden on respondents, the formula used to calculate the total burden hours is the estimated average time per response multiplied by the estimated total annual of responses.
We are requesting comments on all aspects of this information collection to help us to:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Evaluate the quality, ability and clarity of the information technology; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who respond through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information.
All responses to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Rural Housing Service (RHS), USDA.
Proposed collection; comments requested.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Rural Housing Service's intention to request a revision of a currently approved information collection in support of RHS regulations.
Comments on this notice must be received by April 13, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Joanna Rogers, Finance and Loan Analyst, Multi-Family Housing Portfolio Management Division, Rural Housing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, South Building, Stop 0782, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-0781, telephone (202) 720-1609.
Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Jeanne Jacobs, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, at (202) 692-0040.
February 21, 2018, 1:00 p.m. EST.
U.S. Chemical Safety Board, 1750 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 910, Washington, DC 20006.
Open to the public.
The Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) will convene a public meeting on Wednesday, February 21, 2018 at 1:00 p.m. EST in Washington, DC, at the CSB offices located at 1750 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 910. The Board will discuss open investigations, the status of audits from the Office of the Inspector General, financial and organizational updates, and a review of the agency's action plan. New business will include an overview and possible release of the CSB's first “Safety Spotlight” and Board Member outreach and transparency initiatives.
The meeting is free and open to the public. If you require a translator or interpreter, please notify the individual listed below as the “Contact Person for Further Information,” at least three business days prior to the meeting.
A conference call line will be provided for those who cannot attend in person. Please use the following dial-in number to join the conference:
The CSB is an independent federal agency charged with investigating incidents and hazards that result, or may result, in the catastrophic release of extremely hazardous substances. The agency's Board Members are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. CSB investigations look into all aspects of chemical accidents and hazards, including physical causes such as equipment failure as well as inadequacies in regulations, industry standards, and safety management systems.
The time provided for public statements will depend upon the number of people who wish to speak. Speakers should assume that their presentations will be limited to three minutes or less, but commenters may submit written statements for the record.
Hillary Cohen, Communications Manager, at
Department of Commerce, Office of the Secretary.
Notice of a new system of records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended; the Freedom of Information Act, as amended; and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-108, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Review, Reporting, and Publication under the Privacy Act,” the Department of Commerce (Department) is issuing this notice of its intent to establish a new system of records entitled “COMMERCE/DEPT-29, Unmanned Aircraft Systems.” The use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) significantly expands the Department's ability to collect data critical to its mission. Additionally, as compared to manned aircraft, UAS may provide
To be considered, written comments must be submitted on or before March 14, 2018. This new system of records will become effective on February 12, 2018, unless the modified system of records notice needs to be changed as a result of public comment.
Newly proposed routine uses 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 in the paragraph entitled “ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND PURPOSES OF SUCH USES” will become effective on March 29, 2018, unless the new system of records notice needs to be changed as a result of public comment. If the modified system of records notice needs to be changed, the Department will publish a subsequent notice in the
Please address comments to: NOAA Bureau Chief Privacy Officer, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, SSMC3, Room 9719.
Commanding Officer, NOAA Aircraft Operations Center (AOC), 3450 Flightline Drive, Lakeland, FL 33811. Requester should provide name and association with the Department, if any, pursuant to the inquiry provisions of the Department's rules which appear in 15 CFR part 4b.
UAS are used by the Department of Commerce for a variety of purposes, including research, disaster relief efforts and other rescue efforts, storm tracking, and coastal mapping. The Congress recognized the potential wide-ranging benefits of UAS operations within the United States in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-95), which requires a plan to safely integrate civil UAS into the National Airspace System (NAS) by September 30, 2015. The Department is creating a new system of records for UAS, entitled “COMMERCE/DEPT-29, Unmanned Aircraft Systems,” as part of its commitment to ensuring that collection, use, retention, or dissemination of information about individuals through the use of any technology, including UAS, complies with the Constitution, and Federal law, regulations, and policies.
The Privacy Act requires each agency that proposes to establish or significantly modify a system of records to provide adequate advance notice of any such proposal to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of Representatives, and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate (5 U.S.C 552a(r)). The purpose of providing the advance notice to OMB and Congress is to permit an evaluation of the potential effect of the proposal on the privacy and other rights of individuals. The Department filed a report describing the new system of records covered by this notice with the Chair of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, the Chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and the Deputy Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), on July 3, 2017.
Unmanned Aircraft Systems, COMMERCE/DEPT-29.
None.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, SSMC3, Silver Spring, MD 20919.
Commanding Officer, NOAA Aircraft Operations Center (AOC), 7917 Hangar Loop Drive, Hangar 5, MacDill Air Force Base, FL 33621-5401.
Presidential Memorandum: Promoting Economic Competitiveness While Safeguarding Privacy, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties in Domestic Use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (Feb. 15, 2015); National Marine Sanctuaries Act, 16 U.S.C. 1431
UAS may be used by the Department of Commerce for a variety of purposes, including research, disaster relief efforts and other rescue efforts, storm tracking, law enforcement, and coastal mapping.
The Congress recognized the potential wide-ranging benefits of UAS operations within the United States in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-95), which requires a plan to safely integrate civil UAS into the National Airspace System (NAS) by September 30, 2015. As compared to manned aircraft, UAS may provide lower-cost operation and augment existing capabilities while reducing risks to human life.
a. Current and former employees of the Department of Commerce and such other persons whose association with the Department relates to the use of UAS. The names of individuals and the files in their names may be: (1) Received pursuant to employment; or (2) submitted by the employee for access or use to files within the system in the conduct of assigned duties involving UAS.
b. Individuals, including members of the public, who are identified while conducting UAS operations, including those identified during disaster relief efforts, storm tracking, coastal mapping,
Access report logs, geospatial reference logs, use history reports, transmission reports, video and photographic imagery, audio files, input commands and control histories, or other similar records that catalogue the use, data collected, and transmission of UAS.
User input and login, identifiable video imagery, and global positioning satellite geospatial location coordinates.
1. In the event that a system or records maintained by the Department to carry out its functions indicates a violation or potential violation of law or contract, whether civil, criminal or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by general statute or particular program statute or contract, or rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto, or the necessity to protect an interest of the Department, the relevant records in the system of records may be referred, as a routine use, to the appropriate agency, whether Federal, state, local or foreign, charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting such violation or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute or contract, or rule, regulation or order issued pursuant thereto, or protecting the interest of the Department.
2. A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to a Federal, state or local agency maintaining civil, criminal or other relevant enforcement information or other pertinent information, such as current licenses, if necessary to obtain information relevant to a Department decision concerning the assignment, hiring or retention of an individual, the issuance of a security clearance, the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant or other benefit.
3. A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to a Federal, state, local, or international agency, in response to its request, in connection with the assignment, hiring or retention of an individual, the issuance of a security clearance, the reporting of an investigation of an individual, the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant, or other benefit by the requesting agency, to the extent that the information is relevant and necessary to the requesting agency's decision on the matter.
4. A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, in the course of presenting evidence to a court, magistrate or administrative tribunal, including disclosures to opposing counsel in the course of settlement negotiations.
5. A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to a Member of Congress submitting a request involving an individual when the individual has requested assistance from the Member with respect to the subject matter of the record.
6. A record in this system of records which contains medical information may be disclosed, as a routine use, to the medical advisor of any individual submitting a request for access to the record under the Act and 15 CFR part 4b if, in the sole judgment of the Department, disclosure could have an adverse effect upon the individual, under the provision of 5 U.S.C. 552a(f)(3) and implementing regulations at 15 CFR part 4b.6.
7. A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to the Office of Management and Budget in connection with the review of private relief legislation as set forth in OMB Circular No. A-19 at any stage of the legislative coordination and clearance process as set forth in that Circular.
8. A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to the Department of Justice in connection with determining whether disclosure thereof is required by the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552).
9. A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to a contractor of the Department having need for the information in the performance of the contract, but not operating a system of records within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 552a(m).
10. A record in this system may be transferred, as a routine use, to the Office of Personnel Management: For personnel research purposes; as a data source for management information; for the production of summary descriptive statistics and analytical studies in support of the function for which the records are collected and maintained; or for related manpower studies.
11. A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to the Administrator, General Services Administration (GSA), or his designee, during an inspection of records conducted by GSA as part of that agency's responsibility to recommend improvements in records management practices and programs, under authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906. Such disclosure shall be made in accordance with the GSA regulations governing inspection of records for this purpose, and any other relevant (
12. Disclosure of information from this system of records may also be made to commercial contractors (debt collection agencies) for the purpose of collecting delinquent debts as authorized by the Debt Collection Act (31 U.S.C. 7701).
13. Routine use for research, coastal mapping, and weather system tracking may include disclosure to other Federal Agencies, scholarly research educational facilities, disaster relief organizations, and research partners.
14. Routine use for disaster relief efforts may include disclosure to other federal agencies, local law enforcement, and relief organizations. Routine use for SARSAT PII data may include other Federal Agencies and rescue personnel participating in rescue efforts.
15. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) the Department suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records,· (2) the Department has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, the Department (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Department's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
16. A record in this system of records may be disclosed to another Federal agency or Federal entity, when the Department determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
17. A record in this system of records may be disclosed to student volunteers, individuals working under a personal services contract, and other workers who technically do not have the status of Federal employees, when they are performing work for the Department
Automated storage media, image transmissions, and geospatial tracking media.
Indices are alphabetical, cross referenced to file number, and by geospatial tracking location. Records may be retrieved by geospatial coordinates of latitude and longitude, or address, which may correspond to residential locations following storm damage assessment or other operations over populated areas. Records may also be retrieved by case name, case number, investigation number, or subject in the case of law enforcement records. Lastly, records may be retrieved by the associated operation, office, file name, storm, or event for which the UAS was used.
Each type of record is governed by its applicable Records Control Schedule. If PII is inadvertently captured in any system not covered by this System of Records Notice, it is deleted within 180 days pursuant to Presidential Memorandum: Promoting Economic Competitiveness While Safeguarding Privacy, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties in Domestic Use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (Feb. 15, 2015).
Used only by authorized screened personnel with a need to know, stored on an encrypted storage device, transmission through encrypted methodologies in satisfaction of the Department's Policy on Electronic Transmission of PII Policy.
Requests from individuals should be addressed to FOI/P, OPM; ATTN: FOIA Officer; 1900 E Street NW, Room 5415; Washington, DC 20415-7900. Individuals may also request notification of existence of records on himself or herself by sending a signed, written inquiry to the Deputy Chief FOIA Officer and Department Privacy Act Officer, Room 52010, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.
For more information, visit:
An individual requesting corrections of or amendments to information contained in his or her records must send a signed, written request inquiry to the same address as stated in the Notification Procedure section below. Requesters should reasonably identify the records, specify the information they are contesting and state the corrective action sought and the reasons for the correction with supporting justification showing how the record is incomplete, untimely, inaccurate, or irrelevant. The Department's rules for accessing, for requesting correction or amendment of contents, and for appealing initial determination by the individual concerned appear in 15 CFR part 4 Subpart B.
Individuals wishing to determine whether this system of records contains information about them may do so by writing to the above address. Individuals should provide name and association with the Department, if any, pursuant to the inquiry provisions of the Department's rules which appear in 15 CFR part 4.23.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), all information about an individual in the record which meets the criteria stated in the Act: 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) are exempted from the notice, access and contest requirements of the agency regulations and from all parts of 5 U.S.C. 552a except subsections (b), (c) (1) and (2), (e)(4)(A) through (F), (e) (6), (7), (9), (10), and (11), and (i), and pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2), on condition that if the 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) exemption is held to be invalid, all investigatory material in the record which meet the criteria stated in 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2) are exempted from the notice access, and contest requirements (under 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4) (G), (H), and (I), and (f)) of the agency regulations because of the necessity to exempt this information and material in order to accomplish this law enforcement function of the agency, to prevent subjects of investigation from frustrating the investigatory process, to prevent the disclosure of investigative techniques, to fulfill commitments made to protect the confidentiality of sources, to maintain access to sources of information, and to avoid endangering these sources and law enforcement personnel. In addition, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1), all materials qualifying for this exemption are exempt from 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4) (G), (H), (I), and (f) in order to prevent disclosure of classified information as required by Executive Order 12065 in the interest of the national defense and foreign policy.
To the extent that the exemption under 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) is held to be invalid, then the exemptions under 5 U.S.C. 552a (k)(1), (k)(2), and (k)(5) are claimed for all material which meets the criteria of these three subsections.
Provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974 from which exemptions are claimed under 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1), (k)(2) and (k)(5) are as follows: 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3); 5 U.S.C. 552a(d); 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(1); 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4) (G), (H), and (I); 5 U.S.C. 552a(f).
Reasons for exemptions: In general, the exemption of this information and material is necessary in order to accomplish the law enforcement function of National Marine Fisheries (NMFS) Office of Law Enforcement (OLE), to prevent subjects of investigations from frustrating the investigatory process, to prevent the disclosure of investigative techniques, to fulfill commitments made to protect the confidentiality of sources, to maintain access to sources of information, and to avoid endangering these sources and law enforcement personnel. Detailed reasons follow: Reasons for exemptions under 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) and (k)(2);
(1) 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3) requires that upon request, an agency must give an individual named in a record an accounting which reflects the disclosure of the record to other persons or agencies. This accounting must state the date, nature and purpose of each disclosure of the record and the name and address of the recipient. The application of this provision would alert subjects of an investigation to the existence of the investigation and that such persons are subjects of that investigation. Since release of such information to subjects of an investigation would provide the subjects with significant information concerning the nature of the investigation, it could result in the alerting or destruction of documentary evidence, improper influencing of witnesses, and other activities that could impede or compromise the investigation.
(2) 5 U.S.C. 552a (c)(4), (d), (e)(4) (G) and (H), (f) and (g) relate to an individual's right to be notified of the existence of records pertaining to such individual; requirements for identifying an individual who requests access to records; the agency procedures relating to access to records and the contest of information contained in such records; and the civil remedies available to the individual in the event of adverse
(3) 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4)(I) requires the publication of the categories of sources of records in each system of records. The application of this provision could disclose investigative techniques and procedures and cause sources to refrain from giving such information because of fear or reprisal, or fear of breach of promises of anonymity and confidentiality. This would compromise the ability to conduct investigations, and to identify, detect, and apprehend violators.
(4) 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(I) requires each agency to maintain in its records only such information about an individual that is relevant and necessary to accomplish a purpose of the agency required by statute or Executive Order. An exemption from the foregoing is needed:
a. Because it is not possible to detect relevance or necessity of specific information in the early stages of a criminal or other investigation.
b. Relevance and necessity are questions of judgment and timing. What appears relevant and necessary when collected may ultimately be determined to be unnecessary. It is only after the information is evaluated that the relevance and necessity of such information can be established.
c. In any investigation NMFS/OLE may obtain information concerning the violations of laws other than those within the scope of his jurisdiction. In the interest of effective law enforcement, NMFS/OLE should retain this information as it may aid in establishing patterns of criminal activity, and provide leads for those law enforcement agencies charged with enforcing other segments of criminal or civil law.
d. In interviewing persons, or obtaining other forms of evidence during an investigation, information may be supplied to the investigator which is related to matters incidental to the main purpose of the investigation but which may relate to matters under the investigative jurisdiction of another agency. Such information cannot readily be segregated.
(5) 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(2) requires an agency to collect information to the greatest extent practicable directly from the subject individual when the information may result in adverse determinations about an individual's rights, benefits, and privilege under Federal programs. The application of the provision would impair investigations of illegal acts, violations of the rules of conduct, merit system and any other misconduct of the following reasons:
a. In certain instances the subject of an investigation cannot be required to supply information to investigators. In those instances, information relating to a subject's illegal acts, violations of rules of conduct, or any other misconduct, etc., must be obtained from other sources.
b. Most information collected about an individual under investigation is obtained from third parties such as witnesses and informers. It is not feasible to rely upon the subject of the investigation as a source for information regarding his activities. Information may also be obtained through lawful surveillance methods, including UAS.
c. The subject of an investigation will be alerted to the existence of an investigation if any attempt is made to obtain information from subject. This could afford the individual the opportunity to conceal any criminal activities to avoid apprehension.
d. In any investigation, it is necessary to obtain evidence from a variety of sources other than the subject of the investigation in order to verify the evidence necessary for successful litigation.
(6) 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(3) requires that an agency must inform the subject of an investigation who is asked to supply information of:
a. The authority under which the information is sought and whether disclosure of the information is mandatory or voluntary,
b. The purposes for which the information is intended to be used,
c. The routine uses which may be made of the information, and
d. The effects on the subject, if any, of not providing the requested information. The reasons for exempting this system of records from the foregoing provision are as follows:
(i) The disclosure to the subject of the investigation as stated in (b) above would provide the subject with substantial information relating to the nature of the investigation and could impede or compromise the investigation.
(ii) If the subject were informed of the information required by this provision, it could seriously interfere with undercover activities requiring disclosure of undercover agents' identity and impairing their safety, as well as impairing the successful conclusion of the investigation.
(iii) Individuals may be contracted during preliminary information-gathering in investigations before any individual is identified as the subject of an investigation. Informing the individual of the matters required by this provision would hinder or adversely affect any present or subsequent investigations.
(7) 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(5) requires that records be maintained with such accuracy, relevance, timeliness, and completeness as is reasonably necessary to assure fairness to the individual in making any determination about an individual. Since the law defines “maintain” to include the collection of information complying with this provision would prevent the collection of any data not shown to be accurate, relevant, timely, and complete at the moment of its collection. In gathering information during the course of an investigation it is not possible to determine this prior to collection of the information. Facts are first gathered and then placed into a logical order which objectively proves or disproves criminal behavior on the part of the suspect. Material which may seem unrelated, irrelevant, incomplete, untimely, etc., may take on added meaning as an investigation progresses. The restrictions in this provision could interfere with the preparation of a complete investigative report.
(8) 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(8) requires an agency to make reasonable efforts to serve notice on an individual when any record of such individual is made available to any persons; under compulsory legal process when such process becomes a matter of public record. The notice requirements of this provision could prematurely reveal an ongoing criminal investigation to the subject of the investigation.
Reasons for exemptions under 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1):
(1) 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3) requires that an agency make accountings of disclosures of records available to individuals named in the record at their request. These accountings must state the date, nature and purpose of each disclosure of the record and the name and address of the recipient. The application of this
(2) 5 U.S.C. 552a(d), (e)(4) (G) and (H), and (f) relate to an individual's right to be notified of the existence of records pertaining to such individual; requirements for identifying an individual who requests access to records; and the agency procedures relating to access to records, and the contest of information contained in such records. This system is exempt from the foregoing provisions for the following reasons: To notify an individual at the individual's request of the existence of records in an investigative file pertaining to such individual or to grant access to an investigative file could interfere with investigations undertaken in connection with national security; or could disclose the identity of sources kept secret to protect national security or reveal confidential information supplied by these sources.
(3) 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(3)(4)(I) requires the publication of the categories of sources of records in each system of records. The application of this provision could disclose the identity of sources kept secret to protect national security.
(4) 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(1) requires each agency to maintain in its records only such information about an individual that is relevant and necessary to accomplish a purpose of the agency required by statute or Executive Order. An exemption from the foregoing is needed:
a. Because it is not possible to detect relevance or necessity of specific information in the early stages of an investigation involving national security matters.
b. Relevance and necessity are questions of judgment and timing. What appears relevant and necessary when collected may ultimately be determined to be unnecessary. It is only after the information is evaluated that the relevance and necessity of such information can be established.
c. In any investigation the NMFS/OLE may obtain information concerning the violators of laws other than those within the scope of his jurisdiction. In the interests of effective law enforcement, NMFS/OLE should retain this information as it may aid in establishing patterns of criminal activity, and provide leads for those law enforcement agencies charged with enforcing other segments of criminal or civil law.
d. In interviewing persons, or obtaining forms of evidence during an investigation, information may be supplied to the investigator which relates to matters incidental to the main purpose of the investigation but which may relate to matters under the investigative jurisdiction of another agency. Such information cannot readily be segregated.
Reasons for exemptions under 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5):
(1) 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3) requires that an agency make accountings of disclosures of records available to individuals named in the records at their request. These accountings must state the date, nature and purpose of each disclosure of the record and the name and address of the recipient. The application of this provision would alert subjects of an investigation to the existence of the investigation and that such persons are subjects of that investigation. Since release of such information to subjects of an investigation would provide the subject with significant information concerning the nature of the investigation, it could result in the altering or destruction of documentary evidence, improper influencing of witnesses, and other activities that could impede or compromise the investigation.
(2) 5 U.S.C. 552a(d), (e)(4)(G) and (H), and (f) relate to an individual's right to be notified of the existence of records pertaining to such individual; requirements for identifying an individual who requests access to records; and the agency procedures relating to access to records and the contest of information contained in such records. This system is exempt from the foregoing provisions for the following reasons: To notify an individual at the individual's request of the existence of records in an investigative file pertaining to such individual or to grant access to an investigative file could interfere with investigative and enforcement proceedings; co-defendants of a right to a fair trial; constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy of others; disclose the identity of confidential sources and reveal confidential information supplied by these sources; and disclose investigative techniques and procedures.
(3) 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4)(I) requires the publication of the categories of sources of records in each system of records. The application of this provision could disclose investigative techniques and procedures and cause sources to refrain from giving such information because of fear of reprisal, or fear of breach of promises of anonymity and confidentiality. This would compromise the ability to conduct investigations, and to make fair and objective decisions on questions of suitability for Federal employment and related issues.
(4) 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(1) requires each agency to maintain in its records only such information about an individual that is relevant and necessary to accomplish a purpose of the agency required by statute or Executive Order. An exemption from the foregoing is needed:
a. Because it is not possible to detect relevance or necessity of specific information in the early stages of an investigation.
b. Relevance and necessity are questions of judgment and timing. What appears relevant and necessary when collected may ultimately be determined to be unnecessary. It is only after that information is evaluated that the relevance and necessity of such information can be established.
c. In any investigation NMFS/OLE may obtain information concerning the violations of laws other than those within the scope of his jurisdiction. In the interest of effective law enforcement, NMFS/OLE should retain this information as it may aid in establishing patterns of criminal activity, and provide leads for those law enforcement agencies charged with enforcing other segments of criminal or civil law.
d. In interviewing persons, or obtaining other forms of evidence during an investigation, information may be supplied to the investigator, by means of UAS data, which relate to matters incidental to the main purpose of the investigation but which may relate to matters under investigative jurisdiction of another agency. Such information cannot readily be segregated.
This is a new system of records.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of the Secretary.
Notice of proposed amendment to Privacy Act System of Records: COMMERCE/DEPT-13, Investigative and Security Records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, The Freedom of Information Act, as amended; and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-108, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Review, Reporting, and Publication under the Privacy Act,” the Department of Commerce (Department) is issuing a notice of intent to establish an amended system of records entitled, COMMERCE/DEPT-13, “Investigative and Security Records.” This action is necessary to update the types or categories of information maintained, and update dated information covered by the current COMMERCE/DEPT-13 system of records notice. We invite public comment on the system amended announced in this publication.
To be considered, written comments must be submitted on or before March 14, 2018. The Department filed a report describing the modified system of records covered by this notice with the Chair of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, the Chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and the Deputy Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), on May 31, 2017. This modified system of records will become effective upon publication in the
Newly proposed routine uses 11, 12, 13, and 14 in the paragraph entitled “ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND PURPOSES OF SUCH USES” will become effective on March 29, 2018, unless the modified system of records notice needs to be changed as a result of public comment. If the modified system of records notice needs to be changed, the Department will publish a subsequent notice in the
You may submit written comments by any of the following methods:
Michael J. Toland, Ph.D., Deputy Chief Freedom of Information Act Officer and Department Privacy Act Officer, Office of Privacy and Open Government, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW, Room 52010, Washington, DC 20230.
The Office of Security IT Infrastructure allows the Department's Office of Security (OSY) the ability to fulfill its responsibility for investigative and security records by providing OSY personnel with the tools (hardware, software, and training) and access to the internal and external information resource necessary to perform their responsibilities. The system controls access to only those authorized as well as aids in the monitoring, assessment and response to security and emergency related incidents.
Sensitive but unclassified.
U.S. Department of Commerce Office of Security HCHB Consolidated Server Room (CSR), 1401 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20230.
Director, Office of Security, Herbert C. Hoover Building, Washington, DC 20230.
Executive Orders 10450, 11478, 12065, 5 U.S.C. 301 and 7531-332; 15 U.S.C. 1501
The purpose of this system is to collect and maintain records of processing of personnel security-related clearance actions, to record suitability determinations, to record whether security clearances are issued or denied, and to verify eligibility for access to classified information or assignment to a sensitive position. Also, records may be used by the Department for adverse personnel actions such as removal from sensitive duties, removal from employment, denial to a restricted or sensitive area, and/or revocation of security clearance. The system also assists in capturing background investigations and adjudications; directing the clearance process for granting, suspending, revoking and denying access to classified information; directing the clearance process for granting, suspending, revoking and denying other federal, state, local, or foreign law enforcement officers the authority to enforce federal laws on behalf of the Department; managing state, local and private-sector clearance programs and contractor suitability programs; determining eligibility for unescorted access to Department owned, occupied or secured facilities or information technology systems; and/or other activities relating to personnel security management responsibilities at the Department.
Categories of individuals covered by this system include past and present federal employees, applicants, contractors, affiliates who require: (1) Access to Department-owned or operated facilities, including commercial facilities operating on behalf of the Department; (2) access to Department information technology (IT) systems and data; or (3) access to national security information including classified information.
The records in the system contain social security number; passport number; name; maiden name; alias; gender; race/ethnicity; date of birth; place of birth; home address; telephone number; email address; education; financial information; medical information; military service; physical characteristics; mother's maiden name; citizenship, former residency; employment; people who know you; marital status; relatives; foreign contacts, foreign activities; foreign business; foreign travel; police record; investigations and clearance information; use of information technology; involvement in non-criminal court actions and associations; job title; work address; telephone number; email address; work history; employment history; fingerprints; scars, marks, tattoos; eye color; hair color; height; and weight. This system does not include records of Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) investigations. Such records are covered in a government-wide system notice by the Office of Personnel Management and are now the responsibility of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. For assistance contact the Department Privacy Act Officer, Office of Privacy and Open Government, 1401
Subject individuals; OPM, FBI and other Federal, state and local agencies; individuals and organizations that have pertinent knowledge about the subject; and, those authorized by the individual to furnish information.
1. In the event that a system of records maintained by the Department to carry out its functions indicates a violation or potential violation of law or contract, whether civil, criminal or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by general statute or particular program statute or contract, or rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto, or the necessity to protect an interest of the Department, the relevant records in the system of records may be referred, as a routine use, to the appropriate agency, whether federal, state, local or foreign, charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting such violation or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute or contract, or rule, regulation or order issued pursuant thereto, or protecting the interest of the Department.
2. A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to a federal, state or local agency maintaining civil, criminal or other relevant enforcement information or other pertinent information, such as current licenses, if necessary to obtain information relevant to a Department decision concerning the assignment, hiring or retention of an individual, the issuance of a security clearance, the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant or other benefit.
3. A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to a federal, state, local, or international agency, in response to its request, in connection with the assignment, hiring or retention of an individual, the issuance of a security clearance, the reporting of an investigation of an individual, the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant, or other benefit by the requesting agency, to the extent that the information is relevant and necessary to the requesting agency's decision on the matter.
4. A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, in the course of presenting evidence to a court, magistrate or administrative tribunal, including disclosures to opposing counsel in the course of settlement negotiations.
5. A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to a Member of Congress submitting a request involving an individual when the individual has requested assistance from the Member with respect to the subject matter of the record.
6. A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to the Department of Justice in connection with determining whether disclosure thereof is required by the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552).
7. A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to a contractor of the Department having need for the information in the performance of the contract, but not operating a system of records within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 552a(m).
8. A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to the National Archives and Records Administration or other federal government agencies pursuant to records management inspections being conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
9. A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to an agency, organization, or individual for the purpose of performing audit or oversight operations as authorized by law, but only such information as is necessary and relevant to such audit or oversight function.
10. A record in this system of records may be disclosed to appropriate agencies, entities and persons when: (1) It is suspected or determined that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised; (2) the Department has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by the Department or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Department's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
11. A record in this system of records may be disclosed to another Federal agency or Federal entity, when the Department determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
12. A record in this system of records may be disclosed to an individual's prospective or current employer to the extent necessary to determine employment eligibility.
