| Page Range | 10553-10774 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 83 FR 10771 - Federal Interagency Council on Crime Prevention and Improving Reentry | |
| 83 FR 10729 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 83 FR 10676 - Pure Magnesium in Granular Form From the People's Republic of China: Continuation of the Antidumping Duty Order | |
| 83 FR 10729 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
| 83 FR 10754 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
| 83 FR 10762 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 83 FR 10734 - National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 83 FR 10736 - National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 83 FR 10734 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development; Amended Notice of Meeting | |
| 83 FR 10756 - Rapiscan Laboratories, Incorporated Sunnyvale, CA | |
| 83 FR 10720 - Information Collections Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and Budget | |
| 83 FR 10725 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority | |
| 83 FR 10721 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records | |
| 83 FR 10726 - Birach Broadcasting Corporation, Applications for Renewal of Licenses of AM Radio Stations WBVA, Bayside, Virginia and WVAB, Virginia Beach, Virginia | |
| 83 FR 10757 - Submission for Review: Life Insurance Election, Standard Form (SF) 2817 | |
| 83 FR 10717 - TSCA Alternative Testing Methods Draft Strategic Plan; Notice of Availability and Notice of Public Meeting | |
| 83 FR 10719 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed New Collection (EPA ICR No. 2570.01); Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 10729 - Comptroller General's Advisory Council on Government Auditing Standards; Notice of Meeting | |
| 83 FR 10763 - Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Object Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Cagnacci: Painting Beauty and Death” Exhibition | |
| 83 FR 10762 - Waiver of Missile Proliferation Sanctions Against Foreign Persons | |
| 83 FR 10656 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 10729 - Solicitation of Nominations for Appointment to the Board of Scientific Counselors, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, (BSC, NCIPC) | |
| 83 FR 10644 - Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Duncan, OK | |
| 83 FR 10619 - Federal Preemption and State Regulation of the Department of Education's Federal Student Loan Programs and Federal Student Loan Servicers | |
| 83 FR 10763 - Notice of Intent of Waiver With Respect to Land; Fort Wayne International Airport, Fort Wayne, IN | |
| 83 FR 10765 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Approval of New Information Collection: Generic Clearance for Customer Interactions | |
| 83 FR 10766 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery | |
| 83 FR 10767 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Pilots Convicted of Alcohol or Drug-Related Motor Vehicle Offenses Subject to State Motor Vehicle Administrative Procedure | |
| 83 FR 10736 - Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora; 18th Regular Meeting; Request for Information and Recommendations on Resolutions, Decisions, and Agenda Items for Consideration | |
| 83 FR 10734 - Proposed Collection; 60-Day Comment Request; Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery (National Institute of Nursing Research) | |
| 83 FR 10617 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Black River, Port Huron, MI | |
| 83 FR 10648 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Chambers Bay, Steilacoom, WA | |
| 83 FR 10647 - Pennsylvania Regulatory Program | |
| 83 FR 10646 - Arkansas Regulatory Program and Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Plan | |
| 83 FR 10611 - Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustments | |
| 83 FR 10658 - Foreign-Trade Zone 61-San Juan, Puerto Rico; Application for Subzone; Manuel Freije Arce, Inc.; Cataño, Puerto Rico | |
| 83 FR 10658 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 52-Suffolk County, New York; Authorization of Production Activity; Estee Lauder Inc.; (Hair Straightening Styling Balm); Melville, New York | |
| 83 FR 10657 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 21-Charleston, South Carolina; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; AGRU America Charleston, LLC; (High Density Polyethylene Pipe); North Charleston, South Carolina | |
| 83 FR 10657 - Foreign-Trade Zone 98-Birmingham, Alabama; Application for Subzone; Brose Tuscaloosa, Inc.; Vance, Alabama | |
| 83 FR 10758 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 10761 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation; Notice of Extension of Review Period of Advance Notice To Implement Changes to the Method of Calculating Netting Members' Margin in the Government Securities Division Rulebook | |
| 83 FR 10730 - Notice of Availability of the Final Revised Environmental Assessment and a Finding of No Significant Impact for HHS/CDC Lawrenceville Campus Proposed Improvements 2015-2025, Lawrenceville, Georgia | |
| 83 FR 10673 - Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Preliminary Determination of No Shipments; 2016-2017 | |
| 83 FR 10660 - Steel Wire Garment Hangers From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of Expedited First Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order | |
| 83 FR 10661 - Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate From the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; and Rescission of Review, in Part; Calendar Year 2016 | |
| 83 FR 10677 - Certain Plastic Decorative Ribbon From the People's Republic of China: Postponement of Preliminary Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation | |
| 83 FR 10663 - Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the Expedited First Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order | |
| 83 FR 10664 - Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube From Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016 | |
| 83 FR 10658 - Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Preliminary Determination of No Shipments; 2016-2017 | |
| 83 FR 10665 - Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From India: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017 | |