13. A record in this system of records may be disclosed to third parties during the course of a law enforcement investigation to the extent necessary to obtain information pertinent to the investigation, provided disclosure is appropriate to the proper performance of the official duties of the officer making the disclosure.
14. A record in this system of records may be disclosed to a public or professional licensing organization when such information indicates, either by itself or in combination with other information, a violation or potential violation of professional standards, or reflects on the moral, educational, or professional qualifications of an individual who is licensed or who is seeking to become licensed.
Records in this system are stored electronically or on paper in secure facilities in a locked drawer behind a locked door. The records are stored on servers, magnetic disc, tape, digital media, and CD-ROM.
Records may generally be retrieved by individual's name, date of birth, social security number, if applicable, or other unique individual identifier.
When cases are closed, records are disposed of in accordance with General Records Schedule 3—Procurement, Supply, and Grant Records; General Records Schedule 9—Travel and Transportation Records; and General Records Schedule 18—Security and Protective Services Records.
Records in this system are safeguarded in accordance with applicable rules and policies, including all applicable Department automated systems security and access policies. Strict controls have been imposed to minimize risk of compromising the
An individual requesting access to records on himself or herself should send a signed, written inquiry to the same address as stated in the Notification Procedure section above. The request letter should be clearly marked, “PRIVACY ACT REQUEST.” The written inquiry must be signed and notarized or submitted with certification of identity under penalty of perjury. Requesters should specify the record contents being sought.
An individual requesting corrections or contesting information contained in his or her records must send a signed, written request inquiry to the same address as stated in the Notification Procedure section below. Requesters should reasonably identify the records, specify the information they are contesting and state the corrective action sought and the reasons for the correction with supporting justification showing how the record is incomplete, untimely, inaccurate, or irrelevant. The Department's rules for access, for contesting contents, and for appealing initial determination by the individual concerned appear in 15 CFR part 4, Appendix B.
An individual requesting notification of existence of records on himself or herself should send a signed, written inquiry to the Deputy Chief FOIA Officer and Department Privacy Act Officer, Room 52010, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.
For more information, visit:
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1), (k)(2) and (k)(5), all information and material in the record which meets the criteria of these subsections are exempted from the notice, access, and contest requirements under 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (H), and (I), and (f) of the agency regulations because of the necessity to exempt this information and material in order to accomplish the law enforcement function of the agency, to prevent disclosure of classified information as required by Executive Order 12065, to assure the protection of the President, to prevent subjects of investigation from frustrating the investigatory process, to prevent the disclosure of investigative techniques, to fulfill commitments made to protect the confidentiality of information, and to avoid endangering these sources and law enforcement personnel.
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Service.
Notice of a Modified System of Records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, Title 5 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) sections 552a(e)(4) and (11); and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-108, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Review, Reporting, and Publication under the Privacy Act,” the Department of Commerce (Department) is issuing notice of intent to amend the system of records under COMMERCE/NTIS-1, NTIS Business Systems, to update information concerning the location of the system of records, categories of records covered by the system, the authority for maintenance of the system, the policies and practices for retention, disposal, and safeguarding the system of records, the storage, the system manager and address, the notification procedures; and other minor administrative updates. Accordingly, the COMMERCE/NTIS-1, NTIS Business Systems notice is amended as below. We invite public comment on the system amendment announced in this publication.
To be considered, written comments must be submitted on or before March 14, 2018. The Department filed a report describing the modified system of records covered by this notice with the Chair of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, the Chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and the Deputy Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), on May 31, 2017. This modified system of records will become effective upon publication in the
Newly proposed routine uses 16 and 17 in the paragraph entitled “ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND PURPOSES OF SUCH USES” will become effective on March 29, 2018, unless the modified system of records notice needs to be changed as a result of public comment. If the modified system of records notice needs to be changed, the Department will publish a subsequent notice in the
Please address comments to: National Technical Information Service, Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act Officer, 5301 Shawnee Rd., Alexandria, VA 22312.
National Technical Information Service, Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act Officer, Mr. Wayne Strickland, 703-605-6543,
This update makes seven program-related changes. The first of seven proposed changes revises the name of the system from “Individuals interested in NTIS Publications, Shipped Order Addresses, Customer Account Records, and Subscriber Files” to “NTIS Business Systems.” The second of seven proposed changes revises the location of the system. The third proposed change updates the categories of records. The fourth change updates the authority for maintenance to reflect the addition of new systems. The fifth change updates the routine uses. The sixth change updates the system manager and address. The seventh change updates the policies and practices for the storage, retrievability, safeguards, and retention and disposal of the records in the system. Additionally, the amendment provides other minor administrative updates. The entire resulting system of records notice, as amended, appears below.
COMMERCE/NTIS-1; NTIS Business Systems.
None.
National Technical Information Service, 5301 Shawnee Rd, Alexandria, VA 22312.
System managers are the same as stated in the System Location section above.
15 U.S.C. 1151-57; 41 U.S.C. 104; 44 U.S.C. 3101; Pub. L. 113-67.
The National Technical Information Service (NTIS) business systems are the collection of systems and applications that are hosted on NTIS servers. These systems work together to allow NTIS to provide services to the general public; and as well as internal financial services for NTIS. Products and services sold through ntis.gov are processed by the NTIS business systems.
NTIS collects information from all individuals who order and/or purchase products and services from NTIS and all individuals who have requested that they be placed on the NTIS promotional mailing list to receive NTIS promotional literature.
All individuals who order and/or purchase products and services from NTIS and all individuals who have requested that they be placed on the NTIS promotional mailing list to receive NTIS promotional literature.
Name; address; telephone number; email address; nine-digit taxpayer identification number; state incorporation/registration number; items ordered; items sent; amount of purchases, date order received; date order mailed; NTIS deposit account or customer code number; total charge to date; whether account collectible or not; categories of publications ordered by each purchaser; when subscription expired; amount of deposit; certification status; uniform resource locator (URL), which is a web page address or location.
Subject individual of the record.
1. A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to NTIS sales agents; and to individuals, organizations, Federal agencies, and State and local governments contributing publications to NTIS for their market research and sales accounting purposes, through the mechanism of providing them the names and addresses of individuals (and others) who have purchased their publications.
2. A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to commercial contractors (debt collection agencies) for the purpose of collecting delinquent debts as authorized by the Debt Collection Act (31 U.S.C. 3718).
3. A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to Members of Congress per Section 203 of The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (Pub. L. 113-67).
4. In the event that a system or records maintained by the Department to carry out its functions indicates a violation or potential violation of law or contract, whether civil, criminal or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by general statute or particular program statute or contract, or rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto, or the necessity to protect an interest of the Department, the relevant records in the system of records may be referred, as a routine use, to the appropriate agency, whether Federal, state, local or foreign, charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting such violation or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute or contract, or rule, regulation or order issued pursuant thereto, or protecting the interest of the Department.
5. A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to a Federal, state or local agency maintaining civil, criminal or other relevant enforcement information or other pertinent information, such as current licenses, if necessary to obtain information relevant to a Department decision concerning the assignment, hiring or retention of an individual, the issuance of a security clearance, the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant or other benefit.
6. A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to a Federal, state, local, or international agency, in response to its request, in connection with the assignment, hiring or retention of an individual, the issuance of a security clearance, the reporting of an investigation of an individual, the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant, or other benefit by the requesting agency, to the extent that the information is relevant and necessary to the requesting agency's decision on the matter.
7. A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, in the course of presenting evidence to a court, magistrate or administrative tribunal, including disclosures to opposing counsel in the course of settlement negotiations.
8. A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to a Member of Congress submitting a request involving an individual when the individual has requested assistance from the Member with respect to the subject matter of the record.
9. A record in this system of records which contains medical information may be disclosed, as a routine use, to the medical advisor of any individual submitting a request for access to the record under the Act and 15 CFR part 4b if, in the sole judgment of the Department, disclosure could have an adverse effect upon the individual, under the provision of 5 U.S.C. 552a(f)(3) and implementing regulations at 15 CFR 4b.26.
10. A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to the Office of Management and Budget in connection with the review of private relief legislation as set forth in OMB Circular No. A-19 at any stage of the legislative coordination and clearance process as set forth in that Circular.
11. A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to the Department of Justice in connection with determining whether disclosure thereof is required by the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552).
12. A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to a contractor of the Department having need for the information in the performance of the contract, but not operating a system of records within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 552a(m).
13. A record in this system may be transferred, as a routine use, to the Office of Personnel Management: For personnel research purposes; as a data source for management information; for the production of summary descriptive statistics and analytical studies in support of the function for which the records are collected and maintained; or for related manpower studies.
14. A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to the Administrator, General Services Administration (GSA), or his
15. A record in this system of records may be disclosed to appropriate agencies, entities and persons when: (1) It is suspected or determined that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised; (2) the Department has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or whether systems or programs (whether maintained by the Department or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Department's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
16. A record in this system of records may be disclosed to another Federal agency or Federal entity, when the Department determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
17. A record in this system of records may be disclosed to student volunteers, individuals working under a personal services contract, and other workers who technically do not have the status of Federal employees, when they are performing work for the Department and/or its agencies, as authorized by law, as needed to perform their assigned Agency functions.
Records will be stored in a secure computerized system and on magnetic media; output data will be electronic. Paper records in file folders, film files, and magnetic media will be stored in a secure area within a locked drawer or cabinet. Source data sets containing personal identifiers will be maintained in a secure restricted-access IT environment.
a. Records maintained in electronic form are retrieved by the name of the customer and/or the NTIS deposit account or customer code number.
b. Records maintained in paper form are retrieved by the name of the customer and/or the NTIS deposit account or customer code number.
NTIS records retention schedules are currently in review.
Paper records and disks as stored in file cabinets on secured premises with access limited to personnel whose official duties require access. The electronic system operates at a FISMA Moderate security rating and is hosted in a Federal Government data center.
An individual requesting access to records on himself or herself should send a signed, written inquiry to the same address as stated in the Notification Procedure section above. The request letter should be clearly marked, “PRIVACY ACT REQUEST.” The written inquiry must be signed and notarized or submitted with certification of identity under penalty of perjury. Requesters should specify the record contents being sought.
An individual requesting corrections or contesting information contained in his or her records must send a signed, written request inquiry to the same address as stated in the Notification Procedure section above. Requesters should reasonable identify the records, specify the information they are contesting and state the corrective action sought and the reasons for the correction with supporting justification showing how the record is incomplete, untimely, inaccurate, or irrelevant.
The Department rules for access, for contesting contents and appealing initial determinations by the individual concerned appear in 15 CFR part 4b. Use the address in the Notification Procedures section.
An individual requesting notification of existence of records on himself or herself should send a signed, written inquiry to the following address: National Technical Information Service, Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act Officer, 5301 Shawnee Rd., Alexandria, VA 22312.
The request letter should be clearly marked, “PRIVACY ACT REQUEST.” The written inquiry must be signed and notarized or submitted with certification of identity under penalty of perjury. Requesters should reasonably specify the record contents being sought.
None.
Volkswagen Group of America Chattanooga Operations, LLC (Volkswagen), submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility in Chattanooga, Tennessee. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on January 30, 2018.
Volkswagen already has authority to produce passenger motor vehicles within Site 3 of FTZ 134. The current request would add foreign status components to the scope of authority. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), additional FTZ authority would be limited to the specific foreign-status components described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.
Production under FTZ procedures could exempt Volkswagen from customs
The components sourced from abroad include T-Piece/plastic pipes and stainless-steel flanges (duty rate ranges from 3.1 to 6.2%).
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 24, 2018.
A copy of the notification 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 Christopher Wedderburn at
Movado Group, Inc. (Movado) submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility in Moonachie, New Jersey. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on January 31, 2018.
Movado's facility is located within Subzone 49J. The facility is used for the assembling of parts and components into finished watches and clocks, as well as kitting activities involving watches and jewelry. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials and components and specific finished products described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.
Production under FTZ procedures could exempt Movado from customs duty payments on the foreign-status components used in export production. On its domestic sales, for the foreign-status components noted below, Movado would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to wrist watches, travel clocks, and electrically operated alarm clocks (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 27.8%). Movado would be able to avoid duty on foreign-status components which become scrap/waste. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign-status production equipment.
The components and materials sourced from abroad include: Rings for fingers of precious metal; earrings of precious metal; necklaces of precious metal; wrist bracelets of precious metal; jewelry of precious or semiprecious stones (natural, synthetic or reconstructed); imitation jewelry: Cuff links and studs; rings for fingers of base metal; earrings of base metal; necklaces of base metal; wrist bracelets of base metal; coins (other than gold), not being legal tender; key chains; watch movements, electrically operated and with mechanical displays only or devices for incorporating mechanical displays (complete/assembled); watch movements, electrically operated and with opto-electronic display only (complete/assembled); watch movements, electrically operated and with other than mechanical or opto-electronic display only (complete/assembled); watch movements, with automatic winding (complete/assembled); watch movements, other than electrically operated or with automatic winding (complete/assembled); watch movements (complete/unassembled or partly assembled); watch movements (incomplete/assembled); watch movements (rough movements); clock movements; watch cases, precious metal or of metal clad with precious metal; watch cases, of base metal, whether or not gold- or silver-plated; watch cases, other than precious metal or base metal; watch case parts: Crown tubes/gaskets; crystals; crystal gaskets; case back crystals; case backs; case back gaskets; case back screws; case tubes; bezels; gaskets; bezel screws; ring flanges; movement holders; watch straps/bands/bracelets, precious metal or of metal clads with precious metal; watch straps/bands/bracelets, base metal, whether or not gold- or silver-plated; watch straps/bands/bracelets, other than precious metal or base metal; springs, including hairsprings; dials; plates and bridges; other watches or clock parts: Bracelet decors; hands; crystals; pushers; crowns; bezels; case back screws; bezel screws; bracelet screws; case back gaskets; bezel gaskets; crystal gaskets; case tubes; movement holders; ring flanges; movement screws; deployment buckles; tongue buckles; clasps; jewelers' clasps; logo covers for bracelets; sizing link screws; pins; tubes; set case to bracelet attachments; and, silver oxide and lithium batteries (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 13.5%). The request indicates that lithium-ion batteries will be admitted to the zone in privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41), thereby precluding inverted tariff benefits on such items.
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 26, 2018.
A copy of the notification 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 Christopher Wedderburn at
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that Agir Haddecilik A.S. (Agir) did not make sales of subject merchandise at prices below normal value during the period of review (POR) May 1, 2016, through April 30, 2017.
Applicable February 12, 2018.
Jonathan Hill, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3518.
This administrative review covers nine exporters of the subject merchandise, including the sole mandatory respondent,
The merchandise covered by the antidumping order is certain welded carbon quality light-walled steel pipe and tube, of rectangular (including square) cross section, having a wall thickness of less than 4 millimeters. The merchandise subject to the order is classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States at subheadings 7306.61.50.00 and 7306.61.70.60. For a full description of the scope of the order,
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Export price is calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Normal value is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
On August 2, 2017, Atlas Tube and Searing Industries (collectively, the petitioners) timely withdrew their request for an administrative review of each of the companies for which they had requested a review, except for Agir. On September 7, 2017, Noksel timely withdrew its request for an administrative review of itself. No other parties requested a review of the companies for which the petitioners and Noksel timely withdrew their review requests. 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. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce is rescinding this review of the AD order on LWRPT from Turkey with respect to Toscelik Profil ve Sac Endustrisi A.S., Toscelik Metal Ticaret A.S., Tosyali Dis Ticaret A.S., Noksel Celik Boru Sanayi A.S., Yucel Boru ve Profil Endustrisi A.S., Yucelboru Ihracat Ithalat ve Pazarlama A.S., Cayirova Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S., and CINAR Boru Profil Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S.
The Department preliminarily determines the weighted-average dumping margin for Agir for the period May 1, 2016, through April 30, 2017, as follows:
Upon issuance of the final results, Commerce will determine, and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). We will calculate importer-specific assessment rates equal to the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for examined sales with a particular importer to the total entered value of the sales in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Where the respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is zero or
For entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by the respondent for which it did not know that its merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.
We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of LWRPT from Turkey entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the notice of the final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Agir will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or
Commerce intends to disclose the calculations used in our analysis to interested parties in this review within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results of this review. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of the publication of this notice in the
We intend to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of issues raised by the parties in the written comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results in the
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
These preliminary results of administrative review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1).
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.
Notice of open meeting.
The National Construction Safety Team (NCST) Advisory Committee (Committee) will meet in person and via teleconference on Tuesday, February 20, 2018 from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The primary purpose of this meeting is to update the Committee on the progress of the implementation of the recommendations made as a result of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Technical Investigation of the May 22, 2011, Tornado in Joplin, Missouri and provide the Committee with an overview of the ongoing work related to the recent reconnaissance teams deployed to Texas, Florida, Puerto Rico and California. The agenda may change to accommodate Committee business. The final agenda will be posted on the NIST website at
The NCST Advisory Committee will meet on Tuesday, February 20, 2018 from 1:00 p.m. until 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The meeting will be open to the public.
The meeting will be held via teleconference and in Conference Room B205 of Building 226, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899. For instructions on how to attend and participate in the meeting, please see the
Benjamin Davis, Management and Program Analyst, Community Resilience Program, Engineering Laboratory, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8615, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-8604. Mr. Davis' email address is
The Committee was established pursuant to
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App., notice is hereby given that the NCST Advisory Committee will meet on Tuesday, February 20, 2018 from 1:00 p.m. until 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The meeting will be open to the public. The meeting will be held via teleconference and in Conference Room B205 of Building 226, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899. The primary purpose of this meeting is to update the Committee on the progress of the implementation of the recommendations made as a result of the Technical Investigation of the May 22, 2011, Tornado in Joplin, Missouri and provide the Committee with an overview of the ongoing work related to the recent reconnaissance teams deployed to Texas, Florida, Puerto Rico and California. The agenda may change to accommodate Committee business. The final agenda will be posted on the NIST website at
Individuals and representatives of organizations who would like to offer comments and suggestions related to items on the Committee's agenda for this meeting are invited to request a place on the agenda. Approximately twenty-five minutes will be reserved near the conclusion of the meeting for public comments, and speaking times will be assigned on a first-come, first-served basis. The amount of time per speaker will be determined by the number of requests received, but is likely to be three minutes each. Questions from the public will not be considered during this period. All those wishing to speak must submit their request by email to the attention of Mr. Benjamin Davis,
To participate in the teleconference, please submit your first and last name, email address, and phone number to Benjamin Davis at
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.
Notice; request for comments.
The Chief of the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) may terminate a specific Laboratory Accreditation Program (LAP) when it is determined that a need no longer exists to accredit laboratories for the services covered under the scope of the LAP. The Chemical Calibration: Certifiers of Spectrophotometric NIST Traceable Reference Materials (NTRMs) Program is comprised of laboratories that design, prepare, characterize, certify and distribute NTRM filter reference materials. Based on a lack of participation, the Chief of NVLAP has preliminarily determined that a need no longer exists to accredit laboratories for the services covered under the scope of this program and is proposing termination of the LAP. NIST is requesting written comment on the proposed termination.
Comments on the proposed termination must be received no later than April 13, 2018.
Comments on the proposed terminations must be submitted to: Chief, National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 2140, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2140, or by email at
Dana Leaman, Chief, National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program, (301) 975-4016 or
NIST administers NVLAP under regulations found in 15 CFR part 285. NVLAP provides an unbiased third-party evaluation and recognition of laboratory performance, as well as expert technical assistance to upgrade that performance, by accrediting calibration and testing laboratories found competent to perform specific calibrations or tests. NVLAP is comprised of a set of LAPS which are established on the basis of requests and demonstrated need. Each LAP includes specific test and/or calibration standards and related methods and protocols assembled to satisfy the unique needs for accreditation in the field of testing, field of calibration, product, or service.
Under 15 CFR 285.5, the Chief of NVLAP may terminate a specific LAP when it is determined that a need no longer exists to accredit laboratories for the services covered under the scope of the LAP. The Chemical Calibration: Certifiers of Spectrophotometric NTRMs Program is comprised of laboratories that design, prepare, characterize, certify and distribute NTRM filter reference materials. A review of the Chemical Calibration: Certifiers of
After the comment period, the Chief of NVLAP shall determine if there is public support for the continuation of the LAP. If public comments support the continuation of the LAP, the Chief of NVLAP shall publish a
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Pacific Council) Groundfish Management Team (GMT) will hold two webinars that are open to the public.
The GMT webinars will be held Wednesday, February 28, 2018, from 1:30 p.m. until 4:30 p.m. and Friday, March 30, 2018, from 8:30 a.m. to 12 p.m. Webinar end times are estimates, meetings will adjourn when business for each day is completed.
The following login instructions will work for any of the webinars in this series. To attend the webinar (1) join the meeting by visiting this link
Mr. John DeVore, Pacific Council, (503) 820-2413.
The primary purpose of the GMT webinars are to prepare for the March and April 2018 Pacific Council meetings. A detailed agenda for each webinar will be available on the Pacific Council's website prior to the meeting. The GMT may also address other assignments relating to groundfish management. No management actions will be decided by the GMT. The GMT's task will be to develop recommendations for consideration by the Pacific Council at its meetings in 2018.
Although nonemergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
The public listening station is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt at (503) 820-2411 at least 10 business days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of meetings of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council's Citizen Science Advisory Panel Action Teams via webinar.
The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold meetings of the following Citizen Science Advisory Panel Action Teams via webinar: Communication/Outreach/Education; Volunteers; Projects/Topics Management; and Data Management.
The Communication/Outreach/Education Team will be held on Tuesday, February 27, 2018 at 1 p.m.; Volunteers Team meeting will be held on Tuesday, February 27, 2018 at 3 p.m.; Projects/Topics Management Team meeting will be held on Wednesday, February 28, 2018 at 10 a.m.; and Data Management Team on Wednesday, February 28, 2018 at 2 p.m. Each meeting is scheduled to last approximately 90 minutes. Additional Action Team webinar and plenary webinar dates and times will publish in a subsequent issue in the
Amber Von Harten, Citizen Science Program Manager, SAFMC; phone: (843)
The Council created a Citizen Science Advisory Panel Pool in June 2017. The Council appointed members of the Citizen Science Advisory Panel Pool to five Action Teams in the areas of
Each Action Team will meet to continue work on developing recommendations on program policies and operations to be reviewed by the Council's Citizen Science Committee. Public comment will be accepted at the beginning of each webinar meeting. Items to be addressed during these meetings:
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the council office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of SEDAR 56 Assessment webinar for South Atlantic Black Seabass.
The SEDAR 56 assessment of the South Atlantic stock of Black Seabass will consist of a series webinars. See
A SEDAR 56 Assessment webinar will be held on Thursday, February 22, 2018, from 9 a.m. until 1 p.m.
Julia Byrd, SEDAR Coordinator, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405; phone: (843) 571-4366; email:
The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions, have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. The product of the SEDAR webinar series will be a report which compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses, and describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Participants include: data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs); international experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and federal agencies.
The items of discussion in the Assessment webinar are as follows:
1. Participants will continue discussions to develop population models to evaluate stock status, estimate population benchmarks, and project future conditions, as specified in the Terms of Reference.
2. Participants will recommend the most appropriate methods and configurations for determining stock status and estimating population parameters.
3. Participants will prepare a workshop report and determine whether the assessment(s) are adequate for submission for review.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the SAFMC office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of meetings of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council.
The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold meetings of the: Personnel Committee (Closed Session); Advisory Panel Selection Committee (Close Session); Citizen Science Committee; Spiny Lobster Committee; Joint Habitat Protection and Ecosystem-Based Management/Shrimp/and Golden Crab
The Council meeting will be held from 8 a.m. on Monday, March 5, 2018 until 1 p.m. on Friday, March 9, 2018.
Kim Iverson, Public Information Officer, SAFMC; phone: (843) 571-4366 or toll free (866) SAFMC-10; fax: (843) 769-4520; email:
The items of discussion in the individual meeting agendas are as follows:
1. The Personnel Committee will meet in Closed Session to discuss personnel issues and provide recommendations for Council consideration.
1. The Committee will receive a review of the composition of the System Management Plan Workgroup, review applications and make recommendations as appropriate.
2. The Committee will receive an overview of open advisory panel seats, review applications/reapplications and provide recommendations as appropriate.
1. The Committee will review formal recommendations from the Citizen Science Action Teams, discuss, and adopt as appropriate.
1. The Committee will receive an update on the status of catches versus annual catch limit (ACLs) and the status of amendments under formal review.
2. The Committee will review public scoping comments on options for Spiny Lobster Amendment 13 addressing bullynets and measures recommended by the Florid Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). The Committee will approve actions and alternatives to be analysed and provide guidance to staff.
1. The Committees will receive an overview of the Fishery Ecosystem Plan II and Implementation plan, review and approve.
2. The Committees will receive an update on habitat and ecosystem tools and model development, review and approve actions on habitat as appropriate.
3. The Committees will receive an overview on Allowable Fishing Areas, discuss and provide guidance to staff as needed.
1. The Committee will receive updates from NOAA Fisheries on commercial catches versus quotas for species under ACLs and the status of amendments under formal Secretarial review.
2. The Committee will receive an overview of draft Amendment 46 addressing measures for recreational reporting and best fishing practices and provide guidance to staff.
3. The Committee will receive an overview of the Vision Blueprint Regulatory Amendment 26 addressing recreational management actions and alternatives as identified in the 2016-2020 Vision Blueprint for the Snapper Grouper Fishery Management Plan. The Committee will modify the document as necessary and approve for public hearings.
4. The Committee will receive an overview on improving recreational estimates, discuss and provide direction to staff. The Committee will also receive a presentation on findings from the final report: Socio-economic Profile of the South Atlantic Snapper Grouper Commercial Fishery, review and provide comment.
5. The Committee will receive an overview of Vision Blueprint Regulatory Amendment 27 addressing commercial management actions and alternatives, as identified in the 2016-20 Vision Blueprint for the Snapper Grouper Fishery. The Committee will modify the document as necessary, and approve for public hearings.
6. The Committee will receive an overview of options for a Snapper Grouper For-Hire Moratorium, discuss, and provide guidance to staff.
7. The Committee will receive an overview of a rebuilding plan for red grouper, review, and provide guidance to staff.
8. The Committee will receive an overview of draft Snapper Grouper Regulatory Amendment 28 addressing golden tilefish management, provide guidance to staff, and approve for public hearings.
9. The Committee will receive an update on the Wreckfish Individual Transferable Quota (ITQ) Review and provide guidance to staff.
10. The Committee will discuss potential management options for yellowtail snapper (
11. The Committee will receive an overview of guidance established in the
1. The Committee will receive an update on stock assessment projects, receive an overview of the Council's SEDAR Committee function and purpose and discuss, and discuss the SEDAR Steering Committee's upcoming meeting and provide guidance to staff as appropriate.
1. The Committee of the Whole will receive an overview of the ABC Control Rule Amendment, discuss and provide guidance to staff.
2. The Committee of the Whole will receive an overview of Accountability Measures, discuss, and provide guidance to staff.
1. The Committee will receive an update on commercial catches versus ACLs and an update from state representatives on king mackerel tournament sales versus commercial ACLs.
2. The Committee will receive an update on state actions for the Interstate Atlantic Cobia Management Plan from the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC).
3. The Committee will receive a summary of public comments for Coastal Migratory Pelagics Amendment 31 addressing proposed management measures for Atlantic cobia, review the decision document, and consider approving the amendment for formal Secretarial review.
4. The Committee will receive an overview of Coastal Migratory Pelagics Framework Amendment 6 addressing Atlantic king mackerel trip limits, discuss, and provide guidance to staff.
1. The Committee will receive an overview of changes proposed to the SOPPs and Council Handbook, discuss, and provide direction to staff as appropriate.
1. The Committee will receive an overview of the current Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization efforts, discuss, and provide guidance to staff.
2. The Committee will receive an overview of the draft Calendar Year 2018 budget, discuss, and provide guidance to staff.
3. The Committee will receive an overview of regulatory reform efforts, Atlantic Coast-Wide Group discussion, and Council Training/Webinars, discuss, and provide guidance to staff.
The Full Council will begin with the Call to Order, adoption of the agenda, approval of minutes, announcements and introductions, and presentations.
The Council will receive a Legal Briefing on Litigation from NOAA General Counsel (if needed) during Closed Session. The Council will receive staff reports including the Executive Director's Report, a report on the Economic Impact of Fisheries for Council Managed Species, and an update on the Electronic Reporting Outreach Project. Updates will be provided by NOAA Fisheries including a presentation on the Southeast For-Hire Integrated Electronic Reporting, status of the For-Hire Amendment, a report on the status of commercial catches versus ACLs for species not covered during an earlier committee meeting, a protected resources update, and discuss other issues as necessary. The Council will also receive a presentation on the Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) Effort Survey Transition and Estimates Calibration and a presentation on the Status of Electronic Commercial Logbook Voluntary Reporting.
The Council will review any Exempted Fishing Permits received by NOAA Fisheries as necessary. The Council will receive Committee reports from the Snapper Grouper, Mackerel Cobia, Spiny Lobster, AP Selection, SEDAR, ABC Control Rule Committee of the Whole, Citizen Science, Joint Habitat and Ecosystem-Based Management/Shrimp/Golden Crab, SOPPs, and Executive Finance Committees, and take action as appropriate.
The Council will receive agency and liaison reports; and discuss other business and upcoming meetings.
Documents regarding these issues are available from the Council office (see
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before these groups for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of workshop.
We, NMFS, are convening a workshop to present the Southern Distinct Population Segment of Green Sturgeon (
The workshop will be held on Monday, March 5, 2018, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the National Marine Fisheries Service, 5-100, 650 Capitol Mall, Sacramento, CA 95814.
Joe Heublein, NMFS Green Sturgeon Recovery Coordinator, at (916) 930-3719 or
On April 7, 2006, we, NMFS, listed the southern distinct population segment (sDPS) of the North America green sturgeon (
On March 5, 2018, NMFS will hold a public workshop at the NMFS office in Sacramento, CA to present the Plan. We invite any interested member of the public to attend. NMFS will present the details of the Plan and provide a time-limited question and answer period during which attendees may ask NMFS about the information presented. NMFS will provide a moderator to manage the workshop as well as a notetaker to document input received.
This workshop will be open to the public. If you plan to attend the workshop, please contact Joe Heublein at the address listed above by February 26, 2018, so we can ensure sufficient space for all participants. Please also plan to arrive at the workshop at least 30 minutes prior to the start time to allow time to clear the security screening checkpoint. The workshop is accessible to persons with disabilities. Send requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids at least five business days in advance to Joe Heublein at (916) 930-3719.
16 U.S.C. 1531
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of SEDAR 52 Assessment webinar II for Gulf of Mexico red snapper.
The SEDAR 52 assessment process of Gulf of Mexico red snapper will consist of an in-person workshop and a series of assessment webinars. See
The SEDAR 52 Assessment webinar II will be held March 6, 2018, from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. Eastern Time.
Julie A. Neer, SEDAR Coordinator; phone: (843) 571-4366; email:
The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a multi-step process including: (1) Data Workshop, (2) a series of assessment webinars, and (3) A Review Workshop. The product of the Data Workshop is a report that compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses. The assessment webinars produce a report that describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. The product of the Review Workshop is an Assessment Summary documenting panel opinions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the stock assessment and input data. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, HMS Management Division, and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Participants include data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, and NGO's; International experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and federal agencies.
The items of discussion during the Assessment webinar II are as follows:
1. Using datasets and initial assessment analysis recommended from the in-person Workshop, panelists will employ assessment models to evaluate stock status, estimate population benchmarks and management criteria, and project future conditions.
2. Participants will recommend the most appropriate methods and configurations for determining stock status and estimating population parameters.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The Caribbean Fishery Management Council's (Council) Outreach and Education Advisory Panel (OEAP) will hold a 2-day meeting in March 8-9, 2018, to discuss items contained in the agenda in the
The meeting will be held on March 8 and 9, 2018, starting at 10 a.m. until 4 p.m. each day.
The meeting will be held at the Council Office, 270 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 401, San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 270 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 401, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918-1903, telephone: (787) 766-5926.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. For more information or request for sign language interpretation and other auxiliary aids, please contact Mr. Miguel A. Rolón, Executive Director, Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 270 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 401, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918-1903, telephone: (787) 766-5926, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a webinar-based meeting with the public for the purpose of providing instruction to for-hire operators on electronic reporting of vessel trip reports (VTRs).
This meeting will be held Friday, March 2, 2018, from 10 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
The meeting will be held via webinar (
Andrew Loftus, eVTR Outreach Workshop Coordinator; telephone: (410) 295-5997; email
NOAA Fisheries has issued a final rule requiring the use of electronic vessel trip reports (VTRs) by vessel owners/operators holding Federal charter or party permits for species managed by a Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council FMP while on trips carrying passengers for hire. Electronic VTRs must be submitted through a NOAA-approved software application within 48 hours following the completion of a fishing trip. Vessels with Federal charter or party permits for any of the following species will be bound by this rule:
This action takes effect March 12, 2018, and changes only the required method of transmitting VTRs and the submission date; the required data elements and all other existing reporting requirements will not change. This webinar meeting will provide information on the new requirements and options to assist affected parties to comply and training on select systems in preparation for this action.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting and hearing.
The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a meeting of its American Samoa Archipelago Ecosystem Plan (FEP) Advisory Panels (AP) to discuss and make recommendations on fishery management issues in the Western Pacific Region.
The American Samoa Archipelago FEP AP will meet on Thursday, March 1, 2018, between 4:30 p.m. and 6 p.m. All times listed are local island times. For specific times and agendas, see
The American Samoa Archipelago FEP AP will meet at the Pacific Petroleum Conference Room, Utulei Village, American Samoa, 96799.
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
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice of a new system of records.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC or Commission) is establishing a new system of records under the Privacy Act of 1974: CFTC-51, Contractors and Consultants. New CFTC-51 addresses information collected from individuals who serve as contractors and consultants to CFTC.
Comments must be received on or before March 14, 2018. This action will be effective without further notice on March 14, 2018, unless revised pursuant to comments received.
You may submit comments to this notice by any of the following methods:
• Agency website, via its Comments Online process:
•
•
•
Please submit your comments using only one method.
All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to
The Commission reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse, or remove any or all of a submission from
Chief Privacy Officer,
The Contractors and Consultant records system contains information about individuals who have contracted with the CFTC to provide various supplies and services. Collection of this information is necessary to accurately document, award, and manage procurement actions, including ensuring that contractors and consultants are compensated for goods delivered or services performed and to track and manage the fulfillment of such contractual obligations.
Under the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, a “system of records” is
Each government agency is required to publish a notice in the
Contractors and Consultants; CFTC-51.
Unclassified.
This system is located at Department of Transportation Enterprise Service Center (ESC) in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW, Washington, DC 20581.
Office of Executive Director (OED), Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW, Washington, DC 20581.
The collection of this information is authorized by or under 5 U.S.C. 301; Executive Order 9373; the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 405).
The information in the system is being collected to maintain records on CFTC contractors and consultants. Collection of this information is necessary (1) to accurately document, award, and manage procurement actions, including ensuring that contractors and consultants are compensated for goods delivered or services performed, and (2) to track and manage the fulfillment of such contractual obligations from requirements gathering to contract closeout, workload management, and reporting.
Individuals covered by this system include individuals who serve as contractors or consultants to CFTC.
The system of records includes information that may contain: Individual's name, Social Security number, home address, telephone numbers (work, home, mobile), email addresses, contract name and number, employer, work address, job title, labor category, relevant work experience, resumes, CFTC-issued property in the possession of the contractor/consultant for the purpose of fulfilling contractual requirements, correspondence between the contractor and CFTC, status reports, proposals, invoices, financial account and banking information, and other pre- and post-award documents.
Information in this system is obtained directly from the individual who is the subject of these records or from designated third parties, for example, the employer of the individual contractor or consultant.
These records and information in these records may be used:
(a) To disclose information to contractors, grantees, volunteers, experts, students, and others performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or job for the Federal government when necessary to accomplish an agency function;
(b) To disclose information to Congress upon its request, acting within the scope of its jurisdiction, pursuant to the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. 1
(c) To disclose information to Federal, State, local, territorial, Tribal, or foreign agencies for use in meeting their statutory or regulatory requirements;
(d) To disclose to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) the Commission suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records; (2) the Commission has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, the Commission (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Commission's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm; or
(e) To disclose to another Federal agency or Federal entity, when the Commission determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
The Contractor and Consultant system of records stores records in this system electronically or on paper in secure facilities. Electronic records are stored on DOT's secure ESC servers or on the Commission's secure network and other electronic media as needed, such as encrypted hard drives and back-up media. Paper records are stored in secured facilities.
Certain information covered by this system of records notice may be retrieved by contract name, contract number, name, email address, physical address, or other unique individual identifiers, and other types of information by keyword search.
Records for this system will be maintained in accordance with the retention periods in the dispositions schedules approved by the National Archives. All approved schedules are available at
Records are protected from unauthorized access and improper use through administrative, technical, and physical security measures. Administrative safeguards include agency- and system-specific Rules of Behavior, agency-wide procedures for safeguarding personally identifiable information, and required annual privacy and security training. Technical security measures within CFTC include restrictions on computer access to authorized individuals who have a legitimate need-to-know the information; required use of strong
Individuals seeking to determine whether this system of records contains information about themselves or seeking access to records about themselves in this system of records should address written inquiries to the Office of General Counsel, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW, Washington, DC 20581. See 17 CFR 146.3 for full details on what to include in Privacy Act access request.
Individuals contesting the content of records about themselves contained in this system of records should address written inquiries to the Office of General Counsel, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW, Washington, DC 20581. See 17 CFR 146.8 for full details on what to include in a Privacy Act amendment request.
Individuals seeking notification of any records about themselves contained in this system of records should address written inquiries to the Office of General Counsel, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW, Washington, DC 20581. See 17 CFR 146.3 for full details on what to include in a Privacy Act notification request.
None.
None.
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Notice and request for information.
The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) is seeking comments and information from interested parties to assist the Bureau in assessing the overall efficiency and effectiveness of its processes related to the enforcement of Federal consumer financial law, and, consistent with the law, considering whether any changes to these processes would be appropriate.
Comments must be received by April 13, 2018.
You may submit responsive information and other comments, identified by Docket No. CFPB-2018-0003, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For general inquiries and submission process questions, please call Mark Samburg, Counsel, at (202) 435-9710.
In the course of its enforcement work, and as authorized by 12 U.S.C. 5561-5565 and further governed by 12 CFR parts 1080 and 1081, the Bureau may investigate whether any person is or has been engaged in any conduct that is a violation of Federal consumer financial law. These investigations may include requiring witnesses to give oral testimony. The Bureau is also authorized to commence legal proceedings for alleged violations of federal consumer financial law through either administrative adjudication proceedings or civil actions in federal district court. Regardless of forum, in these actions and proceedings the Bureau may seek appropriate legal and equitable relief as permitted by law, including appropriate civil money penalties. The Bureau is, as described below, issuing this request for information seeking public comment on how best to achieve meaningful burden reduction or other improvement to the processes used by the Bureau to enforce Federal consumer financial law (enforcement processes) while continuing to meet the Bureau's statutory objectives and ensuring a fair and transparent process for parties subject to enforcement authority.
The Bureau is using this request for information to seek public input regarding its enforcement processes. The Bureau encourages comments from all interested members of the public. The Bureau anticipates that the responding public may include entities that have been subject to Bureau enforcement actions or similar actions from other agencies, members of the bar who represent these entities, individual consumers, consumer advocates, regulators, and researchers, or members of academia.
To allow the Bureau to evaluate suggestions more effectively, the Bureau
• Specific suggestions regarding any potential updates or modifications to the Bureau's enforcement processes, consistent with the Bureau's statutory objectives, and including, in as much detail as possible, the potential update or modification, supporting data or other information on impacts and costs, or information concerning alignment with the processes of other agencies; and
• Specific identification of any aspects of the Bureau's enforcement processes that should not be modified, consistent with the Bureau's statutory objectives, and including supporting data or other information on impacts and costs, or information concerning alignment with the processes of other agencies.
The following list of general areas represents a preliminary attempt by the Bureau to identify elements of its enforcement processes that may be deserving of more immediate focus. This non-exhaustive list is meant to assist in the formulation of comments and is not intended to restrict the issues that may be addressed. In addressing these topics or others, the Bureau requests that commenters identify with specificity the Bureau regulations or practices at issue, providing legal citations where appropriate and available. Please feel free to comment on some or all of the topics below, but please be sure to indicate on which area you are commenting. To provide comments specifically on the Bureau's Civil Investigative Demand (CID) processes, please respond to the specific Request for Information on that topic, Docket No. 2018-CFPB-0001, 83 FR 3686 (Jan. 26, 2018). To provide comments specifically on the Bureau's rules of practice for adjudication proceedings, please respond to the specific Request for Information on that topic, Docket No. 2018-CFPB-0002, 83 FR 5055 (Feb. 5, 2018).
The Bureau is seeking feedback on all aspects of its enforcement processes, including but not limited to:
1. Communication between the Bureau and the subjects of investigations, including the timing and frequency of those communications, and information provided by the Bureau on the status of its investigation;
2. The length of Bureau investigations;
3. The Bureau's Notice and Opportunity to Respond and Advise process, including:
a. CFPB Bulletin 2011-04, Notice and Opportunity to Respond and Advise (NORA), issued November 7, 2011 (updated January 18, 2012) and available at
b. The information contained in the letters that the Bureau may send to subjects of potential enforcement actions pursuant to the NORA process, as exemplified by the sample letter available at
4. Whether the Bureau should afford subjects of potential enforcement actions the right to make an in-person presentation to Bureau personnel prior to the Bureau determining whether it should initiate legal proceedings;
5. The calculation of civil money penalties, consistent with the penalty amounts and mitigating factors set out in 12 U.S.C. 5565(c), including whether the Bureau should adopt a civil money penalty matrix, and, if it does adopt such a matrix, what that matrix should include;
6. The standard provisions in Bureau consent orders, including conduct, compliance, monetary relief, and administrative provisions; and
7. The manner and extent to which the Bureau can and should coordinate its enforcement activity with other Federal and/or State agencies that may have overlapping jurisdiction.
12 U.S.C. 5511(c).
United States Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense.
Notice withdrawl.
The previous Air Force Scientific Advisory
The Scientific Advisory Board Secretariat Deputy Director and Designated Federal Officer, Evan Buschmann at
Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, Department of Defense.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Defense Science Board (DSB) will take place.
Closed to the public Thursday, February 8, 2018 from 8:25 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
The address of the closed meeting is the SECDEF Cables conference room 3D921 at the Pentagon, Washington, DC.
Defense Science Board Designated Federal Officer (DFO) Mr. Edward C. Gliot, (703) 571-0079 (Voice), (703) 697-1860 (Facsimile),
Due to circumstances beyond the control of the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Designated Federal Officer, the Defense Science Board was unable to provide public notification required by 41 CFR 102-3.150(a) concerning the meeting on February 8, 2018, of the Defense Science Board. Accordingly, the Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150(b), waives the 15-calendar day notification requirement.
This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.140 and 102-3.150.
National Assessment Governing Board, U.S. Department of Education.
Announcement of open and closed meetings.
This notice sets forth the agenda for the March 1-3, 2018 Quarterly Board Meeting of the National Assessment Governing Board (hereafter referred to as Governing Board). This notice provides information to members of the public who may be interested in attending the meeting or providing written comments related to the work of the Governing Board. Notice of this meeting is required under § 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).
The Quarterly Board Meeting will be held on the following dates:
• March 1, 2018 from 11:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
• March 2, 2018 from 8:30 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.
• March 3, 2018 from 7:30 a.m. to 11:45 a.m.
Watergate Hotel, 2650 Virginia Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20037.
Munira Mwalimu, Executive Officer/Designated Federal Official for the Governing Board, 800 North Capitol Street NW, Suite 825, Washington, DC 20002, telephone: (202) 357-6938, fax: (202) 357-6945, email:
The Governing Board is established to formulate policy for the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The Governing Board's
The Governing Board's standing committees will meet to conduct regularly scheduled work based on agenda items planned for this Quarterly Board Meeting and follow-up items as reported in the Governing Board's committee meeting minutes available at
On Thursday, March 1, 2018, the Ad Hoc Committee on Measures of Postsecondary Preparedness will meet in open session from 11:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. Thereafter, the ADC will meet in open session from 1:45 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. and in closed session from 3:00 p.m. to 3:45 p.m. to review secure cognitive items for the NAEP Reading Assessment at grades 4 and 8. This meeting must be conducted in closed session because the test items and data are secure and have not been released to the public. Public disclosure of the secure test items would significantly impede implementation of the NAEP assessment program if conducted in open session. Such matters are protected by exemption 9(B) of § 552b(c) of Title 5 of the United States Code.
On Thursday, March 1, 2018, the Executive Committee will convene in open session from 4:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
On Friday, March 2, 2018, the Governing Board will meet in open session from 8:30 a.m. to 9:45 a.m. From 8:30 a.m. to 8:45 a.m., the Governing Board will review and approve the March 2-3, 2018 Governing Board meeting agenda and meeting minutes from the November 2017 Quarterly Board Meeting. Thereafter, from 8:45 a.m. to 9:45 a.m. the Governing Board will receive briefings from the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and the CCSSO Governing Board State Policy Task Force.
At 9:45 a.m., the Governing Board will recess for a 15 minute break and reconvene for standing committee meetings in open session which will take place from 10:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. Following the committee meetings, from 12:30 p.m. to 12:45 p.m., the Governing Board will take a 15 minute break and meet in closed session from 12:45 p.m. to 5:15 p.m.
From 12:45 p.m. to 4:15 p.m., the Board will receive a briefing and discuss the 2017 NAEP Grades 4 and 8 Reading and Mathematics Report Cards. The closed session briefing will take place from 12:45 p.m. to 2:15 p.m., following which the Board will meet in breakout sessions to discuss the results from 2:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. The Governing Board will reconvene in plenary session from 3:45 p.m. to 4:15 p.m. to report out on the discussions. These sessions of the Governing Board meeting must be conducted in closed session because data for the 2017 NAEP Grades 4 and 8 in Reading and Mathematics have not been released to the public. Public disclosure of secure data would significantly impede implementation of the NAEP assessment program if conducted in open session. Such matters are protected by exemption 9(B) of § 552b of Title 5 U.S.C.
From 4:15 p.m.-5:15 p.m., the Governing Board will remain in closed session to receive a briefing on the Grade 4 NAEP Writing Assessment and Achievement Levels. This session of the meeting must be conducted in closed session because items and data for the Grade 4 writing assessment have not been released to the public. Public disclosure of secure data would significantly impede implementation of the NAEP assessment program if conducted in open session. Such matters are protected by exemption 9(B) of § 552b of Title 5 U.S.C. The March 2, 2018 session will adjourn at 5:15 p.m.
On March 3, 2018, the Nominations Committee will meet in closed session from 7:30 a.m. to 8:15 a.m. The Committee will discuss nominees for Governing Board vacancies for terms beginning October 1, 2018. The Nominations Committee's discussions pertain solely to internal personnel rules and practices of an agency and information of a personal nature where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. As such, the discussions are protected by exemptions 2 and 6 of § 552b(c) of Title 5 of the United States Code.
On Saturday, March 3, 2018, the Governing Board will meet in closed session from 8:30 a.m. to 8:50 a.m. to receive a briefing from the Nominations Committee on the recommended slate of candidates for Board terms beginning October 1, 2018. The Nominations Committee's discussions pertain solely to internal personnel rules and practices of an agency and information of a personal nature where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. As such, the discussions are protected by exemptions 2 and 6 of § 552b(c) of Title 5 of the United States Code.
From 8:50 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. the Governing Board will convene in open session to take action on finalists for Board member vacancies for terms that begin on October 1, 2018 and approve recommended candidates for submission to the Secretary of Education.
From 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. the Governing Board will discuss assessment efficiencies in NAEP. Following this session and a 15 minute break, the Board will take action on NAEP Assessment Schedule Priorities. This discussion relates to Strategic Vision #9, which is to develop policy approaches to revise the NAEP assessment subjects and schedule.
The Governing Board will receive reports from its standing committees from 10:45 a.m. to 11:15 a.m. and thereafter take action on the NAEP Framework Development Policy from 11:15 a.m. to 11:45 a.m. This action is pursuant to the Governing Board's Strategic Vision #5, which is to develop new approaches to update NAEP subject area frameworks.
The March 3, 2018 meeting will adjourn at 11:45 a.m.
Pub. L. 107-279, Title III—National Assessment of Educational Progress § 301.
Office of the Deputy Secretary, Department of Education.
Notice.
As part of a broader effort to reduce barriers for applicants seeking funds under a Department of Education (Department) discretionary grant competition, the Department is issuing a common set of instructions for applicants. It will be referenced in individual notices inviting applications (NIAs). The common instructions will ensure consistency, reduce burden on Department staff, and improve the Department's ability to provide potential applicants with timely information about Department programs and competitions.
Levon Schlichter, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 6E235, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 453-6387 or by email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll-free, at 1-800-877-8339.
1.
To obtain a copy via the Department's website, use the following address:
2.
3.
Submit applications for grants under the program electronically using
We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.
Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact a person listed in the
4.
a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);
b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the System for Award Management (
c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and
d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.
You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet at the following website:
If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the IRS or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow two to five weeks for your TIN to become active.
The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the completeness and accuracy of the data you enter into the
Once your
If you are currently registered with
Information about SAM is available at
In addition, in order to submit your application via
5.
a.
We are participating as a partner in the Government-wide
On December 31, 2017,
You may access the electronic grant applications at
Please note the following:
• Applicants needing assistance with
• Applications received by
• The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you leave yourself plenty of time to complete your submission.
• You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through
• When you submit your application electronically, all documents must be submitted in this manner, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: The Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.
• When you submit your application electronically, you must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in a read-only flattened Portable Document Format (PDF), meaning any fillable documents must be saved and submitted as non-fillable PDF files. Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only, non-fillable PDF (
• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from
Once your application is successfully validated by
Email confirmations and receipts from
Additionally, we may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.
If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems within the
The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to technical problems with the
b.
We discourage paper applications, but if electronic submission is not possible (
If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. Please send this statement to a person listed in the
If you submit a paper application, you must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number), LBJ Basement Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20202-4260.
You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.
If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark.
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.
We will not consider applications postmarked after the application deadline date.
(1) You must indicate on the envelope and in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and
(2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the Application Control Center at (202) 245-6288.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Office of Communications and Outreach (OCO), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a revision of an existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before April 13, 2018.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Simone Olson, 202-205-8719.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before March 14, 2018.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Shahla Ortega, 202-453-5602.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
This is a renewal of the application package for the State Tribal Education Partnership Program, to be used in forthcoming competitions. The application package reflects the program office's priorities and program-specific selection criteria.
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:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests, comments, or recommendations using the Commission's eFiling system at
k.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o.
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified date(s). Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests, comments, or recommendations using the Commission's eFiling system at
k.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o.
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Upstream Wind 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 26, 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 following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection. Please note that this application was previously noticed by the Commission on October 3, 2017. However, due to a clerical error, the Commission is reissuing this notice for public comment. There have been no significant changes to the exemptee's application since the October 3, 2017.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, protests, and recommendations is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice by the Commission.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests, comments, or recommendations using the Commission's eFiling system at
k.
l.
m.
n. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
o.
p.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission or FERC) regulations, 18 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 380, Commission staff prepared a Supplemental Environmental Assessment (Supplemental EA), to supplement a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) completed on April 25, 2014. The Corps' Final EIS addressed a proposal by the City and County of Denver, Colorado (Denver Water) to enlarge its Moffat Collection System. The Commission acted as a cooperating agency in the preparation of the Final EIS because Gross Reservoir, a component of the Moffat Collection System which would be enlarged under the proposal, is also a feature of the Commission-licensed Gross Reservoir Hydroelectric Project No. 2035. On November 25, 2016, Denver Water filed with the Commission its application to raise the project's Gross Dam, enlarge Gross Reservoir, and amend the project license. The project is located on South Boulder Creek near the City of Boulder, Boulder County, Colorado. It occupies a total of 1,056.92 acres of federal lands within the Roosevelt National Forest administered by the U.S. Forest Service, and lands administered by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management.
The Supplemental EA analyzes potential environmental effects specific to a Commission approval of Denver Water's proposal, including amendment of the project license, which were not addressed in the 2014 Final EIS. Based on staff's independent analysis in the Supplemental EA, a Commission approval of Denver Water's proposal, as
A copy of the Supplemental EA is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website at
All comments on the Supplemental EA must be filed by March 8, 2018, and should reference Project No. 2035-099. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments using the Commission's efiling system at
For further information, contact Rebecca Martin by telephone at 202-502-6012 or by email at
Take notice that Lock +
The preliminary permit for Project No. 14691 will remain in effect until the close of business, March 8, 2018. If the Commission is closed on this day, then the permit remains in effect until the close of business on the next day in which the Commission is open.
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that on December 20, 2017, City of Anaheim, California submits tariff filing: City of Anaheim, California 2018 TRBAA Update to be effective 1/1/2018.
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, 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
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
On October 31, 2017, Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC (Natural) filed an application in Docket No. CP18-12-000 requesting permission pursuant to Section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act to abandon certain facilities. The proposed project is known as the Herscher Northwest Storage Field Abandonment Project (Project), and is located in Kankakee County, Illinois.
On November 8, 2017, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) issued its Notice of Application for the Project. Among other things, that notice alerted agencies issuing federal authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and to reach a final decision on a request for a federal authorization within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Project. This instant notice identifies the FERC staff's planned schedule for the completion of the EA for the Project.
If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the Project's progress.
Natural proposes to abandon in place injection/withdrawal wells, pipeline laterals, and observation wells, and abandon by removal Compressor Station 202 and ancillary aboveground facilities belonging to its Herscher Northwest natural gas storage field in Kankakee, Illinois. Natural would also abandon in place approximately 15.3 billion cubic feet of non-recoverable cushion gas.
On January 2, 2018 the Commission issued a
In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. 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
Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the FERC website (
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding Pinal Central Energy Center, 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 26, 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 Lock +
The preliminary permit for Project No. 14673 will remain in effect until the close of business, March 8, 2018. If the Commission is closed on this day, then the permit remains in effect until the close of business on the next day in which the Commission is open.
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified date(s). 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:
This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.
Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any oral communication.
Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.
Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR 385.2201(e)(1)(v).
The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are available for electronic review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website at
Take notice that Lock +
The preliminary permit for Project No. 14672 will remain in effect until the close of business, March 8, 2018. If the Commission is closed on this day, then the permit remains in effect until the close of business on the next day in which the Commission is open.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e. A summary of the meeting will be prepared and filed in the Commission's public file for the project.
f. All local, state, and federal agencies, Indian tribes, and other interested parties are invited to participate by phone. Please call Bill Connelly at (202) 502-8587 by February 20, 2018, to RSVP and to receive specific instructions on how to participate.
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 Northern Lights 2019 Expansion Project involving construction and operation of facilities by Northern Natural Gas Company (Northern) in Olmsted, Freeborn, Mower, Morrison, Carver, Hennepin, Wright, Le Sueur, Rice, and Steele Counties, Minnesota. 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 8, 2018.
If you sent comments on this project to the Commission before the opening of this docket on October 10, 2017, you will need to file those comments in Docket No. PF18-1-000 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 planned 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 planned 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.
A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” is 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 (PF18-1-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
The Northern Lights 2019 Expansion Project includes two components in Minnesota— the Rochester Expansion and the Northern Lights 2019 Expansion. For the Rochester Expansion component, Northern plans to:
• Construct 12.3 miles of 16-inch-diameter pipeline, referred to as the Rochester greenfield lateral;
• increase the maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) of 8 miles of the La Crosse branch line;
• relocate the La Crosse MAOP control valve assembly; and
• construct the Rochester Town Border Station.
For the Northern Lights 2019 Expansion component, Northern plans to construct:
• 4.2 miles of 8-inch-diameter pipeline extending the existing Alexandria branch line;
• 3.1 miles of 24-inch-diameter looping
• 9.9 miles of 24-inch-diameter pipeline, referred to as the Rockford to Buffalo greenfield lateral;
• 1.6 miles of 16-inch-diameter looping of the existing New Prague branch line;
• a 15,900-horsepower Solar Mars turbine compressor unit at the existing Faribault Compressor Station;
• a 15,900-horsepower Solar Mars turbine compressor unit and appurtenant facilities at the existing Owatonna Compressor Station; and
• a new 11,153-horsepower compressor station near Carver, Minnesota.
The Rochester Expansion component of the project would provide 37,093 dekatherms per day of incremental capacity to meet the future growth needs in the area of Rochester, Minnesota. The Northern Lights 2019 Expansion component would help Northern meet the incremental natural gas needs of Minnesota. According to Northern, its project is designed to optimize the placement of facilities to meet customer needs.
The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix 1.
Construction of the planned facilities would disturb about 627 acres of land for the aboveground facilities and the pipeline. Following construction, Northern would maintain about 204 acres for permanent operation of the project's facilities; the remaining acreage would be restored and revert to former uses. About 38 percent of the planned pipeline route parallels existing pipeline, utility, or road rights-of-way.
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 planned project under these general headings:
• Geology and soils;
• land use;
• water resources, 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 possible alternatives to the planned project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
Although no formal application has been filed, we have already initiated our NEPA review under the Commission's pre-filing process. The purpose of the pre-filing process is to encourage early involvement of interested stakeholders and to identify and resolve issues before the FERC receives an application. As part of our pre-filing review, we have begun to contact some federal and state agencies to discuss their involvement in the scoping process and the preparation of the EA.
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 we make 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 related to 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 Minnesota 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.
We have already identified several issues that we think deserve attention based on a preliminary review of the planned facilities and the environmental information provided by Northern. This preliminary list of issues may change based on your comments and our analysis.
• Impact on landowners from noise and dust during construction of the pipelines.
• Compatibility of pipelines with existing and future land uses, including zoning restrictions on adjacent 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 planned project.
If we publish and distribute the EA, copies 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).
Once Northern files its application with the Commission, 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. 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 (
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
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “Modification of Secondary Treatment Requirements for Discharges into Marine Waters” (EPA ICR No. 0138.11, OMB Control No. 2040-0088) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. Public comments were previously requested via the
Additional comments may be submitted on or before March 14, 2018.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OW-2003-0033, 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.
Virginia Fox-Norse, Oceans, Wetlands and Communities Division, Office of Water, (4504T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202 566-1266; fax number: 202 566-1337; 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).
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
Under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, EPA gives notice of a public meeting of the he National Advisory Committee (NAC) and the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). The NAC and GAC provide advice to the EPA Administrator on a broad range of environmental policy, technology, and management issues. NAC/GAC members represent academia, business/industry, non-governmental organizations, and state, local and tribal governments. The purpose of the meeting is for the NAC/GAC to provide advice on trade and environment issues related to the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation. A copy of the meeting agenda will be posted at
The NAC/GAC will hold a public meeting on Thursday, April 26, 2018 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., (EST) and Friday, April 27, 2018 from 9:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m., (EST).
The meeting will be held at the EPA Headquarters, William Jefferson Clinton South Building, Room 6045, 1201 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004.
Oscar Carrillo, Designated Federal Officer,
Requests to make oral comments or to provide written comments to NAC/GAC should be sent to Oscar Carrillo at
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
This document announces the date of the next meeting of the Commission's Disability Advisory Committee (Committee or DAC). The meeting is open to the public. During this meeting, members of the Committee will receive and discuss summaries of activities and recommendations from its subcommittees.
The Committee's next meeting will take place on Wednesday, February 28, 2018, from 9:00 a.m. to approximately 3:30 p.m. (EST).
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554, in the Commission Meeting Room.
Will Schell, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau: 202-418-0767 (voice); email:
The Committee was established in December 2014 to make recommendations to the Commission on a wide array of disability matters within the jurisdiction of the Commission, and to facilitate the participation of people with disabilities in proceedings before the Commission. The Committee is organized under, and operated in accordance with, the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The Committee held its first meeting on March 17, 2015. At its February 28, 2018 meeting, the Committee is expected to receive and consider: A report and recommendation from its Video Programming Subcommittee regarding best practices for the aural description (for people who are blind or visually impaired) of visual but non-textual emergency information provided by broadcasters; reports on the activities of its Relay & Equipment Distribution Subcommittee; reports on the activities of its Technology Transitions Subcommittee; and reports on the activities of its Emergency Communications Subcommittee. The Committee is also expected to receive presentations from Commission staff or others on matters of interest to the Committee. A limited amount of time may be available on the agenda for comments and inquiries from the public. The public may comment or ask questions of presenters via the email address
The meeting site is fully accessible to people using wheelchairs or other mobility aids. Sign language interpreters, open captioning, and assistive listening devices will be provided on site. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. If making a request for an accommodation, please include a description of the accommodation you will need and tell us how to contact you if we need more information. Make your request as early as possible by sending an email to
To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
This document announces that the Media Bureau is partially lifting the freeze on filing rulemaking petitions to change a full power television station's community of license, where no technical facility change is required.
February 12, 2018.
Joyce Bernstein,
On August 3, 2004, in connection with the development of a channel election and repacking process in advance of the DTV transition, the Media Bureau imposed a freeze on the filing of petitions requesting new channels or service areas for full power television stations in order to ensure a stable database in connection with that process. Although the DTV transition was completed in 2009, the Commission continued the freezes as a result of the National Broadband Plan, which recommended that the Commission reallocate spectrum for new broadband services and repack television channels to increase the efficiency of channel use. Auction 1000, which was conducted pursuant to Title VI of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, was completed on April 13, 2017, and a 39-month post-auction transition period is underway during which some broadcast television stations will be relicensed to new channel assignments.
Because the DTV transition is complete and the post-incentive auction transition is underway, it is no longer necessary to freeze community of license petitions that do not require a change in the station's service area. The freeze on the filing of petitions for rulemaking for new station channel allotments, for changes in licensed
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 (Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid 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 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before March 14, 2018.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the web page
Previously, U.S. providers of international services were required to file annual traffic and revenue reports and circuit capacity reports as required by 47 CFR 43.62. The Commission has adopted rules changes that eliminate the traffic and revenue reports and further streamline the circuit capacity reports. Upon OMB approval of this collection, 47 CFR 43.62 will be eliminated and replaced with 47 CFR 43.82 for the filing of circuit capacity reports.
The current title of OMB Control No. 3060-1156 is “47 CFR 43.62, Annual Reporting Requirements for U.S. Providers of International Services and Circuits.” The Commission would like to change the title to “47 CFR 43.82, Annual International Circuit Capacity Reports” in order to more accurately describe the information collection requirements under 47 CFR Section 43.82.
The uses to which the Commission puts the information from the annual circuit capacity report, and the Registration Form are as follows:
The circuit capacity reports are comprised of two parts. First, licensees of a submarine cable extending between the United States and a foreign point as of December 31 of the reporting period report the available capacity and planned capacity of the cable—the cable operators report. Second, each cable landing licensee and common carrier that holds capacity on the U.S. end of a submarine cable extending between the United States and a foreign point as of December 31 of the reporting period (“capacity holders”) reports its available capacity on the U.S. end of every submarine cable between the United States and any foreign point on which it holds capacity as of that date—the capacity holders report. A holding of capacity is an interest in the U.S. end of an international submarine cable
The Commission uses the circuit capacity data for such purposes as analyzing international transport markets in merger reviews. More importantly, these data are essential for our national security and public safety responsibilities in regulating communications, an important linchpin of the Commission's statutory authority. Submarine cables are critical infrastructure and the circuit capacity data are important for the Commission's contributions to the national security and defense of the United States. The Commission uses the data, for example, to have a complete understanding of the ownership and use of submarine cable capacity and to assist in the protection, restoration, and resiliency of the infrastructure during national security or public safety emergencies, such as hurricanes. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) filed comments stating that it also finds this information to be critical to its national and homeland security functions, and states that this information, when combined with other data sources, is used to protect and preserve national security and for its emergency response purposes. There are no alternative reliable third party commercial sources for the reported data. Although some sources collect general capacity information from cable owners, neither the FCC nor DHS has found any alternative sources for capacity holder data. Commercial source data may include capacity information, but the data are not verified by company officials and do not include capacity holder data. Although the Commission obtains the ownership and location of individual cables through the licensing process, distribution of a cable's capacity among providers is not required to be reported under our current submarine cable licensing rules and is provided only annually through the Circuit Capacity Reports. Further, the Commission's licensing rules do not require an applicant to include the entities that have acquired capacity on the cable through an IRU or ICL.
The Registration Form provides basic information about the filing and about the entity itself—such as address, phone number, email address, and the international Section 214 authorizations and cable landing licenses held by the filer. This information will assist in keeping track of who holds international circuit capacity and how to contact them. The Registration Form also includes a certification by the filing entity to certify the accuracy and completeness of its report. The Registration Form provides the means by which the filing entity may request confidential treatment of the data filed in the report.
The Filing Manual sets forth instructions on how to file the reports.
Federal Election Commission.
Notice of adjustments to expenditure limitations and lobbyist bundling disclosure threshold.
As mandated by provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act (“the Act”), the Federal Election Commission (“the Commission”) is adjusting certain expenditure limitations and the lobbyist bundling disclosure threshold set forth in the Act, to index the amounts for inflation. Additional details appear in the supplemental information that follows.
These adjustments are applicable January 1, 2018.
Ms. Elizabeth S. Kurland, Information Division, 999 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20463; (202) 694-1100 or (800) 424-9530.
Under the Federal Election Campaign Act, 52 U.S.C. 30101-46, coordinated party expenditure limits (52 U.S.C. 30116(d)(3)) and the disclosure threshold for contributions bundled by lobbyists (52 U.S.C. 30104(i)(3)(A)) are adjusted periodically to reflect changes in the consumer price index.
Under 52 U.S.C. 30116(c), the Commission must adjust the expenditure limitations established by 52 U.S.C. 30116(d) (the limits on expenditures by national party committees, state party committees, or their subordinate committees in connection with the general election campaign of candidates for Federal office) annually to account for inflation. This expenditure limitation is increased by the percent difference between the price index, as certified to the Commission by the Secretary of Labor, for the 12 months preceding the beginning of the calendar year and the price index for the base period (calendar year 1974). 52 U.S.C. 30116(c).
Both the national and state party committees have an expenditure limitation for each general election held to fill a seat in the House of Representatives in states with more than one congressional district.
Both the national and state party committees have an expenditure limitation for a general election held to fill a seat in the Senate or in the House of Representatives in states with only one congressional district.
For the convenience of the readers, the Commission is also republishing the contribution limitations for individuals, non-multicandidate committees and for certain political party committees giving to U.S. Senate candidates and national party committees for the 2017-2018 election cycle:
The Act requires certain political committees to disclose contributions bundled by lobbyists/registrants and lobbyist/registrant political action committees once the contributions exceed a specified threshold amount. 52 U.S.C. 30104(i)(1), (3)(A). The Commission must adjust this threshold amount annually to account for inflation. 52 U.S.C. 30104(i)(1). The disclosure threshold is increased by multiplying the $15,000 statutory disclosure threshold by 1.21588, the difference between the price index, as certified to the Commission by the Secretary of Labor, for the 12 months preceding the beginning of the calendar year and the price index for the base period (calendar year 2006). The resulting amount is rounded to the nearest multiple of $100.
On behalf of the Commission.
83 FR 4657.
Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 10:00 a.m.
This meeting was continued on Thursday, February 8, 2018.
Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than March 5, 2018.
1.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than March 9, 2018.
1.
In developing procedures for collecting the necessary information from potential child victims of trafficking, their case managers, attorneys, or other representatives to allow HHS to grant interim eligibility, HHS devised a form. HHS has determined that the use of a standard form to collect information is the best way to ensure requestors are notified of their option to request assistance for child victims of trafficking and to make prompt and consistent determinations about the child's eligibility for assistance.
Specifically, the form asks the requestor for his/her identifying information, for information on the child, information describing the type of trafficking and circumstances surrounding the situation, and the strengths and needs of the child. The form also asks the requestor to verify the information contained in the form because the information could be the basis for a determination of an alien child's eligibility for federally funded benefits. Finally, the form takes into consideration the need to compile information regarding a child's circumstances and experiences in a non-directive, child-friendly way, and assists the requestor in assessing whether the child may have been subjected to trafficking in persons.
The information provided through the completion of a Request for Assistance for Child Victims of Human Trafficking form will enable HHS to make prompt determinations regarding the eligibility of an alien child for interim assistance, inform HHS' determination regarding the child's eligibility for assistance as a victim of a severe form of trafficking in persons, facilitate the required consultation process, and enable HHS to assess potential child protection issues.
HHS proposes to make several small, technical changes to the form, including the elimination of an unnecessary paragraph and updated references to the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, as amended, to reflect changes to that law.
This request is an extension of the “generic fast-track” process offered to all government agencies by OMB in 2010. Fast-tack means each request receives approval five days after submission, if no issues are brought to ACF's attention by OMB within the five days.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) has determined the regulatory review period for GILOTRIF 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 13, 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 GILOTRIF (afatinib dimaleate). GILOTRIF is indicated for the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer whose tumors have epidermal growth factor receptor exon 19 deletions or exon 21 substitution mutations as detected by an FDA approved test. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received a patent term restoration application for GILOTRIF (U.S. Patent No. RE43,431) from Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh & Co., KG, and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated November 3, 2015, FDA advised the USPTO that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of GILOTRIF represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.
FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for GILOTRIF is 3,453 days. Of this time, 3,213 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 240 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:
1.
2.
3.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and ask for a redetermination (see
Submit petitions electronically to
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) is announcing the continuation of the Regulatory Project Management Site Tours and Regulatory Interaction Program (the Site Tours Program). The purpose of this document is to invite pharmaceutical companies interested in participating in this program to contact CDER.
Pharmaceutical companies may send proposed agendas to the Agency by April 13, 2018.
Dan Brum, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 5480, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-0578,
An important part of CDER's commitment to make safe and effective drugs available to all Americans is optimizing the efficiency and quality of the drug review process. To support this primary goal, CDER has initiated various training and development programs to promote high performance in its regulatory project management staff. CDER seeks to significantly enhance review efficiency and review quality by providing the staff with a better understanding of the pharmaceutical industry and its operations. To this end, CDER is continuing its training program to give regulatory project managers the opportunity to tour pharmaceutical facilities. The goals are to provide the following: (1) Firsthand exposure to industry's drug development processes and (2) a venue for sharing information about project management procedures (but not drug-specific information) with industry representatives.
In this program, over a 2- to 3-day period, small groups (five or less) of regulatory project managers, including a senior level regulatory project manager, can observe operations of pharmaceutical manufacturing and/or packaging facilities, pathology/toxicology laboratories, and regulatory affairs operations. Neither this tour nor any part of the program is intended as a mechanism to inspect, assess, judge, or perform a regulatory function, but is meant rather to improve mutual understanding and to provide an avenue for open dialogue. During the Site Tours Program, regulatory project managers will also participate in daily workshops with their industry counterparts, focusing on selective regulatory issues important to both CDER staff and industry. The primary objective of the daily workshops is to learn about the team approach to drug development, including drug discovery, preclinical evaluation, tracking mechanisms, and regulatory submission operations. The overall benefit to regulatory project managers will be exposure to project management, team techniques, and processes employed by the pharmaceutical industry. By participating in this program, the regulatory project manager will grow professionally by gaining a better understanding of industry processes and procedures.
All travel expenses associated with the Site Tours Program will be the responsibility of CDER; therefore, selection will be based on the availability of funds and resources for each fiscal year. Selection will also be based on firms having a favorable facility status as determined by FDA's Office of Regulatory Affairs District Offices in the firms' respective regions. Firms that want to learn more about this training opportunity or that are interested in offering a site tour should respond by sending a proposed agenda by email directly to Dan Brum (see
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) has determined the regulatory review period for IMBRUVICA 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 13, 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 IMBRUVICA (ibrutinib). IMBRUVICA is indicated for treatment of patients with mantle cell lymphoma who have received at least one prior therapy. This indication is based on overall response rate. An improvement in survival of disease-related symptoms has not been established. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received a patent term restoration application for IMBRUVICA (U.S. Patent No. 8,008,309) from Pharmacyclics, Inc., and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated October 20, 2015, FDA advised the USPTO that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of IMBRUVICA represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.
FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for IMBRUVICA is 1,865 days. Of this time, 1,726 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 139 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 320 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
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public workshop; extension of comment period.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is extending the comment period for the notice announcing the public workshop entitled “Packaging, Storage, and Disposal Options To Enhance Opioid Safety—Exploring the Path Forward” that appeared in the
FDA is extending the comment period on the public workshop “Packaging, Storage, and Disposal Options To Enhance Opioid Safety—Exploring the Path Forward” published October 31, 2017 (82 FR 50429). Submit either electronic or written comments by March 16, 2018.
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 March 16, 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:
• Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
• 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
Irene Z. Chan, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 4420, Silver Spring, MD, 20993-0002, 301-796-3962,
In the
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) has determined the regulatory review period for DALVANCE 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 13, 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 DALVANCE (dalbavancin). DALVANCE is indicated for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections caused by designated susceptible strains of Gram-positive microorganisms. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received a patent term restoration application for DALVANCE (U.S. Patent No. 6,900,175) from Vicuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated November 2, 2015, FDA advised the USPTO that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of DALVANCE represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.
FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for DALVANCE is 5,033 days. Of this time, 1,592 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 3,441 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 1,612 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
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) has determined the regulatory review period for BRAVECTO 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 U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that animal drug product.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (see 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 13, 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 animal drug products, the testing phase begins on the earlier date when either a major environmental effects test was initiated for the drug or when an exemption under section 512(j) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21
FDA has approved for marketing the animal drug product BRAVECTO (fluralaner). BRAVECTO is indicated for treatment and control of flea infestations (
FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for BRAVECTO is 1,017 days. Of this time, 979 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 38 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 792 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
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) has determined the regulatory review period for BELSOMRA 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 (see 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 13, 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 BELSOMRA (suvorexant). BELSOMRA is indicated for treatment of insomnia, characterized by difficulties with sleep onset and/or sleep maintenance. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received a patent term restoration application for BELSOMRA (U.S. Patent No. 7,951,797) from Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated October 15, 2015, FDA advised the USPTO that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of BELSOMRA represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.
FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for BELSOMRA is 2,291 days. Of this time, 1,577 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 714 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 zero 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
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Fax written comments on the collection of information by March 14, 2018.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, Fax: 202-395-7285, or emailed to
Domini Bean, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-5733,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
This information collection supports Agency regulations regarding the content and format requirements for pregnancy and lactation labeling. In the
The content and format requirements apply to:
• Applications submitted on or after June 30, 2015 (§§ 314.50 (21 CFR 314.50), 314.70(b) (21 CFR 314.70(b)), 601.2 (21 CFR 601.2), and 601.12(f)(1)) (21 CFR 601.12(f)(1));
• amendments to applications pending on June 30, 2015 (§§ 314.60 (21 CFR 314.60), 601.2, and 601.12(f)(1));
• supplements to applications approved from June 30, 2001, to June 30, 2015 (§§ 314.70(b) and 601.12(f)(1)); and
• annual reports for applications approved before June 30, 2001, that contain a pregnancy category, to report removal of the pregnancy category letter in their labeling (§§ 314.70(d) and 601.12(f)(3)).
Under § 201.57(c)(9)(i) and (ii) (21 CFR 201.57(c)(9)(i) and (ii)), holders of approved applications must provide new labeling content in a new format—that is, to rewrite the pregnancy and lactation portions of each drug's labeling. Section 201.57(c)(9)(iii) requires that labeling must include the
Under 21 CFR 201.80(f)(6)(i), holders of approved applications are required to remove the pregnancy category designation (
In the
As indicated in tables 1 and 2, we estimate the burden associated with the information collection to be 1,598,000 hours. We estimate 4,000 applications containing the subject labeling will be submitted by approximately 390 applicants and repackagers and relabelers to FDA over the 10-year period beginning June 30, 2015. This figure (4,000 applications) includes labeling for approximately 800 applications submitted under section 505(b) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 505(b)) or section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262), 1,200 applications submitted under section 505(j) of the FD&C Act, and 2,000 revised drug product labeling from repackagers and relabelers for approximately 2,000. This estimate also includes labeling amendments submitted to FDA for applications pending as of the effective date of the final rule. We estimate it will take applicants 40 hours to prepare and submit the subject labeling. This estimate applies only to the requirements found in the previous paragraphs and does not indicate the total hours required to prepare and submit complete labeling for these applications. The information collection burden to prepare and submit labeling in accordance with §§ 201.56 (21 CFR 201.56), 201.57, and 201.80 is approved by OMB under control numbers 0910-0572 and 0910-0001.
In addition, during the third, fourth, and fifth years after the effective date of the final rule, the Agency estimates that it will receive approximately 10,150 supplements to applications that were either approved from June 30, 2001, to the effective date or were pending as of the effective date. This estimate includes supplements for approximately 1,080 new drug application (NDAs), and biologics license applications (BLAs), and efficacy supplements; 1,320 abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) supplements; and 7,750 drug product labeling supplements from repackagers and relabelers. FDA estimates 390 application holders, repackagers, and relabelers will submit these supplements, and that it will take 120 hours to prepare and submit each supplement.
Finally, we estimate that application holders will submit 5,500 annual reports to FDA during the third year after the effective date for applications that contain a pregnancy category, approved before June 30, 2001. This estimate includes approximately 1,340 NDAs and BLAs and approximately 4,160 ANDAs containing labeling changes as a result of the final rule. FDA estimates that approximately 320 application holders will submit these annual reports, and that it will take approximately 40 hours for each submission. The burden for this information collection has not increased since the last collection.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) has determined the regulatory review period for AKYNZEO 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 (see 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 13, 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
FDA has approved for marketing the human drug product AKYNZEO (netupitant/palonosetron hydrochloride). AKYNZEO is indicated for the prevention of acute and delayed nausea and vomiting associated with initial and repeat courses of cancer chemotherapy including, but not limited to, highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received a patent term restoration application for AKYNZEO (U.S. Patent No. 6,297,375) from Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated October 30, 2015, FDA advised the USPTO that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of AKYNZEO represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.
FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for AKYNZEO is 1,858 days. Of this time, 1,479 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 379 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 1,118 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
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
HRSA is updating income levels used to identify a “low income family” for the purpose of determining eligibility for programs that provide health professions and nursing training to individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds. These various programs are authorized in Titles III, VII, and VIII of the Public Health Service Act.
HHS periodically publishes in the
A “low-income family/household” for programs included in Titles III, VII, and VIII of the Public Health Service Act is defined as having an annual income that does not exceed 200 percent of the Department's poverty guidelines. A family is a group of two or more
Most HRSA programs use the income of a student's parent(s) to compute low income status. However, a “household” may potentially be only one person. Other HRSA programs, depending upon the legislative intent of the program, the programmatic purpose related to income level, as well as the age and circumstances of the participant, will apply these low income standards to the individual student to determine eligibility, as long as he or she is not listed as a dependent on the tax form of his or her parent(s). Each program announces the rationale and choice of methodology for determining low income levels in program guidance.
Low-income levels are adjusted annually based on HHS's poverty guidelines. HHS's poverty guidelines are based on poverty thresholds published by the U.S. Census Bureau, adjusted annually for changes in the Consumer Price Index. The income figures below have been updated to reflect HHS's 2018 poverty guidelines as published in 83 FR 2642 (January 18, 2018).
Separate poverty guidelines figures for Alaska and Hawaii reflect Office of Economic Opportunity administrative practice beginning in the 1966-1970 period since the U.S. Census Bureau poverty thresholds do not have separate figures for Alaska and Hawaii. The poverty guidelines are not defined for Puerto Rico or other outlying jurisdictions. Puerto Rico and other outlying jurisdictions must use the low-income levels table for the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings of the NHLBI Special Emphasis Panel.
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 contract proposals 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 a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, NIDCD.
The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DEAFNESS AND OTHER COMMUNICATION DISORDERS, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Request for applications.
The U.S. Coast Guard seeks applications for membership on the Towing Safety Advisory Committee. This Committee advises the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security on matters relating to the shallow-draft inland and coastal waterway navigation and towing safety.
Completed applications should reach the U.S. Coast Guard on or before April 10, 2018.
Applicants should send a cover letter expressing interest in an appointment to the Towing Safety Advisory Committee that also identifies which membership category the applicant is applying under, along with a résumé detailing the applicant's experience via one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Mr. Kenneth J. Doyle, Alternate Designated Federal Officer of the Towing Safety Advisory Committee; Telephone 202-372-1363; or Email at
The Towing Safety Advisory Committee is a Federal Advisory Committee which operates under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5, United States Code, Appendix. The Towing Safety Advisory Committee was established under authority of the Act in the Department of Transportation, (Pub. L. 96-380), which was amended by section 621 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010, (Pub. L. 111-281);
It is expected that the Committee will meet at least twice a year in cities with large towing centers of commerce and populated by high concentrations of towing industry and related businesses. It may also meet for extraordinary purposes. Its subcommittees may also meet to consider specific tasks as required. The Committee and its subcommittees may conduct intercessional telephonic meetings when necessary, in response to specific U.S. Coast Guard tasking.
Each Towing Safety Advisory Committee member serves a term of office of up to 3 years. Members may serve a maximum of two consecutive terms. All members serve without compensation from the Federal Government; however, they may receive travel reimbursement and per diem.
We will consider applications for the following five positions that will become vacant on September 30, 2018:
1. Two positions representing the barge and towing industry, reflecting a regional geographical balance;
2. One position representing the offshore mineral and oil supply vessel industry;
3. One position representing shippers; and,
4. One position drawn from the general public to serve as a Special Government Employee.
To be eligible, applicants should have particular expertise, knowledge, and experience regarding shallow-draft inland, coastal waterway, and offshore, navigation and towing safety.
If you are selected as a member drawn from the general public, you will be appointed and serve as a Special Government Employee as defined in section 202(a) of Title 18, United States Code. As a candidate for appointment as a Special Government Employee, applicants are required to complete a Confidential Financial Disclosure Report (OGE Form 450). The Coast Guard may not release the reports or the information in them to the public except under an order issued by a Federal Court or as otherwise provided under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C 552a). Only the Designated U.S. Coast Guard Ethics Official or his or her designee may release a Confidential Financial Disclosure Report. Applicants can obtain this form by going to the website of the Office of Government Ethics (
Registered lobbyists are not eligible to serve on Federal Advisory Committees
The Department of Homeland Security does not discriminate in selection of Committee members on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, political affiliation, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, disabilities and genetic information, age, membership in an employee organization, or any other non-merit factor. The Department of Homeland Security strives to achieve a widely diverse candidate pool for all of its recruitment selections.
If you are interested in applying to become a member of the Committee, send your cover letter and resume to Mr. Kenneth J. Doyle, Alternate Designated Federal Officer of the Towing Safety Advisory Committee via one of the transmittal methods in the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Notice of availability of grant application and application deadline.
Pursuant to the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974, as amended, the Administrator of FEMA is publishing this notice describing the Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) Program application process, deadlines, and award selection criteria. This notice explains the differences, if any, between these guidelines and those recommended by representatives of the national fire service leadership during the annual meeting of the Criteria Development Panel, which was held February 27, 2017. The application period for the FY 2017 AFG Program was December 26, 2017, through February 2, 2018, and was announced on the AFG website at
Grant applications for the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program were accepted electronically at
Assistance to Firefighters Grant Branch, DHS/FEMA, 400 C Street SW, 3N, Washington, DC 20472-3635.
Catherine Patterson, Branch Chief, Assistance to Firefighters Grant Branch, 1-866-274-0960.
The AFG Program awards grants directly to fire departments, nonaffiliated emergency medical services (EMS) organizations, and State fire training academies (SFTAs) for the purpose of enhancing the health and safety of first responders and improving their abilities to protect the public from fire and fire-related hazards.
Applications for the FY 2017 AFG Program will be submitted and processed online at
For the FY 2017 AFG Program, Congress appropriated $345,000,000 (Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2017, Pub. L. 115-31). From this amount, $310,500,000 will be made available for AFG awards. In addition, the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974, as amended (15 U.S.C. 2229), requires that a minimum of 10 percent of available funds be expended for Fire Prevention and Safety Grants (FP&S). FP&S awards will be made directly to local fire departments and to local, regional, State, or national entities recognized for their expertise in the fields of fire prevention and firefighter safety research and development. Funds appropriated for FY 2017 will be available for obligation and award until September 30, 2018.
The Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 further directs FEMA to administer these appropriations according to the following requirements:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Since 2001, AFG has helped firefighters and other first responders to obtain critically needed equipment, protective gear, emergency vehicles, training, and other resources needed to protect the public and emergency personnel from fire and related hazards. FEMA awards grants on a competitive basis to the applicants that best address the AFG Program's priorities and provide the most compelling justification. Applications that best address AFG priorities, as identified in the Application Evaluation Criteria, will be reviewed by a panel composed of fire service personnel.
AFG has three program activities:
The priorities for each activity are fully outlined in the NOFO.
Prior to making a grant award, FEMA is required by 31 U.S.C. 3321, and 41 U.S.C. 2313 to review information available through any Office of Management and Budget (OMB) designated repositories of government-wide eligibility qualification or financial integrity information. Therefore, application evaluation criteria may include the following risk based considerations of the applicant: (1) Financial stability; (2) quality of management systems and ability to meet management standards; (3) history of performance in managing federal awards; (4) reports and findings from audits; and (5) ability to effectively implement statutory, regulatory, or other requirements.
FEMA will rank all complete and submitted applications based on how well they match program priorities for the type of jurisdiction(s) served. Answers to activity specific questions provide information used to determine each application's ranking relative to the stated program priorities.
Funding priorities and criteria for evaluating AFG applications are established by FEMA based on the recommendations from the Criteria Development Panel (CDP). CDP is comprised of fire service professionals that make recommendations to FEMA regarding the creation of new, or the modification of, previously established funding priorities, as well as developing criteria for awarding grants. The content of the NOFO reflects implementation of CDP's recommendations with respect to the priorities and evaluation criteria for awards.
The nine major fire service organizations represented on the CDP are:
AFG applications are reviewed through a multi-phase process. All applications are electronically pre-scored and ranked based on how well they align with the funding priorities outlined in this notice. Applications with the highest pre-score rankings are then scored competitively by (no less than three) members of the Peer Panel Review process. Applications will also be evaluated through a series of internal FEMA review processes for completeness, adherence to programmatic guidelines, technical feasibility, and anticipated effectiveness of the proposed project(s). Below is the process by which applications will be reviewed:
The application undergoes an electronic pre-scoring process based on established program priorities listed within the NOFO and answers to activity specific questions within the online application. Application narratives are not reviewed during pre-scoring. Request details and budget information should comply with program guidance and statutory funding limitations. The pre-score is 50 percent of the total application score.
Applications with the highest pre-score will undergo peer review. The peer review is comprised of fire service representatives recommended by CDP national organizations. The panelists assess the merits of each application based on the narrative section of the application, including the evaluation elements listed in the Narrative Evaluation Criteria below. Panelists will independently score each project within the application, discuss the merits and/or shortcomings of the application with his or her peers, and document the findings. A consensus is not required. The panel score is 50 percent of the total application score.
Applicants should describe their financial need and how consistent it is with the intent of the AFG Program. This statement should include details describing the applicant's financial distress, summarized budget constraints, unsuccessful attempts to secure other funding, and proof that their financial distress is out of their control.
This statement should clearly explain the applicant's project objectives and the relationship between those objectives and the applicant's budget and risk analysis. The applicant should describe the activities, including program priorities or facility modifications, ensuring consistency with project objectives, the applicant's mission, and any national, State, and/or local requirements. Applicants should link the proposed expenses to operations and safety, as well as the completion of the project goals.
Applicants should describe how they plan to address the operations and personal safety needs of their organization, including cost effectiveness and sharing assets. This statement should also include details about gaining the maximum benefits from grant funding by citing reasonable or required costs, such as specific overhead and administrative costs. The applicant's request should also be consistent with their mission and identify how funding will benefit their organization and personnel.
This statement should explain how these funds will enhance the organization's overall effectiveness. It should address how an award will improve daily operations and reduce the organization's risks. Applicants should include how frequently the requested items will be used, and in what capacity. Applicants should also indicate how the requested items will
The highest ranked applications are considered within the fundable range. Applications that are in the fundable range undergo both a technical review by a subject matter expert, as well as a FEMA AFG Branch review prior to being recommended for an award. The FEMA AFG Branch will assess the request with respect to costs, quantities, feasibility, eligibility, and recipient responsibility prior to recommending an application for award. Once the technical evaluation process is complete, the cumulative score for each application will be determined and FEMA will generate a final ranking of applications. FEMA will award grants based on this final ranking and the required funding limitations in statute.
A fire department is an agency or organization having a formally recognized arrangement with a State, territory, local, or tribal authority (city, county, parish, fire district, township, town, or other governing body) to provide fire suppression to a population within a geographically fixed primary first due response area.
A nonaffiliated EMS organization is an agency or organization that is a public or private nonprofit emergency medical services entity providing medical transport that is not affiliated with a hospital and does not serve a geographic area in which emergency medical services are adequately provided by a fire department.
FEMA considers the following as hospitals under the AFG Program:
• To avoid a duplication of benefits, FEMA reserves the right to review all program areas for grant applications where two or more organizations share a single facility. To be eligible as a separate organization, two or more fire departments or nonaffiliated EMS organizations will have different funding streams, personnel rosters, or Employee Identification Numbers (EINs). If two or more organizations share facilities and each submits an application in the same program area (
• Fire-based EMS organizations are not eligible to apply as nonaffiliated EMS organizations. Fire-based EMS training and equipment must be requested by a fire department under the AFG component program Operations and Safety.
• Eligible applicants may submit only one application for each activity (
• An Operations and Safety applicant may submit one application for an eligible project (
Congress has enacted statutory limits to the amount of funding that a grant recipient may receive from the AFG Program in any single fiscal year (15 U.S.C. 2229(c)(2)) based on the population served. Awards will be limited based on the size of the population protected by the applicant, as indicated below. Notwithstanding the annual limits stated below, the FEMA Administrator may not award a grant in an amount that exceeds one percent of the available grants funds in such fiscal year, except where it is determined that such recipient has an extraordinary need for a grant in an amount that exceeds the one percent aggregate limit.
• In the case of a recipient that serves a jurisdiction with 100,000 people or fewer, the amount of available grant funds awarded to such recipient shall not exceed $1 million in any fiscal year.
• In the case of a recipient that serves a jurisdiction with more than 100,000 people, but not more than 500,000 people, the amount of available grant funds awarded to such recipient shall not exceed $2 million in any fiscal year.
• In the case of a recipient that serves a jurisdiction with more than 500,000, but not more than 1 million people, the amount of available grant funds awarded to such recipient shall not exceed $3 million in any fiscal year.
• In the case of a recipient that serves a jurisdiction with more than 1 million people but not more than 2,500,000 people, the amount of available grant funds awarded to such recipient shall not exceed $6 million for any fiscal year, but is subject to the one percent aggregate cap of $3,450,000 for FY 2017.
• In the case of a recipient that serves a jurisdiction with more than 2,500,000 people, the amount of available grant funds awarded to such recipient shall not exceed $9 million in any fiscal year, but is subject to the one percent aggregate cap of $3,450,000 for FY 2017.
• FEMA may not waive the caps on the maximum amount of available grant funds awarded based upon population.
The cumulative total of the federal share of awards in Operations and Safety, Regional, and Vehicle Acquisition activities will be considered when assessing award amounts and any limitations thereto. Applicants may request funding up to the statutory limit on each of their applications.
For example, an applicant that serves a jurisdiction with more than 100,000 people, but not more than 500,000 people, may request up to $2 million on
Grant recipients must share in the costs of the projects funded under this grant program as required by 15 U.S.C. 2229 (k)(1) and in accordance with applicable federal regulations at 2 CFR part 200, but they are not required to have the cost-share at the time of application nor at the time of award. However, before a grant is awarded, FEMA will contact potential awardees to determine whether the grant recipient has the funding in hand or if the grant recipient has a viable plan to obtain the funding necessary to fulfill the cost-sharing requirement.
In general, an eligible applicant seeking a grant shall agree to make available non-federal funds equal to not less than 15 percent of the grant awarded. However, the cost share will vary as follows based on the size of the population served by the organization:
• Applicants serving areas with populations above 20,000, but not more than 1 million, shall agree to make available non-federal funds equal to not less than 10 percent of the total project cost.
• Applicants that serve populations of 20,000 or less must match the federal grant funds with an amount of non-federal funds equal to 5 percent of the total project cost.
The cost share for SFTAs and joint/regional projects will be based on the population of the entire State or region, respectively, not the population of the host organization.
On a case-by-case basis, FEMA may allow a grant recipient that may already own assets (equipment or vehicles) to use the trade-in allowance/credit value of those assets as “cash” for the purpose of meeting the cost-share obligation of their AFG award. In-kind, cost-share matches are not allowed.
Grant recipients under this grant program must also agree to a maintenance of effort requirement as required by 15 U.S.C. 2229 (k)(3) (referred to as a “maintenance of expenditure” requirement in that statute). A grant recipient shall agree to maintain during the term of the grant the applicant's aggregate expenditures relating to the activities allowable under the NOFO at not less than 80 percent of the average amount of such expenditures in the two fiscal years preceding the fiscal year in which the grant amounts are received.
In cases of demonstrated economic hardship, and on the application of the grant recipient, the Administrator of FEMA may waive or reduce a grant recipient's cost share requirement or maintenance of expenditure requirement. As required by statute, the Administrator of FEMA will establish guidelines for determining what constitutes economic hardship and will publish these guidelines at FEMA's website
Prior to the start of the FY 2017 AFG application period, FEMA conducted applicant workshops and/or internet webinars to inform potential applicants about the AFG Program. In addition, FEMA provided applicants with information at the AFG website
Applicants can reach the AFG Help Desk through a toll-free telephone number during normal business hours (1-866-274-0960) or electronic mail
Organizations may submit one application per application period in each of the three AFG Program areas (
Applicants accessed the grant application electronically at
Applicants answered questions about their grant request that reflect the AFG funding priorities, described below. In addition, each applicant must complete four separate narratives for each project or grant activity requested. Grant applicants will also provide relevant information about their organization's characteristics, call volume, and existing organizational capabilities.
Per 2 CFR 25.200, all federal grant applicants and recipients must register in
If there are any differences between the published AFG guidelines and the recommendations made by the CDP, FEMA must explain them and publish the information in the
The FY 2017 NOFO revises and, in some places changes, the priorities for applications submitted for equipment and PPE acquisitions under the Operations and Safety Activity. Under these changes, the FY 2017 NOFO and application now include questions designed to solicit pertinent information from the applicant with regard to the purpose of the request. The criteria are designed to be easier to understand and will assist FEMA in obtaining the necessary information to assess the application request. The numerical scores for each activity line item requested are based on objective criteria in order to reduce the subjectivity of the category itself. The following changes for 2017 are as follows:
15 U.S.C. 2229.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice and request for comments.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public to take this opportunity to comment on a reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved information collection for which approval has expired. 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 March 14, 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, Information Management Division, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, email address
The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is authorized by the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4001
This proposed information collection previously published in the
Comments may be submitted as indicated in the
Office of Infrastructure Protection, National Protection and Programs Directorate, DHS.
Announcement of public meeting; request for comments.
The National Protection and Programs Directorate announces the Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council (CIPAC) Critical Infrastructure Summit. This public meeting is an opportunity to build public awareness of critical infrastructure topics and allows CIPAC members to exchange ideas and engage in interactive discussion on cross-sector key issues, activities, goals, and initiatives within the sixteen (16) critical infrastructure sectors. The intended goal of the meeting is to develop useful and actionable recommendations for the upcoming year. To facilitate public participation, we are inviting public comment on the issues to be considered by the Council at this Summit.
The CIPAC Critical Infrastructure Summit will be held at the Hilton Crystal City at Washington Reagan National Airport, Virginia Ballroom, 2399 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202.
•
•
•
•
Cheryl Fenoli, 703-603-5087,
CIPAC was established pursuant to section 871 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, 6 U.S.C. 451. The CIPAC Critical Infrastructure Summit convenes the critical infrastructure owner and operator members of the Sector Coordinating Councils (SCCs), including
The March 1, 2018 meeting will include council highlight updates and panel discussions between participating members regarding issues relevant to critical infrastructure security and resilience.
The meeting may adjourn early if the Council has completed its business. For additional information about CIPAC, please consult the CIPAC website,
Individuals interested in receiving information and updates about the CIPAC Critical Infrastructure Summit may register at
Parties that are interested in presenting comments in-person, on the agenda topics, must register no less than 15 minutes prior to the beginning of the meeting at the meeting location. Oral presentations will be permitted based upon the order of registration. All registrants may not be able to speak if time does not permit.
While this meeting is open to the public, participation in the CIPAC deliberations are limited to council members, Department of Homeland Security officials, and persons invited to attend the meeting for special presentations.
Immediately following the “Council Highlights” agenda topic, there will be a limited time period for in-person public comments. Only agenda topics identified under “Meeting Agenda” in this section may be discussed during the in-person public comment period. Relevant public comments may be submitted in advance in writing or presented in person for the Council to consider. Instructions for submitting comments in writing are found within the
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact the CIPAC Executive Secretariat at 703-603-5087 as soon as possible.
Transportation Security Administration, DHS.
Committee Management; Request for Applicants.
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is requesting individuals who are interested in serving on the Aviation Security Advisory Committee (ASAC) to apply for appointment. ASAC's mission is to provide advice and recommendations to the Administrator of TSA on improving aviation security matters, including developing, refining, and implementing policies, programs, rulemaking and security directives pertaining to aviation security, while adhering to sensitive security guidelines.
Applications for membership must be submitted to TSA using one of the methods in the
Applications must be submitted by one of the following means:
•
•
See
Dean Walter, ASAC Designated Federal Official, Transportation Security Administration (TSA-28), 601 12th St. South, Arlington, VA 20598-4028,
ASAC is an advisory committee established pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 44946. The committee is composed of individual members representing key constituencies affected by aviation security requirements.
ASAC will be composed of not more than 34 individuals appointed by the Administrator of TSA to represent the following 19 key constituencies affected by aviation security requirements, as defined at 49 U.S.C. 44946(c)(1)(C):
1. Air carriers.
2. All-cargo air transportation.
3. Labor organizations representing air carrier employees.
4. Aircraft manufacturers.
5. Airport operators.
6. General aviation.
7. Travel industry.
8. Victims of terrorist acts against aviation.
9. Law enforcement and security experts.
10. Indirect air carriers.
11. Aviation security technology industry (including screening technology and biometrics).
12. Airport-based businesses (including minority-owned small businesses).
13. Passenger advocacy groups.
14. Businesses that conduct security operations at airports (Screening Partnership Program contractors).
15. Labor organizations representing transportation security officers.
16. Airport construction and maintenance contractors.
17. Labor organizations representing employees of airport construction and maintenance contractors.
18. Privacy organizations.
19. Aeronautical repair stations.
ASAC does not have a specific number of members allocated to any membership category and the number of members in a category may change to fit the needs of the Committee, but each organization shall be represented by one individual. Members will serve as representatives and speak on behalf of their respective constituency group, and will not be appointed as Special Government Employees as defined in 18 U.S.C. 202(a). Membership on the Committee is personal to the appointee and a member may not send an alternate to a Committee meeting. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C 44946(c)(3) members shall not receive pay, allowances, or benefits from the Government by reason of their service on the Committee.
The Committee typically convenes four times per year; however, additional meetings may be held with the approval of the Designated Federal Official. Due to the sensitive nature of the material discussed, meetings are typically closed to the public. At least one meeting will be open to the public each year. In addition, members are expected to participate on ASAC subcommittees that typically meet more frequently to deliberation and discuss specific aviation matters.
Committee members are appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the Administrator of TSA for a two-year duration with “staggered terms.” Staggered terms means that approximately one-half of the Committee members' terms expire in alternating years. This ensures continuity and consistency for the Committee. In the year of transition to staggered terms, approximately one-half of the members will be appointed to one-year terms and the other half to two-year terms. In the following year and thereafter, all appointments will be for terms of two years.
Any person wishing to be considered for appointment to ASAC must provide the following:
• Complete professional resume.
• Statement of interest and reasons for application, including the membership category and how you represent a significant portion of that constituency.
• Home and work addresses, telephone number, and email address.
Please submit your application to the Responsible TSA Official in
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 Grants to States and Tribes.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before April 13, 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:
The authority for this action are the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201,
Notice is hereby given that, on January 12, 2018, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, Duncanville ISD, Duncanville, TX; TOOLS4EVER, Bonney Lake, WA; OpenEd, San Jose, CA; and Echo360, Reston, VA, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and IMS Global intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On April 7, 2000, IMS Global filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on October 6, 2017. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on January 5, 2018, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open and RIC-Americas intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership or planned activities.
On April 30, 2014, RIC-Americas filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on November 30, 2017. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on December 14, 2017, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
On September 15, 2004, ASTM filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on September 13, 2017. A notice was filed in the
Notice is hereby given that, on January 17, 2018, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
On June 6, 2012, GYA filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on December 23, 2015. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on December 15, 2017, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, ARRI, Inc., Burbank, CA, has withdrawn as a party to this venture.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and UHD Alliance intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On June 17, 2015, UHD Alliance filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on September 28, 2017. A notice was published in the
Office of Justice Programs (OJP), Justice.
Notice of meeting.
This is an announcement of a meeting of the Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative (Global) Federal Advisory Committee (GAC) to discuss the Global Initiative, as described at
The meeting will take place on Wednesday, March 21, 2018, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. ET.
The meeting will take place at the Office of Justice Programs offices (in the Main Conference Room), 810 7th Street, Washington, DC 20531; Phone: (202) 514-2000 [
Tracey Trautman, Global Designated Federal Employee (DFE), Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, 810 7th Street, Washington, DC 20531; Phone (202) 305-1491 [
This meeting is open to the public. Due to security measures, however, members of the public who wish to attend this meeting must register with Ms. Tracey Trautman at the above address at least (7) days in advance of the meeting. Registrations will be accepted on a space available basis. Access to the meeting will not be allowed without registration. All attendees will be required to sign in at the meeting registration desk. Please bring photo identification and allow extra time prior to the meeting.
Anyone requiring special accommodations should notify Ms. Trautman at least seven (7) days in advance of the meeting.
The GAC will guide and monitor the development of the Global information sharing concept. It will advise the Assistant Attorney General, OJP; the Attorney General; the President (through the Attorney General); and local, state, tribal, and Federal policymakers in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. The GAC will also advocate for strategies for accomplishing a Global information sharing capability.
Interested persons whose registrations have been accepted may be permitted to participate in the discussions at the discretion of the meeting chairman and with approval of the DFE.
10:00 a.m., Thursday, February 15, 2018.
Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047, 1775 Duke Street (All visitors must use Diagonal Road Entrance), Alexandria, VA 22314-3428.
Open.
1. NCUA's Rules and Regulations, Share Insurance Fund Equity Distributions.
2. Board Briefing, Share Insurance Fund Quarterly Report.
3. 2017 Share Insurance Fund Equity Distribution.
10:45 a.m.
11:00 a.m., Thursday, February 15, 2018.
Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314-3428.
Closed.
1. Board Appeal. Closed pursuant to Exemption (8).
Gerard Poliquin, Secretary of the Board, Telephone: 703-518-6304.
Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI).
Notice.
In December 2011, the ODNI accepted responsibility from the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO) to manage the Standard Form 714,
Written comments must be received on or before March 14, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Comments should be sent to:
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection and supporting statements should be directed to Ms. Patricia Gaviria, Director of the Information Management Division, Policy and Strategy, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Washington, DC 20511; 301-243-1054.
Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), the ODNI is requesting extension in effect of Standard Form 714, proposing no changes to the Form and its instructions at this time. The ODNI invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on Standard Form 714. The comments and suggestions should address one or more of the following points: (a) Whether the proposed information collection reflected in the Standard Form 714 meets the intent of section 1.3 (“Financial Disclosure”) of Executive Order 12968, as amended (“Access to Classified Information”); (b) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the proposed information collection for Standard Form 714; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected in the Standard Form 714; (d) ways, including the use of information technology, to minimize the burden of the collection of information on all respondents to the Standard Form 714; and (e) whether small businesses are affected by this collection. The comments that are submitted will be summarized and included in the ODNI request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Respondent burden data follows below:
The Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) National Coordination Office (NCO), National Science Foundation.
Notice of meetings.
The goal of the FASTER CoP is to enhance collaboration and accelerate agencies' adoption of advanced IT capabilities developed by Government-sponsored IT research. FASTER, seeks to accelerate deployment of promising research technologies; share protocol information, standards, and best practices; and coordinate and
The FASTER CoP meetings will be held over the course of the year (February 2018-December 2018) at the NITRD National Coordination Office, 490 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Suite 8001, Washington, DC 20024. Please note that public seating for these meetings is limited and is available on a first-come, first-served basis. WebEx and/or Teleconference participation is available for each meeting. Please reference the FASTER CoP website for meeting dates, times, and location changes. Further information about the NITRD may be found at:
Mr. Alex Thai at
Submitted by the National Science Foundation in support of the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) National Coordination Office (NCO) on February 6, 2018.
National Science Foundation.
Notice of permit modification request.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish a notice of requests to modify permits issued to conduct activities regulated under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. This is the required notice of a requested permit modification.
Interested parties are invited to submit written data, comments, or views with respect to this permit application by March 14, 2018. Permit applications may be inspected by interested parties at the Permit Office, address below.
Comments should be addressed to Permit Office, Office of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22314.
Nature McGinn, ACA Permit Officer, at the above address, 703-292-8030, or
The National Science Foundation, as directed by the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-541), as amended by the Antarctic Science, Tourism and Conservation Act of 1996, has developed regulations for the establishment of a permit system for various activities in Antarctica and designation of certain animals and certain geographic areas a requiring special protection. The regulations establish such a permit system to designate Antarctic Specially Protected Areas.
A recent modification to this permit, dated December 31, 2015, permitted the applicant to increase the number of satellite-tagging takes of humpback whales to 20 and to add 10 dart tag takes and 20 suction cup tag takes for both humpbacks and Antarctic minke whales. Now the permit holder proposes a modification to his permit to increase biopsy takes to 250 for all four whale species listed on the original permit. Of those 250 biopsy takes, 50 would be associated with approaches that would also include tagging and the remaining 200 biopsy takes would occur during approaches that do not involve tagging. The proposed modification would also increase the number of dart tags takes of humpback whales (from 10 to 30) and Antarctic minke whales (from 10 to 20) and increase the number of suction cup tagging takes of Antarctic minke whales from 20 to 30. In addition, the permit holder proposes to add takes for dart tagging (n = 10) and suction cup tagging (n = 40) of Arnoux's beaked whales as well as 50 suction cup tagging takes for killer whales. Finally, the permit holder would add southern right whales to his ACA permit and is requesting 250 biopsy takes, 200 photo-ID takes, and 50 suction cup tagging takes for this species. This ACA permit modification would increase the consistency of takes with those allowed under the most recent amendment of National Marine Fisheries Service Permit No. 14809-03 on which the ACA permit holder is an approved Co-Investigator.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Draft regulatory guide; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing for public comment draft regulatory guide (DG), DG-1329, “Qualification and Training of Personnel for Nuclear Power Plants.” The proposed revision describes methods acceptable to the NRC staff for complying with those portions of the Commission's regulations associated with the selection, qualifications, and training for nuclear power plant personnel. This proposed guide, Revision 4, updates the guidance with additional experience gained since Revision 3 was issued in 2000 by endorsing ANSI/ANS 3.1 2014, “Selection, Qualification and Training of Personnel for Nuclear Power Plants.”
Submit comments by April 13, 2018. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date. Although a time limit is given, comments and suggestions in connection with items for inclusion in guides currently being developed or
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specified subject):
•
•
For additional direction on accessing information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
James Kellum, Office of New Reactors; telephone: 301-415-5305; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0023 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this action. You may obtain publicaly-available information related to this action, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2018-0023 in your comment submission. The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
The NRC is issuing for public comment a DG in the NRC's “Regulatory Guide” series. This series was developed to describe and make available to the public information regarding methods that are acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the NRC's regulations, techniques that the staff uses in evaluating specific issues or postulated events, and data that the staff needs in its review of applications for permits and licenses.
The DG, entitled, “Qualification and Training of Personnel for Nuclear Power Plants,” is a proposed revision temporarily identified by its task number, DG-1329. DG-1329 is proposed Revision 4 of RG 1.8, “Qualification and Training of Personnel for Nuclear Power Plants.” The guide proposes revised guidance that describes methods acceptable to the staff of the NRC for complying with those portions of the Commission's regulations associated with the selection, qualifications, and training for nuclear power plant personnel.
This proposed guide, Revision 4, endorses ANSI/ANS 3.1 2014, “Selection, Qualification, and Training of Personnel for Nuclear Power Plants,” as well as updates the guidance with additional experience gained since Revision 3 was issued in 2000.
This DG describes methods acceptable to the staff of the NRC for complying with those portions of the Commission's regulations associated with the selection, qualifications and training for nuclear power plant personnel. Issuance of this DG, if finalized, would not constitute backfitting as defined in section 50.109 of title 10 of the
This DG may be applied to applications for operating licenses, combined licenses, early site permits, and certified design rules docketed by the NRC as of the date of issuance of the final regulatory guide, as well as future applications submitted after the issuance of the regulatory guide. Such action would not constitute backfitting as defined in the Backfit Rule or be otherwise inconsistent with the applicable issue finality provision in 10 CFR part 52, inasmuch as such applicants or potential applicants are not within the scope of entities protected by the Backfit Rule or the relevant issue finality provisions in part 52.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Weeks of February 12, 19, 26, March 5, 12, 19, 2018.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and Closed.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of February 12, 2018.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of February 19, 2018.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of February 26, 2018.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of March 12, 2018.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of March 19, 2018.
The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Denise McGovern at 301-415-0681 or via email at
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
Members of the public may request to receive this information electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969), or email
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend certain of the governing documents of its intermediate parent companies Intercontinental Exchange Holdings, Inc. (“ICE Holdings”), NYSE Holdings LLC (“NYSE Holdings”) and NYSE Group, Inc. (“NYSE Group”) to make a technical change updating the registered office and registered agent in the state of Delaware. The proposed 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 Exchange proposes to amend certain of the governing documents of its intermediate parent companies ICE Holdings, NYSE Holdings, and NYSE Group to make a technical change updating the registered office and registered agent in the state of Delaware.
ICE Holdings and NYSE Group are corporations and NYSE Holdings is a limited liability corporation, all organized under the laws of the State of Delaware. As such, they are required to have and maintain a registered office and registered agent in Delaware.
More specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend the following provisions in the listed documents (collectively, the “Governing Documents”):
• Article II (Registered Office) of the Ninth Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of ICE Holdings;
• Article II, Sections 2.4 (Registered Office) and 2.5 (Registered Agent) of the Ninth Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement of NYSE Holdings;
• the Certificate of Formation of NYSE Holdings;
• Article II (Registered Office) of the Sixth Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of NYSE Group; and
• Article I, Section 1.1 (Registered Office) of the Fourth Amended and Restated Bylaws of NYSE Group.
The listed provisions identify The Corporation Trust Company as the
In addition, conforming changes would be made to the title [sic], recitals, dates and signature lines, as applicable, of the Governing Documents.
The change is a non-substantive technical administrative change.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Exchange Act
The proposed rule change is a non-substantive administrative change that does not impact the governance or ownership of the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would enable the Exchange to continue to be so organized as to have the capacity to carry out the purposes of the Exchange Act and comply and enforce compliance with the provisions of the Exchange Act by its members and persons associated with its members, because ensuring that the Governing Documents rules identify the registered agent and registered office in Delaware would contribute to the orderly operation of the Exchange by adding clarity and transparency to its rules. Similarly, the proposed conforming changes to the title [sic], recitals, date and signature line, as applicable, of the Governing Documents would contribute to the orderly operation of the Exchange by adding clarity and transparency to its rules.
For similar reasons, the Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system by ensuring that market participants can more easily navigate, understand and comply with its rules. The Exchange believes that, by ensuring that such rules accurately identify the registered agent and registered office in Delaware, and by making conforming changes to the title [sic], recitals, date and signature line, as applicable, of the Governing Documents, the proposed rule change would reduce potential investor or market participant confusion.
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 Exchange Act. The proposed rule change is not designed to address any competitive issue but rather is concerned solely with making a technical change updating the registered office and registered agent of each Intermediate Holding Company.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 350l-3520), the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) is soliciting comments on the collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget for extension and approval.
Rule 23c-1(a) under the Investment Company Act (17 CFR 270.23c-1(a)) permits a closed-end fund to repurchase its securities for cash if, in addition to the other requirements set forth in the rule, the following conditions are met: (i) Payment of the purchase price is accompanied or preceded by a written confirmation of the purchase (“written confirmation”); (ii) the asset coverage per unit of the security to be purchased is disclosed to the seller or his agent (“asset coverage disclosure”); and (iii) if the security is a stock, the fund has, within the preceding six months, informed stockholders of its intention to purchase stock (“six month notice”). Commission staff estimates that 91 closed-end funds undertake a total of 364 repurchases annually under rule 23c-1.
In addition, the fund must file with the Commission a copy of any written solicitation to purchase securities given by or on behalf of the fund to 10 or more persons. The copy must be filed as an exhibit to Form N-CSR (17 CFR 249.331and 274.128).
The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and is not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules and forms.
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549; or send an email to:
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend certain of the governing documents of its intermediate parent companies Intercontinental Exchange Holdings, Inc. (“ICE Holdings”), NYSE Holdings LLC (“NYSE Holdings”) and NYSE Group, Inc. (“NYSE Group”) to make a technical change updating the registered office and registered agent in the state of Delaware. The proposed 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 Exchange proposes to amend certain of the governing documents of its intermediate parent companies ICE Holdings, NYSE Holdings, and NYSE Group to make a technical change updating the registered office and registered agent in the state of Delaware.
ICE Holdings and NYSE Group are corporations and NYSE Holdings is a limited liability corporation, all organized under the laws of the State of Delaware. As such, they are required to have and maintain a registered office and registered agent in Delaware.
More specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend the following provisions in the listed documents (collectively, the “Governing Documents”):
• Article II (Registered Office) of the Ninth Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of ICE Holdings;
• Article II, Sections 2.4 (Registered Office) and 2.5 (Registered Agent) of the Ninth Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement of NYSE Holdings;
• the Certificate of Formation of NYSE Holdings;
• Article II (Registered Office) of the Sixth Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of NYSE Group; and
• Article I, Section 1.1 (Registered Office) of the Fourth Amended and Restated Bylaws of NYSE Group.
The listed provisions identify The Corporation Trust Company as the registered agent, and provide that the address of the registered office in Wilmington, Delaware is Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange Street. The Exchange proposes to amend such provisions to identify United Agent Group Inc. as the registered agent, and to provide that the address of the registered office is 3411 Silverside Road, Tatnall Building No. 104, Wilmington, County of New Castle, Delaware 19810.
In addition, conforming changes would be made to the title [sic], recitals, dates and signature lines, as applicable, of the Governing Documents.
The change is a non-substantive technical administrative change.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Exchange Act
The proposed rule change is a non-substantive administrative change that does not impact the governance or ownership of the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would enable the Exchange to continue to be so organized as to have the capacity to carry out the purposes of the Exchange Act and comply and enforce compliance with the provisions of the Exchange Act by its members and persons associated with its members, because ensuring that the Governing Documents rules identify the registered agent and registered office in Delaware would contribute to the orderly operation of the Exchange by adding clarity and transparency to its rules. Similarly, the proposed conforming changes to the title [sic], recitals, date and signature line, as applicable, of the Governing Documents would contribute to the orderly operation of the Exchange by adding clarity and transparency to its rules.
For similar reasons, the Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system by ensuring that market participants can more easily navigate, understand and comply with its rules. The Exchange believes that, by ensuring that such rules accurately identify the registered agent and registered office in Delaware, and by making conforming changes to the title [sic], recitals, date and signature line, as applicable, of the Governing Documents, the proposed rule change would reduce potential investor or market participant confusion.
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 Exchange Act. The proposed rule change is not designed to address any competitive issue but rather is concerned solely with making a technical change updating the registered office and registered agent of each Intermediate Holding Company.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The text of the proposed rule change is available at 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 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 Exchange is proposing to adopt an IEX Enhanced Market Maker (“IEMM”) program under Exchange Rule 11.170 (Market Quality Incentive Programs) (currently reserved), which is designed to enable Members to qualify for transaction fee reductions for providing meaningful and consistent support to market quality and price discovery by extensive quoting at and/or near the NBBO.
In an effort to incentivize Members to submit displayed orders to the Exchange, the Exchange currently
Furthermore, the Exchange currently charges $0.0009 per share (or 0.30% of the total dollar value of the transaction for securities priced below $1.00) to Members for executions on IEX that provide or take resting interest with non-displayed priority (
In addition to the pricing model above, and in contrast to its competitors, IEX has chosen to lower the cost barrier for Member firms to trade on the Exchange by not charging fees for membership, connectivity, or market data.
To compete with incumbent maker-taker exchanges for order flow without directly paying Members for such orders, the Exchange is proposing to offer an alternative fee-based incentive to Members that engage in trading activity that further improves market quality and price discovery on the Exchange. Importantly, the Exchange is not proposing to offer a rebate,
As proposed, a Member qualifying for designation as an IEMM reflects a commitment to provide meaningful and consistent support to market quality and price discovery by extensive quoting at and/or near the NBBO in IEX-listed securities for a significant portion of the day. The IEMM Program is designed to attract liquidity provision from both traditional market making firms, as well as from other market participants that are willing and able to act in a market making capacity and commit capital to support liquidity at and/or near the NBBO. In return for their contributions, such Members qualify for a lower per-share rate charged for both displayed and non-displayed executions subject to either the Displayed Match Fee or Non-Displayed Match Fee on the Exchange in securities priced at or above $1.00. The IEMM Program is designed to deepen IEX's liquidity pool at prices at and/or near the NBBO, which may narrow the bid-ask spread, dampen the market impact of shocks from liquidity demand, and support the quality of
The proposed IEMM Program provides two tiers, each of which would significantly contribute to market quality by providing liquidity at or near the NBBO in IEX-listed securities for a significant portion of the day. Members are eligible to qualify as an IEMM under one or both IEMM Tiers. Specifically, as proposed, any IEX Member that registers as an IEX Market Maker pursuant to Rule 11.150 in all securities listed on IEX (except pursuant to Supplementary Material .01, as discussed below),
• Inside Tier IEMM:
○ One or more of its MPIDs has a displayed order entered in a principal capacity of at least one round lot resting on the Exchange at the NBB and/or the NBO for an average of at least 20% of Regular Market Hours (the “NBBO Quoting Percentage”);
•
○ One or more of its MPIDs has a displayed order entered in a principal capacity of at least one round lot resting on the Exchange at the greater of 1 minimum price variation (“MPV”) or 0.03% (
The Exchange proposes to calculate the NBBO Quoting Percentage by determining the average percent of time the Member is at the NBB or the NBO, or both the NBB and NBO, in each IEX-listed security during Regular Market Hours over the course of the month. On a monthly basis, IEX would determine whether a Member satisfied the NBBO Quoting Percentage for each IEX-listed security by calculating the following:
• The “NBB Quoting Time” is calculated by determining the aggregate amount of time that one or more of a Member's MPIDs has a displayed order entered in a principal capacity of at least one round lot in each IEX-listed security resting at the NBB during Regular Market Hours of each trading day for a calendar month that such security is listed on IEX;
• The “NBO Quoting Time” is calculated by determining the aggregate amount of time that one or more of a Member's MPIDs has a displayed order entered in a principal capacity of at least one round lot in each IEX-listed security resting at the NBO during Regular Market Hours of each trading day for a calendar month that such security is listed on IEX; and
• The “NBBO Quoting Percentage” is calculated for each IEX-listed security by adding the security's NBB Quoting Time to the NBO Quoting Time and dividing the resulting sum by two (2), and then dividing the resulting quotient by the total amount of time during the Regular Market Session that the IEX-listed security was listed on IEX and not subject to a halt or pause in trading pursuant to IEX Rule 11.280 over the course of the calendar month.
The Exchange proposes to calculate the Depth Quoting Percentage by determining the average percent of time the Member is at the defined percentage away from the NBBO (or more aggressive) in each IEX-listed security during Regular Market Hours over the course of the month. On a monthly basis, IEX would determine whether the Member satisfied the Depth Quoting Percentage for each IEX-listed security by calculating the following:
• The “Bid Depth Quoting Time” is calculated by determining the aggregate amount of time that one or more of a Member's MPIDs has a displayed order entered in a principal capacity of at least one round lot in each IEX-listed security resting at the greater of 1 MPV or 0.03% away from the NBB (or more aggressive) during Regular Market Hours of each trading day for a calendar month that such security is listed on IEX;
• The “Offer Depth Quoting Time” is calculated by determining the aggregate amount of time that one or more of a Member's MPIDs has a displayed order entered in a principal capacity of at least one round lot in each IEX-listed security resting at the greater of 1 MPV or 0.03% away from the NBO during Regular Market Hours of each trading day of a calendar month that such security is listed on IEX; and
• The “Depth Quoting Percentage” is calculated for each IEX-listed security by adding the security's Bid Depth Quoting Time to the Offer Depth Quoting Time and dividing the resulting sum by two (2), and then dividing the resulting quotient by the total amount of time during the Regular Market Session that the IEX-listed security was listed on IEX and not subject to a halt or pause in trading pursuant to IEX Rule 11.280 over the course of the calendar month.
Proposed Supplemental Material .01 provides a limited exception to the requirement that a Member must be a registered IEX Market Maker pursuant to Rule 11.150 in all securities listed on IEX. Specifically, a Member that is not a registered IEX Market Maker pursuant to Rule 11.150 in all securities listed on IEX (as required by subparagraph (a)(1)(B)) may still be designated as an IEMM if (i) a Member does not act as a market maker in one or more IEX-listed securities on any other national securities exchange, and (ii) the Market Maker provides documentation, satisfactory to IEX Regulation, substantiating that such Member is unable to act as a market maker in one or more particular securities listed on IEX (a) in order to comply with specified legal or regulatory requirements, or (b) operational restrictions not exceeding 90 calendar days from the date the security first lists on the Exchange. The documentation must specify the length of time such legal, regulatory requirement(s), or operational restriction is anticipated to persist. The proposed exception is designed to provide Members flexibility to address any legal or regulatory requirements, or temporary operational restrictions associated with their registration and acting as a Market Maker in a security listed on IEX, without eliminating the financial incentives that such Member may otherwise qualify for under the IEMM Program as a result of their quoting activity in other listed securities.
For example, if a Member was to come into possession of material non-public information regarding an IEX-listed security, and on advice of counsel suspended all trading in the security until the conflict was remediated, and but for the suspension of trading in the IEX-listed security, one or more of the Member's MPIDs order activity would have qualified the Member for designation as an IEMM under one or more of the proposed IEMM Tiers, such Member could request a legal exemption under Supplemental Material .01 by providing documentation, satisfactory to
Proposed Supplemental Material .02 provides that if a Member satisfies the requirement of registering as a Market Maker pursuant to Rule 11.150 in all securities listed on IEX after the first trading day of the calendar month, and remains registered for the remainder of the month, such Member is eligible for designation as an IEMM if the Member otherwise satisfies the applicable quoting requirements for the entire month to qualify for designation under one or more of the proposed IEMM Tiers. Proposed Supplemental Material .02 is designed to provide Members clarity regarding their eligibility for designation as an IEMM when their order activity over the course of a month satisfies the requirements of one of the applicable IEMM Tiers, but the Member is not a registered Market Maker in all securities listed on IEX as of the first trading day of the calendar month. The Exchange believes allowing Members to qualify for designation as an IEMM under these circumstances is appropriate and reasonable, because it avoids disparate treatment of Members that were not registered Market Makers as of the start of a calendar month, but otherwise provided meaningful and consistent support to market quality and price discovery by extensive quoting at and/or near the NBBO in IEX-listed securities for a significant portion of the day in compliance with the IEMM criteria.
For example, Member ABCD satisfied the quoting requirements of the Inside Tier and the Depth Tier for all securities listed on IEX for each day of the 20 trading days during the month of September 2017, thereby satisfying the quoting requirements of the Inside Tier and the Depth Tier on average, per day, over the course of the month. Furthermore, Member ABCD did not satisfy the requirement of being registered in all securities listed on IEX until September 8, 2017 (5 trading days after the first trading day of the month), and remained registered in all securities listed on IEX for the remainder of the month. In this case, Member ABCD's order activity provided meaningful and consistent support to market quality and price discovery by extensive quoting at and/or near the NBBO in IEX-listed securities for a significant portion of each trading day, and would therefore be eligible for designation as an Inside Tier and Depth Tier IEMM.
Proposed Supplemental Material .03 provides that for purposes of determining the percentage of time during the Regular Market Session that a Member satisfied the NBBO Quoting Percentage and Depth Quoting Percentage pursuant to subparagraph (a)(1)(A), the Exchange excludes the aggregate amount of time that a security is subject to a halt or pause in trading pursuant to IEX Rule 11.280. Proposed Supplemental Material .03 is designed to provide Members additional clarity regarding the Exchange's calculation for determining whether the order activity satisfied the applicable NBBO Quoting Percentage and Depth Quoting Percentage by accounting for scenarios where continuous trading is halted or paused pursuant to Rule 11.280, and therefore the IEMM would be unable to enter orders to meet satisfy [sic] the applicable requirements. The Exchange believes that not accounting for scenarios where continuous trading is halted or paused would be unreasonable, and inconsistent with the quoting requirements set forth in the proposed IEMM Tiers, because it would make the effective IEMM Tier quoting requirements variable, requiring additional order activity to satisfy the applicable quoting requirements for securities that are subject to a trading halt or pause. The Exchange notes that accounting for scenarios where continuous trading is halted or paused is also consistent with Rule 11.151(a)(2) regarding the obligations of registered Market Makers, which states in relevant part that Market Makers quoting obligations are suspended during a trading halt or pause.
For Members that qualify under one of the IEMM Tiers as defined above, IEX will reduce the fee charged per share executed on such Members':
• Non-displayed executions subject to the Non-Displayed Match Fee in securities priced at or above $1.00 by the amount that corresponds with the tier(s) under which the Member qualifies as an IEMM, subject to any applicable Depth Tier aggregate monthly savings cap, as set forth below (the “Non-Displayed Match Fee Discount”); and
• Displayed executions subject to the Displayed Match Fee in securities priced at or above $1.00 by the amount that corresponds with the tier(s) under which the Member qualifies as an IEMM, subject to any applicable Depth Tier aggregate monthly savings cap, as set forth below (the “Displayed Match Fee Discount”);
As proposed, for Inside Tier IEMMs, the Displayed Match Fee Discount and the Non-Displayed Match Fee Discount results in a $0.0001 discount for each execution subject to the Displayed Match Fee and the Non-Displayed Match Fee, respectively, with no cap on aggregate monthly saving.
If a Member qualifies under both the Inside Tier and the Depth Tier, any earned Non-Displayed Match Fee Discount and Displayed Match Fee Discount will be aggregated and applied to such Members' non-displayed executions and displayed executions subject to the Displayed Match Fee or Non-Displayed Match Fee in securities priced at or above $1.00, respectively, subject to the applicable Depth Tier aggregate monthly savings cap described
The proposed Displayed Match Fee Discount and Non-Displayed Match Fee Discount was developed after informal discussions with a variety of IEX Members, including traditional electronic market making firms, as well as other Members that have expressed interest in serving in a market maker capacity that are willing and able to commit capital to support extensive price discovery at and/or near the NBBO. The Exchange believes that, as a general matter, the practice of making markets refers to trading strategies that display bids to purchase and offers to sell a security in relatively equal proportion, with an expectation of profit by capturing the delta between the two prices (
The Exchange has several reasons for proposing to offer a discount on displayed and non-displayed trading, in contrast to a rebate for displayed trading. First, as noted above, the Exchange has made a conscious choice not to pay exchange rebates to brokers in exchange for order flow, and instead has focused on earning order flow from market participants by designing a market that provides greater execution quality.
The Exchange has designed the IEMM Program as an alternative financial incentive for Members to display aggressively priced orders on the Exchange, avoiding the potential conflicts of interest inherent in the maker-taker pricing model. The Exchange believes that rebates paid for displayed liquidity, which are typically retained by the broker (in the case of agency orders), have the potential to distort broker order routing decisions at the expense of their investor clients. A similar conflict would exist if brokers acting as agent displayed customer order flow on IEX to qualify for designation as an IEMM in order to reap the benefits of the proposed Displayed Match Fee Discount and Non-Display Match Fee Discount without necessarily passing those decreased costs on to their investor clients.
In addition, the Exchange believes paying rebates to liquidity providers has a measurable impact on execution quality. For example, IEX's recent white paper (that utilized publicly available quote and trade data to compare market quality across U.S. stock exchanges) empirically found that on maker-taker exchanges (which dominate the U.S. equities trading landscape in market share) resting orders (
Furthermore, the Exchange believes rebates have the circular effect of perpetuating the modern-day exchange practice of charging ever increasing prices for low latency connectivity and depth of book market data that is required for firms to compete for priority at the NBBO.
Secondly, Members that participate as market makers necessarily interact with the Exchange using displayed orders, but do not interact with the Exchange using displayed orders exclusively. In fact, many firms that participate as market makers use non-displayed orders as a part of their market making strategies to optimize returns on their displayed market making activities (
The Exchange currently does not operate a listing market, but is preparing to launch a listings business for corporate issuers in 2018. Upon launch of the listing business, the Exchange expects to face intense competition from NYSE and Nasdaq, which the Exchange believes essentially operate as a duopoly in the U.S. listing market. Therefore, the Exchange has designed the proposed IEMM Program in part to address the significant competitive challenges it will face in establishing itself as a competitive listings market. Specifically, requiring IEMMs to be a registered IEX Market Makers in each security listed on IEX, and to qualify as an IEMM under one of the tiers described above in all securities listed on IEX (subject to the limited exception), is designed to attract issuers to list on the Exchange by providing enhanced liquidity incentives to market participants for IEX-listed securities that accrue to the benefit of issuers listed on IEX as well as market participants generally.
Pursuant to Rule 11.151, IEX registered Market Makers are required to comply with the two-sided quote and pricing obligations. This requirement is substantially identical to the requirements applicable to NYSE and Nasdaq market makers.
Lastly, the Exchange is proposing to make non-substantive changes to the Exchange's Fee Schedule to replace and re-organize the asterisked footnotes with numbered footnotes, and make minor changes to capitalization for defined terms. This change is designed to make the Exchange's Fee Schedule clearer, and ensure that footnotes are listed in chronological order.
IEX believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6(b)
The proposed IEMM Program takes a narrowly tailored approach, designed to encourage Market Makers to provide meaningful and consistent support to market quality and price discovery by extensive quoting at and/or near the NBBO in IEX-listed securities, which benefits all market participants by deepening the Exchange's liquidity pool in such securities. IEX believes that to the extent Market Makers enter more aggressively priced displayed orders on the Exchange in response to the alternative fee based incentives, there will be increased liquidity on IEX, thereby contributing to public price discovery, consistent with the goal of enhancing market quality. Additionally, the Exchange believes that price discovery would be enhanced by potentially drawing more natural trading interest to the public markets, which would deepen liquidity and dampen the impact of shocks from liquidity demand. Further, to the extent price discovery is enhanced and more orders are drawn to the public markets, orders executed on IEX rather than being internalized on broker-operated platforms or executed on other alternative trading venues will have the benefit of exchange transparency, regulation, and oversight.
The Exchange believes that the proposed Displayed Match Fee Discount and Non-Displayed Match Fee Discount, which were developed after extensive informal discussions with various Members, are reasonable because they are designed to incentivize the entry of aggressively priced displayed orders by reducing the firms' largest expense of trading on the Exchange (
The Exchange believes that applying a benefit to all of an IEMM's executions at or above $1.00 that are subject to the Displayed Match Fee and Non-Displayed Match Fee is reasonable, and consistent with an equitable allocation of fees, because, as noted above in the Purpose section, the proposed Displayed Match Fee Discount and Non-Displayed Match Fee Discount are applied evenly across all of a Member's displayed and non-displayed executions above $1.00 that receive the Displayed Match Fee and Non-Displayed Match Fee, thus the benefits flow congruently across the various trading desks and clients (as applicable) at the Member firm. Moreover, the Exchange believes that decisions on whether to act as a Market Maker on IEX are generally made at the firm level, and therefore providing a financial incentive to all of a Members' displayed and non-displayed trading on IEX is designed to incentivize Members to act as Market Makers on IEX. Furthermore, the Exchange believes that applying a benefit to all of an IEMM's executions that are subject to the Displayed Match Fee and Non-Displayed Match Fee is reasonable in that it is designed in part to compete with the per share rebates that other exchanges currently pay for adding liquidity, which the Exchange believes have a significant impact on order routing decisions, without directly paying Members for order flow. Instead, the Exchange has severed the direct one-to-one relationship between the financial incentive and a Members displayed liquidity providing executions, by instead offering a per-share reduction in the cost of a Members displayed and non-displayed executions on the Exchange in return for meaningful and consistent support to market quality and price discovery by extensive quoting at and/or near the NBBO in IEX-listed securities. What is more, the Exchange believes that the applying a benefit to all of an IEMM's executions at or above $1.00 that are subject to the Displayed Match Fee and Non-Displayed Match Fee is reasonable in that it is also designed in part to
Furthermore, the Exchange believes that only a considering a Member's principal orders when determining if such Member's order activity satisfied one or more IEMM Tiers is reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory, because it is designed to avoid the potential conflicts of interest inherent in the maker-taker pricing model. As discussed in the Purpose section, the Exchange believes that rebates paid for displayed liquidity, which are typically retained by the broker (in the case of agency orders), have the potential to distort broker order routing decisions at the expense of their investor clients. A similar conflict would exist if brokers acting as agent displayed customer order flow on IEX to qualify for designation as an IEMM in order to reap the benefits of the proposed Non-Display Match Fee Discount and Display Match Fee Discount without necessarily passing those decreased costs on to their investor clients.
Furthermore, while some Members may face unique financial and operational challenges that could pose practical limitations on their trading strategies, the Exchange notes that all Members are eligible to enter displayed orders in a principal capacity on the Exchange to the extent they are willing and able to commit capital to support price discovery at and/or near the NBBO. Accordingly, the Exchange believes it is reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory to only consider a Member's principal orders when determining if such Member's order activity satisfied one or more IEMM Tier.
Furthermore, the Exchange believes the exception from the requirement to be registered as a Market Maker in all IEX-listed securities as set forth in proposed Supplemental Material .01 is reasonable in that it provides Members flexibility to address any legal or regulatory requirements, or temporary operational restrictions associated with acting as a Market Maker in a security that is listed on IEX, without eliminating the financial incentives that such Member may otherwise qualify for under the IEMM Program as a result of their quoting activity in all other listed securities. The Exchange believes it is fair and equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to provide the limited exception to qualifying Market Makers because the exception provides narrowly tailored relief. IEX and other national securities exchange's rules already provide excused withdrawal relief from compliance with market maker quoting obligations based on legal or regulatory requirements, in recognition that there are circumstances in which it would be violative of legal and regulatory requirements for a firm to trade in a particular security.
The Exchange believes that proposed Supplemental Material .02 is reasonable in that it is designed to provide Members clarity regarding their eligibility for designation as an IEMM when their order activity over the course of a month satisfies the requirements of one of the applicable IEMM Tiers, but the Member is not a registered Market Maker in all securities listed on IEX as of the first trading day of the calendar month. Furthermore, Exchange believes allowing Members to qualify for designation as an IEMM under these circumstances is appropriate and reasonable, because it avoids disparate treatment of Members that were not registered Market Makers as of the start of a calendar month, but otherwise provided meaningful and consistent support to market quality and price discovery by extensive quoting at and/or near the NBBO in IEX-listed securities for a significant portion of the day.
Moreover, the Exchange believes that proposed Supplemental Material .03 is reasonable in that it is designed to provide Members additional clarity regarding the Exchange's calculation for determining whether the order activity satisfied the applicable NBBO Quoting Percentage and Depth Quoting Percentage by accounting for scenarios where continuous trading is halted or paused pursuant to Rule 11.280, and therefore the IEMM would be unable to enter orders to meet satisfy [sic] the applicable requirements. The Exchange believes that not accounting for scenarios where continuous trading is halted or paused would be unreasonable, and inconsistent with the quoting requirements set forth in the proposed IEMM Tiers, because it would make the effective IEMM Tier quoting requirements variable, requiring additional order activity to satisfy the applicable quoting requirements for securities that are subject to a trading halt or pause. Furthermore, the Exchange notes that accounting for scenarios where continuous trading is halted or paused is also consistent with Rule 11.151(a)(2) regarding the obligations of registered Market Makers, which states in relevant part that Market Makers quoting obligations are suspended during a trading halt or pause.
The Exchange believes that the proposed Displayed Match Fee Discount and Non-Displayed Match Fee Discount for Members that qualify for designation as an IEMM is reasonable, in that IEX will continue to charge relatively low fees for all executed shares, and is in the
Moreover, the Exchange believes that not placing a cap on the aggregate monthly savings from the Displayed Match Fee Discount and Non-Displayed Match Fee Discount for Inside Tier IEMMs, and imposing the proposed cap on the aggregate monthly savings from the Displayed Match Fee Discount and Non-Displayed Match Fee Discount for the Depth Tier IEMMs is reasonable and consistent with an equitable allocation of fees, because such cap is designed to maintain congruity between the benefits provided by IEMMs to the Exchange and the broader market, and the financial incentives provided by the Exchange in return. Market Makers that qualify under the Inside Tier will provide enhanced price discovery and liquidity at the NBBO. Comparatively, while each proposed tier provides substantial benefits to the market, Market Makers that meet only the Depth Tier would provide depth of liquidity at prices near the NBBO, without necessarily providing enhanced price discovery and liquidity at the NBBO. Additionally, the risk associated with a potential adverse execution for a Depth Tier IEMM is not as material as an Inside Tier IEMM. Thus, the Exchange believes the proposed IEMM Tiers and their corresponding fee incentives and caps are commensurate with the level of liquidity that the Member provides to the Exchange and its Members, and the risk associated with providing such liquidity, and are consistent with the Act. The Exchange notes that all Members are free to abstain from or discontinue participation in the proposed IEMM Program if the proposed fee reductions do not provide a sufficient incentive considering such Member's trading activity. Accordingly, the Exchange believes the proposed IEMM Tiers and their corresponding fee incentives and caps are reasonable and consistent with an equitable allocation of fees, and not unreasonably discriminatory.
The Exchange further believes it is appropriate not to consider executions subject to the Crumbling Quote Remove Fee as eligible for the Displayed Match Fee Discount or Non-Displayed Match Fee Discount. A Member's executions that are subject to the Crumbling Quote Remove Fee are necessarily a part of a trading strategy that the Exchange believes evidences a form of predatory latency arbitrage that leverages low latency proprietary market data feeds and connectivity along with predictive models to chase short-term price momentum and successfully target resting orders at unstable prices. Furthermore, if the Exchange were to apply the Displayed Match Fee Discount and Non-Displayed Match Fee Discount to executions that are subject to the Crumbling Quote Remove Fee, it would frustrate its fundamental purpose of disincentivizing predatory trading strategies to further incentivize additional resting liquidity, including displayed liquidity, on IEX. Thus, a Member that is able to simultaneously meet an IEMM Tier while also executing orders that are subject to the Crumbling Quote Remove Fee, should not be afforded the benefit of the Displayed Match Fee Discount or Non-Displayed Match Fee Discount on such executions.
The Exchange further believes it is appropriate not to consider executions subject to the Internalization Fee as eligible for the Displayed Match Fee Discount or Non-Displayed Match Fee Discount. A Member's executions that are subject to the Internalization Fee are provided at no cost to the Member. If the Exchange were to apply the Displayed Match Fee Discount and Non-Displayed Match Fee Discount to executions that are subject to the Internalization Fee, it would provide a net credit to the Member (
The Exchange notes that other market centers offer a diverse range of fee based incentives to their members for trading activity that they believe improves market quality.
The Exchange further believes that the IEMM Program is reasonable and consistent with an equitable allocation of fees, and not unfairly discriminatory, because the IEMM Program is available to all market participants that qualify for designation as an IEMM, regardless of the size of the firm or its trading volumes. The Exchange notes that all Members that satisfy the applicable requirements are eligible for designation as an IEMM on a fair and equal basis. Moreover, the Exchange believes that the proposed IEMM Tiers that Members may qualify under for designation as an
In conclusion, for the reasons discussed above, the Exchange believes that the proposed IEMM Program is consistent with Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act in that it does not permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers, and is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and in general to protect investors and the public interest.
Lastly, the Exchange believes that the proposed non-substantive changes to the Exchange's Fee Schedule to replace and re-organize the asterisked footnotes with numbered footnotes, and make minor changes to capitalization for defined terms is reasonable, and consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, in that it is designed to make the Exchange's Fee Schedule clearer, and ensure that footnotes are listed in chronological order.
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 does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, the Exchange believes that the proposed IEMM Program and corresponding fee reductions will increase competition and draw additional volume to the Exchange. Furthermore, in order to compete with incumbent maker-taker exchanges for order flow without directly paying Members for such orders with rebates, the Exchange is proposing to offer an alternative fee-based incentive to Members that engage in trading activity that enhances market quality and price discovery on the Exchange. Importantly, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if fee schedules at other venues are viewed as more favorable. Consequently, the Exchange believes that the degree to which IEX fees could impose any burden on competition is extremely limited, and does not believe that such fees would burden competition of Members or competing venues in a manner that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Moreover, as noted above, upon launch of the listing business for corporate issuers in 2018, the Exchange expects to face intense competition from NYSE and Nasdaq, which the Exchange believes essentially operate as a duopoly in the U.S. listing market. Therefore, the Exchange has designed the proposed IEMM Program in part to address the significant competitive challenges it will face in establishing itself as a competitive listings market. Specifically, requiring IEMMs to be a registered IEX Market Maker in each security listed on IEX, and to qualify as an IEMM under one of the tiers described above in all securities listed on IEX, is designed to enhance execution quality in such securities, which the Exchange believes will also encourage issuers to choose to list on IEX. Thus, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, the proposed rule change may serve as a catalyst for increasing intermarket competition in the highly-concentrated U.S. listings market, which the Exchange believes currently operates as a duopoly dominated by NYSE and Nasdaq.
Furthermore, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because while some Members may face unique financial and operational challenges that could pose practical limitations on their trading strategies, the proposed fee incentives are available to all Members that choose to register as a market maker and adjust their trading activity to qualify for designation as an IEMM. Further, as noted above, the proposed fee reductions are designed to encourage Members to add liquidity at prices that benefit all IEX Members, and thus will not impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii)
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 Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's Schedule of Fees.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Exchange's Schedule of Fees to modify certain complex order fees and rebates in Section II, and to make a number of non-substantive changes to update certain section headings. Each change is described below.
Currently as set forth in Section II of the Schedule of Fees, the Exchange provides rebates to Priority Customer
Currently, the Exchange charges a complex order taker fee for Select Symbols that is $0.47 per contract for Market Maker
The Exchange proposes to amend Section II of the Schedule of Fees to adopt a surcharge of $0.03 per contract on Non-Priority Customer complex orders in Non-Select Symbols
Currently, the Exchange's Schedule of Fees contains a number of section headings that are not currently reflected in the Table of Contents. The Exchange added or eliminated these headings as parts of previous rule changes, and inadvertently did not make the corresponding updates to the Table of Contents.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to increase the rebates provided to Priority Customer complex orders in the manner discussed above, as these proposed rebates are designed to attract additional Priority Customer complex order volume to the Exchange. The Exchange already provides volume-based tiered rebates for Priority Customer complex orders, and believes that increasing the rebates will incentivize members to send additional order flow to ISE in order to achieve these rebates for their Priority Customer complex order volume, creating additional liquidity to the benefit of all members that trade complex orders on the Exchange.
The Exchange notes that Priority Customer orders will continue to receive complex order rebates,
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to increase the complex order taker fee to $0.50 per contract for Non-Priority Customer orders in Select Symbols because the increased taker fees are designed to offset the enhanced Priority Customer rebates discussed above. Furthermore, the proposed taker fees are set at levels that the Exchange believes will continue to be attractive to market participants that trade on ISE. As noted above, Market Makers with total affiliated Priority Customer Complex ADV of 150,000 or more contracts will continue to receive the discounted fee of $0.44 under this proposal. Additionally, preferenced Market Makers will continue to receive the applicable discount of $0.02 per contract when trading against Priority Customer order preferenced to them in the complex order book.
The Exchange's proposal to increase the Non-Priority Customer complex order taker fee is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the increased fee will apply to all similarly-situated market participants. As noted above, Priority Customers will continue to receive complex order rebates, while other market participants will continue to pay a fee. The Exchange does not believe that this is unfairly discriminatory for the reasons discussed above. The Exchange also notes that Market Maker orders will continue to be eligible for lower fees than other non-Priority Customer orders. The Exchange does not believe that it is unfairly discriminatory provide lower fees to Market Maker orders as Market Makers are subject to additional requirements and obligations (such as quoting requirements) that other market participants are not.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to adopt a surcharge of $0.03 per contract on Non-Priority Customer complex orders in Non-Select Symbols that take liquidity from the complex order book is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. Assessing this surcharge to only those orders that take liquidity from the market is reasonable because the Exchange wants to continue to encourage market participation for those participants that seek to add liquidity on ISE. In addition, the Exchange believes that excluding complex orders executed in the Exchange's various auction mechanisms from the proposed Non-Priority Customer complex surcharge is reasonable for the reasons that follow. The proposed complex surcharge will not apply to complex orders executed in the Facilitation Mechanism, Solicited Order Mechanism and Price Improvement Mechanism as such orders have separate pricing in Section II of the Schedule of Fees, and the Exchange wants to continue to encourage participation within these auction mechanisms. The Exchange also believes that the exclusion of “exposure” auctions pursuant to ISE Rule 722(b)(3)(iii) from the Non-Priority Customer complex surcharge is reasonable because the Exchange wants to encourage participation in this auction and have it continue to be attractive to market participants who
The Exchange's proposal to adopt the $0.03 per contract Non-Priority Customer complex order surcharge in the manner discussed above is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the surcharge will apply to all similarly-situated market participants.
The Exchange believes that the clean-up changes to update the section headings in its Schedule of Fees is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because these are non-substantive changes intended to make the Schedule of Fees more transparent to members and investors.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed fees and rebates are designed to attract additional order flow to ISE, and the Exchange believes that its complex order pricing remains attractive to market participants. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On December 7, 2017, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“Exchange” or “BZX”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend certain of the governing documents of its intermediate parent companies Intercontinental Exchange Holdings, Inc. (“ICE Holdings”), NYSE Holdings LLC (“NYSE Holdings”) and NYSE Group, Inc. (“NYSE Group”) to make a technical change updating the registered office and registered agent in the state of Delaware. 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 Exchange proposes to amend certain of the governing documents of its intermediate parent companies ICE Holdings, NYSE Holdings, and NYSE Group to make a technical change updating the registered office and registered agent in the state of Delaware.
ICE Holdings and NYSE Group are corporations and NYSE Holdings is a limited liability corporation, all organized under the laws of the State of Delaware. As such, they are required to have and maintain a registered office and registered agent in Delaware.
More specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend the following provisions in the listed documents (collectively, the “Governing Documents”):
• Article II (Registered Office) of the Ninth Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of ICE Holdings;
• Article II, Sections 2.4 (Registered Office) and 2.5 (Registered Agent) of the Ninth Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement of NYSE Holdings;
• the Certificate of Formation of NYSE Holdings;
• Article II (Registered Office) of the Sixth Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of NYSE Group; and
• Article I, Section 1.1 (Registered Office) of the Fourth Amended and Restated Bylaws of NYSE Group.
The listed provisions identify The Corporation Trust Company as the
In addition, conforming changes would be made to the title [sic], recitals, dates and signature lines, as applicable, of the Governing Documents.
The change is a non-substantive technical administrative change.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Exchange Act
The proposed rule change is a non-substantive administrative change that does not impact the governance or ownership of the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would enable the Exchange to continue to be so organized as to have the capacity to carry out the purposes of the Exchange Act and comply and enforce compliance with the provisions of the Exchange Act by its members and persons associated with its members, because ensuring that the Governing Documents rules identify the registered agent and registered office in Delaware would contribute to the orderly operation of the Exchange by adding clarity and transparency to its rules. Similarly, the proposed conforming changes to the title [sic], recitals, date and signature line, as applicable, of the Governing Documents would contribute to the orderly operation of the Exchange by adding clarity and transparency to its rules.
For similar reasons, the Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system by ensuring that market participants can more easily navigate, understand and comply with its rules. The Exchange believes that, by ensuring that such rules accurately identify the registered agent and registered office in Delaware, and by making conforming changes to the title [sic], recitals, date and signature line, as applicable, of the Governing Documents, the proposed rule change would reduce potential investor or market participant confusion.
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 Exchange Act. The proposed rule change is not designed to address any competitive issue but rather is concerned solely with making a technical change updating the registered office and registered agent of each Intermediate Holding Company.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the fee schedule applicable to Members
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule applicable to its equities trading platform (“BZX Equities”) to amend the criteria necessary to qualify for the enhanced rebate provided by the Single MPID Investor Tier 1 under footnote 4. The Exchange currently offers two Single MPID Investor Tiers under footnote 4, which provide an enhanced rebate of $0.0031 or $0.0027 per share for qualifying orders which yield fee codes B,
The Exchange proposes to implement the above change to its fee schedule on February 1, 2018.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes are consistent with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed modification to the tiered pricing structure is reasonable, fair and equitable, and non-discriminatory. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants may readily send order flow to many competing venues if they deem fees at the Exchange to be excessive or incentives provided to be insufficient. The proposed structure remains intended to attract order flow to the Exchange by offering market participants a competitive pricing structure. The Exchange believes it is reasonable to offer and incrementally modify incentives intended to help to contribute to the growth of the Exchange.
Volume-based pricing such as that proposed herein have been widely adopted by exchanges, including the Exchange, and are equitable because they are open to all Members on an equal basis and provide additional benefits or discounts that are reasonably related to: (i) The value to an exchange's market quality; (ii) associated higher levels of market activity, such as higher levels of liquidity provisions and/or growth patterns; and (iii) introduction of
The proposed modification of the Single MPID Investor Tier 1 under footnote 4 should further incentive Members to send a higher level of orders to the Exchange in order to meet the tier's decreased criteria. The Exchange believes that by decreasing the tier's criteria, although modestly, it will encourage those Members who could not achieve the tier previously to increase their order flow as a means to receive the tier's enhanced rebate on an MPID basis. Thus, the Exchange believes that the proposed modification is reasonable and equitable because it should provide Members who viewed the current criteria as too high and did not previously attempt to achieve the tier's criteria with an incentive to add order flow to reach the new lower threshold. The proposed modification is non-discriminatory because it applies and is available to all Members.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed change to the its tiered pricing structure burdens competition, but instead, enhances competition as it is intended to increase the competitiveness of BZX by modifying pricing incentives in order to attract order flow and incentivize participants to increase their participation on the Exchange. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee structures to be unreasonable or excessive. The Exchange does not believe the proposed amendments would burden intramarket competition as they would be available to all Members uniformly.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from Members or other interested parties.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 206(3)-2, (17 CFR 275.206(3)-2) which is entitled “Agency Cross Transactions for Advisory Clients,” permits investment advisers to comply with section 206(3) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Act”) (15 U.S.C. 80b-6(3)) by obtaining a client's blanket consent to enter into agency cross transactions (
The information requirements of the rule consist of the following: (1) Prior to obtaining the client's consent appropriate disclosure must be made to the client as to the practice of, and the conflicts of interest involved in, agency cross transactions; (2) at or before the completion of any such transaction the client must be furnished with a written confirmation containing specified information and offering to furnish upon request certain additional information; and (3) at least annually, the client must be furnished with a written statement or summary as to the total number of transactions during the period covered by the consent and the total amount of commissions received by the adviser or its affiliated broker-dealer attributable to such transactions.
The Commission estimates that approximately 426 respondents use the rule annually, necessitating about 50 responses per respondent each year, for a total of 21,300 responses. Each response requires an estimated 0.5 hours, for a total of 10,650 hours. The estimated average burden hours are made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act and are not derived from a comprehensive or representative survey or study of the cost of Commission rules and forms.
This collection of information is found at (17 CFR 275.206(3)-2) and is necessary in order for the investment adviser to obtain the benefits of Rule 206(3)-2. The collection of information requirements under the rule is mandatory. Information subject to the disclosure requirements of Rule 206(3)-2 does not require submission to the Commission; and, accordingly, the disclosure pursuant to the rule is not kept confidential. Commission-registered investment advisers are required to maintain and preserve certain information required under Rule 206(3)-2 for five (5) years. The long-term retention of these records is necessary for the Commission's inspection program to ascertain compliance with the Advisers Act.
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 control number.
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within sixty 60 days of this publication.
Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549; or send an email to:
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend certain of the governing documents of its intermediate parent companies Intercontinental Exchange Holdings, Inc. (“ICE Holdings”), NYSE Holdings LLC (“NYSE Holdings”) and NYSE Group, Inc. (“NYSE Group”) to make a technical change updating the registered office and registered agent in the state of Delaware. The proposed 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 Exchange proposes to amend certain of the governing documents of its intermediate parent companies ICE Holdings, NYSE Holdings, and NYSE Group to make a technical change updating the registered office and registered agent in the state of Delaware.
ICE Holdings and NYSE Group are corporations and NYSE Holdings is a limited liability corporation, all organized under the laws of the State of Delaware. As such, they are required to have and maintain a registered office and registered agent in Delaware.
More specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend the following provisions in the listed documents
• Article II (Registered Office) of the Ninth Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of ICE Holdings;
• Article II, Sections 2.4 (Registered Office) and 2.5 (Registered Agent) of the Ninth Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement of NYSE Holdings;
• the Certificate of Formation of NYSE Holdings;
• Article II (Registered Office) of the Sixth Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of NYSE Group; and
• Article I, Section 1.1 (Registered Office) of the Fourth Amended and Restated Bylaws of NYSE Group.
The listed provisions identify The Corporation Trust Company as the registered agent, and provide that the address of the registered office in Wilmington, Delaware is Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange Street. The Exchange proposes to amend such provisions to identify United Agent Group Inc. as the registered agent, and to provide that the address of the registered office is 3411 Silverside Road, Tatnall Building No. 104, Wilmington, County of New Castle, Delaware 19810.
In addition, conforming changes would be made to the title [sic], recitals, dates and signature lines, as applicable, of the Governing Documents.
The change is a non-substantive technical administrative change.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Exchange Act
The proposed rule change is a non-substantive administrative change that does not impact the governance or ownership of the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would enable the Exchange to continue to be so organized as to have the capacity to carry out the purposes of the Exchange Act and comply and enforce compliance with the provisions of the Exchange Act by its members and persons associated with its members, because ensuring that the Governing Documents rules identify the registered agent and registered office in Delaware would contribute to the orderly operation of the Exchange by adding clarity and transparency to its rules. Similarly, the proposed conforming changes to the title [sic], recitals, date and signature line, as applicable, of the Governing Documents would contribute to the orderly operation of the Exchange by adding clarity and transparency to its rules.
For similar reasons, the Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system by ensuring that market participants can more easily navigate, understand and comply with its rules. The Exchange believes that, by ensuring that such rules accurately identify the registered agent and registered office in Delaware, and by making conforming changes to the title [sic], recitals, date and signature line, as applicable, of the Governing Documents, the proposed rule change would reduce potential investor or market participant confusion.
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 Exchange Act. The proposed rule change is not designed to address any competitive issue but rather is concerned solely with making a technical change updating the registered office and registered agent of each Intermediate Holding Company.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
The principal purpose of the proposed rule change is to make revisions to the ICC End-of-Day Price Discovery Policies and Procedures (“Pricing Policy”) related to the bid-offer width (“BOW”) methodology for Single Name instruments. These revisions do not require any changes to the ICC Clearing Rules.
In its filing with the Commission, ICC included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change, security-based swap submission, or advance notice and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change, security-based swap submission, or advance notice. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. ICC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.
ICC proposes revising its Pricing Policy to enhance the methodology used to determine bid-offer widths for Single Name instruments. ICC believes the enhancement will facilitate the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and derivative agreements, contracts, and transactions cleared by ICC.
Each business day, ICC determines end-of-day (“EOD”) levels through its established price discovery process, based on EOD submissions from its Clearing Participants. ICC uses these levels for mark-to-market and risk management purposes. As part of its price discovery process, ICC determines BOWs for each clearing-eligible instrument. The BOWs are then used in ICC's price discovery process as inputs in the determination of EOD levels and Firm Trades.
The current methodology for determining BOWs for CDS instruments referencing a given Single Name reference entity is based on observed intraday bid and offer spread-levels for the most actively traded instrument (“MATI”) across the term structure and cleared coupons. ICC begins with a spread-based consensus BOW derived from intraday quotes for the MATI. This consensus BOW is then multiplied by a “scrape factor” to reflect any differences between the BOWs provided in intraday quotes and BOWs achieved in the market. Once the consensus BOW is determined, ICC applies various factors to the consensus BOW to reflect differences in instrument liquidity at longer and shorter maturities, and at higher and lower coupons. Scaling across maturities is performed in spread terms, while scaling of BOWs across coupons is performed in price terms. The transformations from spread to price are achieved using the ISDA Standard Model.
ICC is proposing to enhance the methodology for determining Single Name BOWs. The proposed enhancement eliminates the use of the ISDA Standard Model from the computation of Single Name BOWs.
Under the proposed enhancement ICC will compute a consensus BOW, as described below, not only for the MATI as in the current methodology, but for each benchmark instrument. Rather than consensus BOWs being derived from intraday quotes, they will be computed as a price-based floor plus a relative BOW multiplied by the currently-observed level, where the currently-observed level is the average of price-space mid-levels submitted in the EOD price discovery process. The
As stated above, ICC currently applies various factors to consensus BOWs to reflect differences in instrument liquidity at longer and shorter maturities, and at higher and lower coupons. Under the proposed enhancement, ICC will apply analogous factors to consensus BOWs. Specifically, to determine a systematic EOD BOW for each benchmark-instrument at the most-actively-traded coupon (“MATC”), ICC will apply tenor scaling-factors to the corresponding consensus BOWs. These tenor-scaling factors reflect the BOW of each tenor relative to the BOW of the most-actively-traded tenor. To determine the systematic EOD BOWs for each benchmark-instrument at other coupons, ICC will apply a combination of tenor scaling-factors and coupon scaling-factors to the corresponding consensus BOWs. The coupon scaling-factors reflect increased BOWs at coupons larger or smaller than the MATC. The tenor and coupon scaling factors will be set by the ICC Risk Management Department, in consultation with the TAC, to reflect ratios of observed variability in SN levels at the MATI and at a given tenor/coupon. As with the current methodology, once all applicable factors have been applied, ICC will then apply the appropriate Single Name variability factor,
Under the proposed enhancement, ICC will determine the final EOD BOWs as the greater of an instrument's systematic BOW, and a dynamic BOW established for the instrument. The dynamic BOW is the dispersion of price-space mid-levels submitted to the EOD price-discovery process for the given instrument.
ICC proposes revisions to the Governance section of the Pricing Policy to note that under the proposed approach, the responsibilities of the ICC Risk Management department include determining the price-based floors, relative BOWs, tenor scaling factors, and coupon scaling factors used to establish BOWs. ICC also proposes generalizing language to note that the ICC Risk Management department is responsible for ensuring that appropriate EOD levels are determined. ICC proposes to remove references to scrape factors, which under the current approach are applied to consensus BOWs determined from intraday quotes “scraped” from trader emails, but are not applicable under the proposed approach in which the determination of consensus BOWs does not involve “scraped” intraday quotes. ICC also proposes to add clarification that parameters used in the EOD price discovery process are established by the ICC Risk Management department in consultation with the TAC.
ICC proposes a revision to note that under the proposed approach, the TAC will review and provide input on revisions to BOW price-based floors. ICC proposes to remove reference to the TAC's review of scrape factors, which are not applicable under the proposed approach.
ICC proposes clarifying changes to the Pricing Policy. ICC proposes adding a clarifying footnote regarding ICC's use of the ISDA Standard Model. To improve clarity, ICC proposes to remove a sentence summarizing the inputs used by ICC to determine EOD BOWs for Single Name and index instruments, as these inputs are described in detail elsewhere in the document. ICC proposes a revision to note that trading desks at each self clearing member (“SCM”) are requested to copy ICC on the intraday quotes they provide market participants via email. ICC proposes removing outdated references regarding the computation of Single Name consensus BOWs. ICC proposes a revision to correct a typographical error by including the adjustment of trade levels to limit profit/loss impact (if required), in a list of “cross-and-lock” algorithm components. ICC proposes a clarifying edit to note that, for a given index, the EOD BOWs are computed based on the consensus BOW of the on-the-run instrument. ICC also proposes minor updates to the times of various end-of-day processes for different settlement windows, to reflect current practice. Finally, ICC proposes updates to section numbering and correction of a typographical error in a heading.
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
ICC does not believe the proposed rule changes would have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition. The proposed changes to ICC's BOW methodology for Single Name instruments will apply uniformly across all market participants. Therefore, ICC does not believe the proposed rule changes impose any burden on competition that is inappropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been solicited or received. ICC will notify the Commission of any written comments received by ICC.
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.
All comments received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICC-2018-002 and should be submitted on or before March 5, 2018.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Selective Service System.
Notice.
The following form has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for extension of clearance with change in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35):
Copies of the above identified form can be obtained upon written request to the Selective Service System, Operations Directorate, 1515 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22209-2425.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed extension of clearance with change of the form should be sent within 30 days of the publication of this notice to the Selective Service System, Operations Directorate, 1515 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22209-2425.
A copy of the comments should be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Desk Officer, Selective Service System, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 3235, Washington, DC 20503.
Notice of request for public comment.
The Department of State is seeking Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we are requesting comments on this collection from all interested individuals and organizations. The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
The Department will accept comments from the public up to April 13, 2018.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
You must include the DS form number (if applicable), information collection title, and the OMB control number in any correspondence.
Direct requests for additional information regarding the collection listed in this notice, including requests for copies of the proposed collection instrument and supporting documents, to Thomas P. Shearer, Office of Overseas Schools, U.S. Department of State, Room H328, 2301 C Street NW,
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department.
• Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
The legal requirements that authorize the function of A/OPR/OS and thereby authorize the collection of information are the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (as amended), and the Mutual Educational and Cultural Affairs Act of 1961 (as amended), and the Department of State Basic Authorities Act of 1956, as amended by the Foreign Service Act of 1980, Public Law 96-465.
Susquehanna River Basin Commission.
Notice.
This notice lists the projects approved by rule by the Susquehanna River Basin Commission during the period set forth in
November 1-30, 2017.
Susquehanna River Basin Commission, 4423 North Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110-1788.
Jason E. Oyler, General Counsel, 717-238-0423, ext. 1312,
This notice lists the projects, described below, receiving approval for the consumptive use of water pursuant to the Commission's approval by rule process set forth in 18 CFR 806.22(e) and 806.22(f) for the time period specified above:
Public Law 91-575, 84 Stat. 1509
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The Federal Aviation Administration is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for a renewal of the existing Information Collection 2120-0768. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comment.
The FAA proposes collecting information related to requests to operate Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) in controlled airspace pursuant to 14 CFR part 107 (“part 107”). FAA will use the collected information to make determinations whether to authorize or deny the requested operation of UAS in controlled airspace. The proposed information collection is necessary to issue such authorizations or denials consistent with the FAA's mandate to ensure safe and efficient use of national airspace.
In addition, FAA proposes collecting information related to requests for waiver from the waivable provisions of 14 CFR part 107. The proposed information collection is necessary to determine whether the proposed operation is eligible for waiver consistent with the FAA's mandate to ensure safe and efficient use of national airspace.
Written comments should be submitted by April 13, 2018.
You may submit comments [identified by Docket No. FAA-2017-0975] through one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Casey Nair, FAA's Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Low Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability (LAANC) Program Manager, tel (202) 267-0369 or via email at
In order to process these authorization and airspace waiver requests, the FAA requires the operator's name, the operator's contact information, and information related to the date, place, and time of the requested small UAS operation. This information is necessary for the FAA to meet its statutory mandate of maintaining a safe and efficient national airspace. See, 49 U.S.C. 40103 and 44701; Public Law 112-95, Section 333.
Additionally, if the operator is seeking a waiver from the regulations listed in 14 CFR 107.205 (“operational waiver”), further information is required related to the proposed waiver and any necessary mitigations. The FAA will use the requested information to determine if the proposed UAS operation can be conducted safely.
The FAA proposes to use LAANC, or the Low Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability, and a web portal to process authorization requests from the public to conduct part 107 flight operations. The FAA also proposes to use the web portal to all members of the public to request authority to conduct flight operations that require a waiver from the waivable provisions in part 107.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before March 14, 2018.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2018-0015. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel MAYAN MYSTRESS is:
The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD-2018-0015 at
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts these comments, without edit, to
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice and request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below is being forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comments. The information collection is used by MARAD in determining Fair & Reasonable rates for the carriage of bulk and packaged agriculture preference cargoes on U.S.-flag commercial vessels. A
Comments must be submitted on or before March 14, 2018.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of the Secretary of Transportation, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the Department's performance; (b) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for the Department to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d) ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of the collected information.
Albert Bratton, Telephone Number: (202) 366-5769, Office of Financial Approvals, Maritime Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice and request for comments.
The Maritime Administration (MARAD) invites public comments on our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. The information to be collected is required in order for MARAD to determine whether the applicant is qualified for the benefits of the CRF program. We are required to publish this notice in the
Comments must be submitted on or before April 13, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by Docket No. DOT-MARAD-2018-0017 through one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Daniel Ladd, 202-366-1859, Office of Financial Approvals, Maritime Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws
Submit comments on or before March 14, 2018.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2018-0014. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel DELA is:
The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD-2018-0014 at
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts these comments, without edit, to
49 CFR 1.93(a), 46 U.S.C. 55103, 46 U.S.C. 12121.
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before March 14, 2018.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2018-0006. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel WINSOME RIDE is:
The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD-2018-0006 at
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts these comments, without edit, to
49 CFR 1.93(a), 46 U.S.C. § 55103, 46 U.S.C. § 12121.
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice and request for comments.
The Maritime Administration (MARAD) invites public comments on our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. The information to be collected will be used to determine if selected vessels are qualified to participate in the Maritime Security Program. We are required to publish this notice in the
Comments must be submitted on or before April 13, 2018.
You may submit comments [identified by Docket No. DOT-MARAD-2018-0018 through one of the following methods:
•
•
•
William McDonald, 202-366-0688, Office of Sealift Support, Maritime Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W23-308, Washington, DC 20590.
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before March 14, 2018.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2018-0016. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel ANYWHERE is:
The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD-2018-0016 at
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts these comments, without edit, to
* * *
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
Notice of advisory committee meeting.
This notice announces a public teleconference meeting of the Technical Pipeline Safety Standards Committee, also known as the Gas Pipeline Advisory Committee (GPAC). The GPAC will meet to continue discussing topics and provisions for the proposed rule titled “Safety of Gas Transmission and Gathering Pipelines.”
The meeting will be held on March 2, 2018, from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. ET. Members of the public who wish to participate are asked to register no later than February 22, 2018. Individuals requiring accommodations, such as sign language interpretation or other ancillary aids, may notify PHMSA by February 22, 2018. For additional information, see the
This public meeting will be held via teleconference. Members of the public may join the teleconference individually, or join the teleconference in a designated space at the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Please note that limited space is available for in-person attendance at DOT, and procedures governing security and the entrance to Federal buildings may change without notice. Therefore, members of the public seeking to participate in the teleconference at DOT must register on the pipeline advisory committee meeting and registration page at:
Presentations will be available on the meeting page and posted on the E-Gov website,
Anyone wishing to make a statement on the topics discussed during the meeting should send an email to
If you wish to receive confirmation of receipt of your written comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped postcard with the following statement: “Comments on PHMSA-2016-0136.” The docket clerk will date stamp the postcard prior to returning it to you via the U.S. mail.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
For information about this meeting contact Cheryl Whetsel by phone at 202-366-4431 or by email at
The GPAC will be considering the proposed rule titled, “Safety of Gas Transmission and Gathering Pipelines,”
• Require periodic assessments of pipelines in locations where persons are expected to be at risk that are not already covered under the integrity management (IM) program requirements.
• Modify the repair criteria, both inside and outside of high consequence areas (HCAs).
• Require inspections of pipelines in areas affected by extreme weather, man-made and natural disasters, and other similar events.
• Provide additional specificity for in-line inspections, including explicit requirements to account for uncertainty of reported inspection data when evaluating in-line inspection data to identify anomalies.
• Expand integrity assessment methods to explicitly address guided wave ultrasonic inspection and excavation with direct in-situ examination.
• Provide clearer functional requirements for conducting risk assessments for IM, including addressing seismic risks.
• Expand the mandatory data collection and integration requirements for IM, including data validation and seismicity.
• Add requirements to address management of change.
• Repeal the use of API Recommended Practice 80 for gathering lines.
• Apply Type B requirements along with emergency requirements to newly regulated greater than 8-inch Type A gathering lines in Class 1 locations (GAO Recommendation 14-667).
• Extend the reporting requirements to all gathering lines.
• Expand requirements for corrosion protection to specify additional post-construction quality checks, and periodic operational and maintenance checks to address coating integrity, cathodic protection, and gas quality monitoring.
• Require operators to report maximum allowable operating pressure exceedances.
• Require safety features on in-line inspection tool launchers and receivers.
• Add certain types of roadways to the definition of “identified sites” (NTSB P-14-1).
• Address grandfathered pipe and pipe with inadequate records.
The GPAC meeting agenda will include the following discussion items:
• Strengthening IM Assessment Methods
• Assessments outside of HCAs
• Record Retention Requirements
• Repair Criteria (inside and outside of HCAs)
The GPAC is a statutorily mandated advisory committee that advises PHMSA on proposed gas pipeline safety standards and their associated risk assessments. The committee is established in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2, as amended) and 49 U.S.C. 60115. The committee consists of 15 members with membership evenly divided among federal and state governments, the regulated industry, and the general public. The committee advises PHMSA on the technical feasibility, reasonableness, cost-effectiveness, and practicability of each proposed pipeline safety standard.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, PHMSA invites comments an information collection that will be expiring on April 30, 2018. PHMSA will request an extension with no change for the information collection identified by OMB control number 2137-0049.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before April 13, 2018.
Comments may be submitted in the following ways:
Angela Dow by telephone at 202-366-1246, by fax at 202-366-4566, or by mail at DOT, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, PHP-30, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Section 1320.8(d), Title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, requires PHMSA to provide interested members of the public and affected agencies an opportunity to comment on information collection and
Comments are invited on:
(a) The need for the renewal of this collection of information for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.48.
Office of the Secretary (OST), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of public meeting.
OST is announcing a public meeting to seek input regarding
OST will hold the public meeting on March 1, 2018, in Washington, DC. The meeting will start at 1:00 p.m. and continue until 4:00 p.m. EST. Check-in will begin at 12:00 p.m. Attendees should arrive early enough to go through security by 12:50 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the U.S. DOT Headquarters building located at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590 (Green Line Metro station at Navy Yard) on the [Ground Floor Atrium]. This facility is accessible to individuals with disabilities. The meeting will also be Webcast live; a link to the Webcast will be made available through the registration process.
If you have questions about the public meeting, please contact us at
Although attendees will be given the opportunity to offer oral remarks during the Question and Answer portion of the meeting, there will not be time for attendees to make audio-visual presentations. Also, OST may not be able to accommodate all attendees who wish to make oral remarks; therefore, OST encourages submission of written comments to the docket. OST will conduct the public meeting informally, and technical rules of evidence will not apply. OST will arrange for a written transcript of the meeting and keep the official record open for 30 days after the meeting to allow submission of supplemental information. You may make arrangements to receive copies of the transcripts directly with the court reporter, and the transcript will also be posted in the docket when it becomes available.
In addition to the afternoon public meeting, the Department is hosting, in the morning, several stakeholder breakout sessions on various topics related to automation. The Department anticipates providing a brief summary of those sessions at the public meeting, followed later by a written report, which will be made publicly available, including being placed in the docket. Should it be necessary to cancel the meeting due to inclement weather or other emergency, OST will take all available measures to notify registered participants beforehand.
•
•
•
•
• Submitted in a sealed envelope marked “confidential treatment requested”;
• Accompanied by an index listing the document(s) or information that the submitter would like the Departments to withhold. The index should include information such as numbers used to identify the relevant document(s) or information, document title and description, and relevant pages numbers and/or section numbers within a document; and
• Submitted with a statement explaining the submitter's grounds for objecting to disclosure of the information to the public.
OST also requests that submitters of Confidential Information include a non-confidential version (either redacted or summarized) of those confidential submissions in the public docket. In the event that the submitter cannot provide a non-confidential version of its submission, OST requests that the submitter post a notice in the docket stating that it has provided OST with Confidential Information. Should a submitter fail to docket either a non-confidential version of its submission or to post a notice that Confidential Information has been provided, we will note the receipt of the submission on the docket, with the submitter's organization or name (to the degree permitted by law) and the date of submission.
On September 12, 2017, DOT released
This public meeting is being held during the
Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated by 49 U.S.C. 1.25a on:
Notice.
The United States Mint announces the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee (CCAC) public meeting scheduled for March 13, 2018.
Interested members of the public may either attend the meeting in person or dial in to listen to the meeting at (866) 564-9287/Access Code: 62956028.
Any member of the public interested in submitting matters for the CCAC's consideration is invited to submit them by fax to the following number: 202-756-6525.
The CCAC advises the Secretary of the Treasury on any theme or design proposals relating to circulating coinage, bullion coinage, Congressional Gold Medals, and national and other medals; advises the Secretary of the Treasury with regard to the events, persons, or places to be commemorated by the issuance of commemorative coins in each of the five calendar years succeeding the year in which a commemorative coin designation is made; and makes recommendations with respect to the mintage level for any commemorative coin recommended.
Members of the public interested in attending the meeting in person will be admitted into the meeting room on a first-come, first-serve basis as space is limited. Conference Room A&B can accommodate up to 50 members of the public at any one time. In addition, all persons entering a United States Mint
The United States Mint Police Officer conducting the screening will evaluate whether an item may enter into or exit from a facility based upon federal law, Treasury policy, United States Mint Policy, and local operating procedure; and all prohibited and unauthorized items will be subject to confiscation and disposal.
Betty Birdsong, Acting United States Mint Liaison to the CCAC; 801 9th Street NW, Washington, DC 20220; or call 202-354-7200.
31 U.S.C. 5135(b)(8)(C).
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden and it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before March 14, 2018.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-5870 or email
44 U.S.C. 3501-21.
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
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden and it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before March 14, 2018.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-5870 or email
44 U.S.C. 3501-21.
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
By direction of the Secretary.
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA).
Notice of a modified matching program.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) provides notice that the VA intends to re-establish a computer matching agreement with the Social Security Administration (SSA). This disclosure provides VA with data to update the master records of VA applicants and beneficiaries, including Veterans and survivors, and their eligible dependent(s) who are receiving income-dependent benefits. This disclosure also provides VA with data to determine the continued eligibility of those receiving income-dependent benefits and those beneficiaries who are receiving disability compensation at the 100 percent rate because of unemployability, and allow VA to adjust or discontinue benefits accordingly.
Comments on this matching program must be received no later than March 14, 2018. If no public comment is received during the period allowed for comment or unless otherwise published in the
Written comments may be submitted through
Bryant Coleman, Program Analyst, Pension and Fiduciary Service (21P), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-8394.
This disclosure will provide VA with data to update the master records of VA applicants and beneficiaries, including Veterans and survivors, and their eligible dependent(s) who are receiving income-dependent benefits. This disclosure will also provide VA with data to determine the continued eligibility of those receiving income-dependent benefits and those beneficiaries who are receiving disability compensation at the 100 percent rate because of unemployability, and allow VA to adjust or discontinue benefits accordingly.
Legal authority for the disclosures under this agreement is 38 U.S.C. 5106, which requires Federal agencies to furnish VA with information the VA Secretary may request for determining eligibility for or the amount of VA benefits.
SSA will disclose to VA the necessary tax return information from the MEF, last fully published at 71 FR 1819 (January 11, 2006), and amended at 78 FR 40542. SSA will disclose to VA data from Master Files of Social Security Number (SSN) Holders and SSN Applications (the Enumeration System), 60-0058, last fully published at 75 FR 82121 (December 29, 2010), and amended at 78 FR 40542 (July 5, 2013) and 79 FR 8780 (February 13, 2014).
In accordance with the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a(o)(2) and (r), copies of the agreement are being sent to both Houses of Congress and to the Office of Management and Budget. This notice is provided in accordance with the provisions of Privacy Act of 1974 as amended by Public Law 100-503.
The Senior Agency Official for Privacy, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. John Oswalt, Executive Director for Privacy, Department of Veterans Affairs approved this document on December 20, 2017 for publication.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden; it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before March 14, 2018.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor, Department Clearance Officer—Ol&T (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 811 Vermont Avenue NW (Floor 5, area 368), Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-5870 or email
44 U.S.C. 3501-3521; 38 U.S.C. 3034, 3241, 3323, 3680; and 3684, 10 U.S.C. 16136, and 16166, 38 CFR 21.4203, 21.5200(d), 21.7152, 21.7652, and 21.9720.
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
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden and it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before March 14, 2018.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-5870 or email
44 U.S.C. 3501-21.
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
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Health Administration (VHA).
Notice of a modified system of records.
As required by the Privacy Act of 1974, notice is hereby given that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is amending the system of records entitled, “National Patient Databases-VA” (121VA10P2) as set forth in 79 FR 8245. VA is amending the system of records by revising the System Number, Purpose, Routine Uses of Records Maintained in the System, Record Source Category, and Appendix. VA is republishing the system notice in its entirety.
Comments on the amendment of this system of records must be received no later than March 14, 2018. If no public comment is received during the period allowed for comment or unless otherwise published in the
Written comments may be submitted through
Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Privacy Officer, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420; telephone (704) 245-2492. (This is not a toll-free number.)
The System Number is being changed from 120VA10P2 to 121VA10A7 to reflect the current organizational alignment.
The Purpose has been amended to replace Healthcare Associated Infections & Influenza Surveillance System (HAIISS) with National Center for Patient Safety Public Health System.
The Routine Uses of Records Maintained in the System has been amended by adding language to Routine Use #21 which states, “
Adding Routine Use #27 which states, “Disclosure of Veteran identifiers and demographic information (
Routine use #28 is being added to state, “VA may disclose relevant health care information to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and/or their designee in response to its request or at the initiation of VA, in connection with disease-tracking, patient outcomes, bio-surveillance, or other health information required for program accountability.” VA needs the ability to conduct disease tracking to impact patient outcomes, respond to public health threats, and to contribute significantly to the CDC's ability to conduct and monitor public health surveillance.
Routine use #29 is being added to state, “VA may, on its own initiative, disclose information from this system to another Federal agency or Federal entity, when VA determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach. VA needs this routine use for the data breach response and remedial efforts with another Federal agency.
Routine use #30 is being added to state, “VA may disclose relevant healthcare and demographic information to health and welfare agencies, housing resources, and community providers, consistent with good medical-ethical practices, for Veterans assessed by or engaged in VA homeless programs for purposes of coordinating care, expediting access to housing, providing medical and related services, participating in coordinated entry processes, reducing Veteran homelessness, identifying homeless individuals in need of immediate assistance and ensuring program accountability by assigning and tracking responsibility for urgently required care.” VA needs this routine use to effectively and efficiently collaborate with partner agencies by sharing information documented in the Homeless Operations Management and Evaluation System (HOMES) for the explicit purpose of improving timeliness and access to necessary services for Veterans in the homeless continuum.
The Record Source Category is being amended to replace 89VA16 with
Appendix 4 has been amended by:
1. Removing the “Oncology Tumor Registry (ONC)” which is now incorporated in the VA Central Cancer Registry (VACCR); therefore, ONC is no longer needed as a separate registry.
2. Amending the Veterans Affairs Surgical Quality Improvement Program (VASQIP) address is being amended to replace VA National Surgery Office (10NC2), 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420 with Region 06 Office of Information and Technology (OI&T) Data Center, Denver, CO 80220.
3. Replacing HAIISS Data Warehouse is being replaced with National Center for Patient Safety Public Health System (NCPSPHS) due to the HAISS being discontinued, therefore adding NCPSPHS represented a change of mission as well as data content.
4. “Public Health Reference Network” is being replaced with NCPSPHS due to the information technology (IT) system being discontinued and a name change to better describe the mission of the IT system within VHA.
5. Adding the “Inpatient Evaluation Center (IPEC) Legionella Case Report Module”, which are located at the Austin Information Technology Center, 1615 Woodward Street, Austin, TX 78772. IPEC is being added as system to record aggregate data about hospitalized patients, the Legionnaire Module was added to record individual patient data with a patient identifier used to track patients diagnosed with Legionnaire's Disease.
6. Adding the “Veterans Integrated Registry Platform”, which a new health registry platform designed to host VHA health registries.
The Report of Intent to Amend a System of Records Notice and an advance copy of the system notice have been sent to the appropriate Congressional committees and to the Director of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) (Privacy Act) and guidelines issued by OMB (65 FR 77677),
Records are maintained at VA medical centers, VA data processing centers, Veterans Integrated Service Networks (VISN), and Office of Information field offices. Address location for each VA national patient database is listed in VA Appendix 4 at the end of this document.
Officials responsible for policies and procedures: Assistant Deputy Under Secretary for Informatics and Information Governance (10P2), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420. Officials maintaining this system of records: Director, National Data Systems (10P2C), Austin Information Technology Center, 1615 Woodward Street, Austin, Texas 78772.
Title 38 United States Code Section 501.
The records and information may be used for statistical analysis to produce various management, workload tracking, and follow-up reports; to track and evaluate the ordering and delivery of equipment, services, and patient care; for the planning, distribution, and utilization of resources; to monitor the performance of VISNs; and to allocate clinical and administrative support to patient medical care. The data may be used for VA's extensive research programs in accordance with VA policy. In addition, the data may be used to assist in workload allocation for patient treatment services including provider panel management, nursing care, clinic appointments, surgery, prescription processing, diagnostic and therapeutic procedures; to plan and schedule training activities for employees; for audits, reviews, and investigations conducted by the network directors office and VA Central Office; for quality assurance audits, reviews, and investigations; for law enforcement investigations; and for personnel management, evaluation and employee ratings, and performance evaluations. Survey data will be collected for the purpose of measuring and monitoring national, VISN, and facility-level performance on the Veterans Health Administration's (VHA) Veteran Health Care Service Standards (VHSS) pursuant to Executive Order 12862 and VHA Customer Service Standards Directive. The VHSS are designed to measure levels of patient satisfaction in areas that patients have defined as important in receiving quality, patient-centered health care. Results of the survey data analysis are shared throughout the VHA system. The External Peer Review Program (EPRP) data are collected in order to provide medical centers and outpatient clinics with diagnosis and procedure-specific quality of care information. EPRP is a contracted review of care, specifically designated to collect data to be used to improve the quality of care. The Veteran Homeless records and information will be used for case management in addition to statistical analysis to produce various management, workload tracking, and follow-up reports; to track and evaluate the goal of ending Veteran homelessness. National Center for Patient Safety Public Health System data will be available to VHA clinicians to use for the monitoring of health care-associated infections and for the transmittal of data to state/local health departments for biosurveillance purposes.
The records contain information for all individuals (1) Receiving health care from VHA, and (2) Providing the health care. Individuals encompass Veterans and their immediate family members, members of the Armed Services, current and former employees, trainees, contractors, subcontractors, consultants, volunteers, and other individuals working collaboratively with VA.
The records may include information and health information related to:
1. Patient medical record abstract information including, but not limited to, information from Patient Medical Record—VA (24VA10P2).
2. Identifying information (
3. Medical benefit and eligibility information;
4. Patient workload data such as admissions, discharges, and outpatient visits; resource utilization such as laboratory tests, x-rays;
5. Patient Satisfaction Survey Data which include questions and responses;
6. EPRP data capture;
7. Online Data Collection system supported by Northeast Program Evaluation Center and VHA Support Service Center to include electronic information from all Veteran homeless programs and external sources; and
8. Clinically oriented information associated with My HealtheVet such as secure messages.
Information in this system of records is provided by Veterans, VA employees, VA computer systems, Veterans Health Information Systems and Technology Architecture, VA medical centers, VA Health Eligibility Center, VA program offices, VISNs, VA Austin Automation Center, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Department of Defense (DOD), Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Survey of Healthcare Experiences of Patients, EPRP, and the following Systems Of Records: `Patient Medical Records—VA' (24VA10P2), `National Prosthetics Patient Database—VA' (33VA113), `Healthcare Eligibility Records—VA' (89VA10NB), VA Veterans Benefits Administration automated record systems (including the Veterans and Beneficiaries Identification and Records Location Subsystem—VA (38VA23)), and subsequent iterations of those systems of records.
To the extent that records contained in the system include information protected by 38 U.S.C. 7332,
1. VA may disclose on its own initiative any information in this system, except the names and home addresses of Veterans and their dependents, that is relevant to a suspected or reasonably imminent violation of law, whether civil, criminal, or regulatory in nature and whether arising by general or program statute or by regulation, rule or order issued pursuant thereto, to a Federal, state, local, tribal, or foreign agency charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting such violation, or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, regulation, rule, or order. On its own initiative, VA may also disclose the names and addresses of Veterans and their dependents to a Federal agency charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting civil, criminal, or regulatory violations of law, or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, regulation, rule, or order issued pursuant thereto.
2. Disclosure may be made to any source from which additional information is requested (to the extent necessary to identify the individual, inform the source of the purpose(s) of the request, and identify the type of information requested), when necessary to obtain or provide information relevant to an individual's eligibility, care history, or other benefits across different Federal, state, or local, public health, health care, or program benefit agencies that improves the quality and safety of health care for our Veterans.
3. Disclosure may be made to a Federal agency in the executive, legislative, or judicial branch, state and local Government or the District of Columbia government in response to its request or at the initiation of VA, in connection with disease tracking, patient outcomes, or other health information required for program accountability.
4. Disclosure may be made to the National Archives and Records Administration and the General Services Administration for records management inspections under authority of Title 44, Chapter 29, of the United States Code.
5. VA may disclose information in this system of records to the Department of Justice (DOJ), either on VA's initiative or in response to DOJ's request for the information, after either VA or DOJ determines that such information is relevant to DOJ's representation of the United States or any of its components in legal proceedings before a court or adjudicative body, provided that, in each case, the agency also determines prior to disclosure that disclosure of the records to the DOJ is a use of the information contained in the records that is compatible with the purpose for which VA collected the records. VA, on its own initiative, may disclose records in this system of records in legal proceedings before a court or administrative body after determining that the disclosure of the records to the court or administrative body is a use of the information contained in the records that is compatible with the purpose for which VA collected the records.
6. Records from this system of records may be disclosed to a Federal agency or to a state or local government licensing board and/or to the Federation of State Medical Boards or a similar nongovernment entity that maintains records concerning individuals' employment histories or concerning the issuance, retention, or revocation of licenses, certifications, or registration necessary to practice an occupation, profession, or specialty, in order for the agency to obtain information relevant to an agency decision concerning the hiring, retention, or termination of an employee.
7. Records from this system of records may be disclosed to inform a Federal agency, licensing boards, or appropriate non-governmental entities about the health care practices of a terminated, resigned, or retired health care employee whose professional health care activity so significantly failed to conform to generally accepted standards of professional medical practice as to raise reasonable concern for the health and safety of patients receiving medical care in the private sector or from another Federal agency.
8. For program review purposes and the seeking of accreditation and/or certification, disclosure may be made to survey teams of the Joint Commission, College of American Pathologists, American Association of Blood Banks, and similar national accreditation agencies or boards with whom VA has a contract or agreement to conduct such reviews but only to the extent that the information is necessary and relevant to the review.
9. Disclosure may be made to a national certifying body that has the authority to make decisions concerning the issuance, retention, or revocation of licenses, certifications, or registrations required to practice a health care profession, when requested in writing by an investigator or supervisory official of the national certifying body for the purpose of making a decision concerning the issuance, retention, or
10. Records from this system that contain information listed in 5 U.S.C. 7114(b)(4) may be disclosed to officials of labor organizations recognized under 5 U.S.C. Chapter 71 when relevant and necessary to their duties of exclusive representation concerning personnel policies, practices, and matters affecting working conditions.
11. Disclosure may be made to the representative of an employee of all notices, determinations, decisions, or other written communications issued to the employee in connection with an examination ordered by VA under medical evaluation (formerly fitness-for duty) examination procedures or Department-filed disability retirement procedures.
12. VA may disclose information to officials of the Merit Systems Protection Board, or the Office of Special Counsel, when requested in connection with appeals, special studies of the civil service and other merit systems, review of rules and regulations, investigation of alleged or possible prohibited personnel practices, and such other functions, promulgated in 5 U.S.C. 1205 and 1206, or as may be authorized by law.
13. VA may disclose information to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission when requested in connection with investigations of alleged or possible discriminatory practices, examination of Federal affirmative employment programs, or for other functions of the Commission as authorized by law or regulation.
14. VA may disclose information to the Federal Labor Relations Authority (including its General Counsel) information related to the establishment of jurisdiction, the investigation and resolution of allegations of unfair labor practices, or information in connection with the resolution of exceptions to arbitration awards when a question of material fact is raised; to disclose information in matters properly before the Federal Services Impasses Panel, and to investigate representation petitions and conduct or supervise representation elections.
15. Disclosure of medical record data, excluding name and address, unless name and address are furnished by the requester, may be made to non-Federal research facilities for research purposes determined to be necessary and proper when approved in accordance with VA policy.
16. Disclosure of name(s) and address(s) of present or former personnel of the Armed Services, and/or their dependents, may be made to: (a) A Federal department or agency, at the written request of the head or designee of that agency; or (b) directly to a contractor or subcontractor of a Federal department or agency, for the purpose of conducting Federal research necessary to accomplish a statutory purpose of an agency. When disclosure of this information is made directly to a contractor, VA may impose applicable conditions on the department, agency, and/or contractor to insure the appropriateness of the disclosure to the contractor.
17. Disclosure may be made to individuals, organizations, private or public agencies, or other entities or individuals with whom VA has a contract or agreement to perform such services as VA may deem practicable for the purposes of laws administered by VA, in order for the contractor, subcontractor, public or private agency, or other entity or individual with whom VA has an agreement or contract to perform the services of the contract or agreement. This routine use includes disclosures by the individual or entity performing the service for VA to any secondary entity or individual to perform an activity that is necessary for individuals, organizations, private or public agencies, or other entities or individuals with whom VA has a contract or agreement to provide the service to VA.
18. Disclosure may be made to a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from the congressional office made at the request of that individual.
19. VA may disclose information to a Federal agency for the conduct of research and data analysis to perform a statutory purpose of that Federal agency upon the prior written request of that agency, provided that there is legal authority under all applicable confidentiality statutes and regulations to provide the data and the VHA Office of Information has determined prior to the disclosure that VHA data handling requirements are satisfied.
20. Disclosure of limited individual identification information may be made to another Federal agency for the purpose of matching and acquiring information held by that agency for VHA to use for the purposes stated for this system of records.
21. VA may, on its own initiative disclose any information or records to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) VA suspects or has confirmed that the integrity or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised; (2) VA has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of embarrassment or harm to the reputations of the record subjects, harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security, confidentiality, or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by VA or another agency or entity) that rely upon the potentially compromised information; and (3) the disclosure is to agencies, entities, or persons whom VA determines are reasonably necessary to assist or carry out VA's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm. This routine use permits disclosures by VA to respond to a suspected or confirmed data breach, including the conduct of any risk analysis or provision of credit protection services as provided in 38 U.S.C. 5724, as the terms are defined in 38 U.S.C. 5727.
b.
22. On its own initiative, VA may disclose to the general public via an internet website, Primary Care Management Module information, including the names of its providers, provider panel sizes and reports on provider performance measures of quality when approved in accordance with VA policy.
23. Disclosure to other Federal agencies may be made to assist such agencies in preventing and detecting possible fraud or abuse by individuals in their operations and programs.
24. VA may disclose names and addresses of present or former members of the Armed Services and/or their dependents under certain circumstances: (a) To any nonprofit organization, if the release is directly connected with the conduct of programs and the utilization of benefits under Title 38, or (b) to any criminal or civil law enforcement governmental agency or instrumentality charged under applicable law with the protection of the public health or safety, if a qualified representative of such organization, agency, or instrumentality has made a written request for such names or addresses for a purpose authorized by law, provided that the records will not be used for any purpose other than that stated in the request and that the organization, agency, or instrumentality is aware of the penalty provision of 38 U.S.C. 5701(f).
25. VA may disclose information, including demographic information, to HUD for the purpose of reducing homelessness among Veterans by implementing the Federal strategic plan to prevent and end homelessness and by evaluating and monitoring the HUD-Veterans Affairs Supported Housing program.
26. VA may disclose health care information to the FDA, or a person subject to the jurisdiction of the FDA, with respect to FDA-regulated products, for purposes of reporting adverse events; product defects or problems, or biological product deviations; tracking products; enabling product recalls, repairs, or replacements; and/or conducting post marketing surveillance.
27. Disclosure of Veteran identifiers and demographic information (
28. VA may disclose relevant health care information to the CDC and/or their designee in response to its request or at the initiation of VA, in connection with disease-tracking, patient outcomes, bio-surveillance, or other health information required for program accountability.
29. VA may, on its own initiative, disclose information from this system to another Federal agency or Federal entity, when VA determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
30. VA may disclose relevant healthcare and demographic information to health and welfare agencies, housing resources, and community providers, consistent with good medical-ethical practices, for Veterans assessed by or engaged in VA homeless programs for purposes of coordinating care, expediting access to housing, providing medical and related services, participating in coordinated entry processes, reducing Veteran homelessness, identifying homeless individuals in need of immediate assistance and ensuring program accountability by assigning and tracking responsibility for urgently required care.
Records are maintained on electronic storage media including magnetic tape, disk, and laser optical media.
Records are retrieved by name, social security number or other assigned identifiers of the individuals on whom they are maintained.
The records are disposed of in accordance with General Records Schedule 20, item 4. Item 4 provides for deletion of data files when the agency determines that the files are no longer needed for administrative, legal, audit, or other operational purposes.
1. Access to and use of national patient databases are limited to those persons whose official duties require such access, and VA has established security procedures to ensure that access is appropriately limited. Information security officers and system data stewards review and authorize data access requests. VA regulates data access with security software that authenticates users and requires individually unique codes and passwords. VA provides information security training to all staff and instructs staff on the responsibility each person has for safeguarding data confidentiality.
2. VA maintains Business Associate Agreements and Non-Disclosure Agreements with contracted resources in order to maintain confidentiality of the information.
3. Physical access to computer rooms housing national patient databases is restricted to authorized staff and protected by a variety of security devices. Unauthorized employees, contractors, and other staff are not allowed in computer rooms. The Federal Protective Service or other security personnel provide physical security for the buildings housing computer rooms and data centers.
4. Data transmissions between operational systems and national patient databases maintained by this system of record are protected by state-of-the-art telecommunication software and hardware. This may include firewalls, encryption, and other security measures necessary to safeguard data as it travels across the VA Wide Area Network. Data may be transmitted via a password protected spreadsheet and placed on the secured share point Web portal by the user that has been provided access to their secure file. Data can only be accessed by authorized personnel from each facility within the Polytrauma System of Care and the Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Program Office.
5. In most cases, copies of back-up computer files are maintained at off-site locations.
Individuals seeking information regarding access to and contesting of records in this system may write or call the Director of National Data Systems (10P2C), Austin Information Technology Center, 1615 Woodward Street, Austin, Texas 78772, or call the VA National Service Desk and ask to speak with the VHA Director of National Data Systems at (512) 326-6780.
(See Record Access procedures above).
Individuals who wish to determine whether this system of records contains information about them should contact the Director of National Data Systems (10P2C), Austin Information Technology Center, 1615 Woodward Street, Austin, Texas 78772. Inquiries should include the person's full name, social security number, location and dates of employment or location and dates of treatment, and their return address.
None.
Last full publication provided in 79 FR 8245 dated February 11, 2014.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before April 13, 2018.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor at (202) 461-5870.
Under the PRA of 1995, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506 of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
Public Law 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521.
By direction of the Secretary.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses will meet on March 20-21, 2018, at Nova Southeastern University, Center for Collaborative Research, 3321 College Avenue, Suite 242, in Davie, FL 33314, from 2:00 p.m. until 5:30 p.m. (Eastern) on March 20 and from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (Eastern) on March 21. All sessions will be open to the public, and for interested parties who cannot attend in person, there is a toll-free telephone number (800) 767-1750; access code 56978#.
The purpose of the Committee is to provide advice and make recommendations to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on proposed research studies, research plans, and research strategies relating to the health consequences of military service in the Southwest Asia theater of operations during the Gulf War in 1990-1991.
The Committee will review VA program activities related to Gulf War Veterans' illnesses, and updates on relevant scientific research published since the last Committee meeting. Presentations will include updates on the VA Gulf War research program, descriptions of new areas of research involving airborne hazards, blast injuries and neuroscience, and phenotyping research that can be applied to the health problems of Gulf War Veterans. Also, there will be a discussion of Committee business and activities.
The meeting will include time reserved for public comments in the afternoon. A sign-up sheet for 5-minute comments will be available at the meeting. Individuals who wish to address the Committee may submit a 1-2 page summary of their comments for inclusion in the official meeting record. Members of the public may also submit written statements for the Committee's
Because the meeting is being held in a university building, a photo I.D. must be presented as part of the clearance process. Therefore, any person attending should allow an additional 15 minutes before the meeting begins. Any member of the public seeking additional information should contact Dr. Kalasinsky, Designated Federal Officer, at (202) 443-5600.
| 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 |