| 83 FR 10730 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 10748 - Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public Interest | |
| 83 FR 10624 - Revenue Deficiency | |
| 83 FR 10739 - John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System; Hurricane Sandy Remapping Project for Delaware, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New Jersey | |
| 83 FR 10567 - Revisions to Operational Requirements for the Use of Enhanced Flight Vision Systems (EFVS) and to Pilot Compartment View Requirements for Vision Systems; Correcting Amendment | |
| 83 FR 10737 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 5-Year Status Reviews of the Coqui Llanero, Carolina Heelsplitter, Hell Creek Cave Crayfish, Aristida chaseae | |
| 83 FR 10732 - Proprietary Names for New Animal Drugs; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
| 83 FR 10643 - Revise and Streamline VA Acquisition Regulation To Adhere to Federal Acquisition Regulation Principles (VAAR Case 2014-V002); Correction | |
| 83 FR 10714 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Application Package for Learning Management System (LMS) Pre- and Post-Test Assessment Questions | |
| 83 FR 10714 - Notice of Intent To Grant an Exclusive Patent License | |
| 83 FR 10762 - E.O. 13224 Designation of Ahmad Iman Ali, aka Sheikh Ahmed Iman Ali, Shaykh Ahmad Iman Ali, Ahmed Iman Ali, Abu Zinira as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist | |
| 83 FR 10622 - Electronic Submission of Certain Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance, Family Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance, and Veterans' Group Life Insurance Forms | |
| 83 FR 10641 - Consumer Disclosure and Labeling; Promoting Spectrum Access for Wireless Microphone Operations | |
| 83 FR 10640 - Promoting Spectrum Access for Wireless Microphone Operations | |
| 83 FR 10753 - Request for Information-National Space Weather Action Plan; Extension of Comment Period | |
| 83 FR 10762 - E.O. 13224 Designation of Abdifatah Abubakar Abdi, aka Musa Muhajir as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist | |
| 83 FR 10563 - Airworthiness Directives; Agusta S.p.A. Helicopters | |
| 83 FR 10679 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
| 83 FR 10688 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
| 83 FR 10681 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
| 83 FR 10679 - Fisheries of the South Atlantic; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR); Public Meeting | |
| 83 FR 10678 - Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
| 83 FR 10680 - Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
| 83 FR 10678 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
| 83 FR 10683 - Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Meeting | |
| 83 FR 10682 - Fisheries of the South Atlantic; South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings | |
| 83 FR 10565 - Airworthiness Directives; Agusta S.p.A. Helicopters | |
| 83 FR 10683 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Exempted Fishing Permit | |
| 83 FR 10689 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Service Pier Extension Project on Naval Base Kitsap Bangor, Washington | |
| 83 FR 10715 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; HBCU All Star Student Program | |
| 83 FR 10716 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
| 83 FR 10715 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 83 FR 10717 - Electric Quarterly Report Users Group Meeting; Notice of Electric Quarterly Report Users Group Meeting | |
| 83 FR 10767 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Textron Aviation Inc. | |
| 83 FR 10765 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Embraer S.A. | |
| 83 FR 10559 - Special Conditions: Mitsubishi Aircraft Corporation Model MRJ-200 Airplane; Interaction of Systems and Structures | |
| 83 FR 10747 - Biodiesel From Argentina and Indonesia; Supplemental Schedule for the Subject Investigations | |
| 83 FR 10748 - Large Diameter Welded Pipe From Canada, China, Greece, India, Korea, and Turkey Determinations 1 | |
| 83 FR 10672 - Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate From India, Indonesia, and the Republic of Korea; Continuation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders | |
| 83 FR 10752 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-The Open Group, L.L.C. | |
| 83 FR 10752 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-National Armaments Consortium | |
| 83 FR 10751 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-DVD Copy Control Association | |
| 83 FR 10686 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Exempted Fishing Permit | |
| 83 FR 10751 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Medical Technology Enterprise Consortium | |
| 83 FR 10753 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Node.js Foundation | |
| 83 FR 10750 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Integrated Photonics Institute for Manufacturing Innovation Operating Under the Name of the American Institute for Manufacturing Integrated Photonics | |
| 83 FR 10750 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Consortium | |
| 83 FR 10757 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Notice of Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on NuScale | |
| 83 FR 10759 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq MRX, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Clarify Certain Terms Used in the Schedule of Fees | |
| 83 FR 10568 - Annual Update to Fee Schedule for the Use of Government Lands by Hydropower Licensees | |
| 83 FR 10733 - Bright Futures Periodicity Schedule Updates | |
| 83 FR 10686 - Endangered Species; File No. 19496-01 | |
| 83 FR 10681 - General Advisory Committee to the U.S. Section to the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission and Scientific Advisory Subcommittee to the General Advisory Committee; Meeting Announcement | |
| 83 FR 10755 - Qualification of Safety-Related Lead Storage Batteries for Nuclear Power Plants | |
| 83 FR 10553 - Mortgage Servicing Rules Under the Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z) | |
| 83 FR 10650 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Emissions Statement Requirement for the 2008 Ozone Standard | |
| 83 FR 10652 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Emissions Statement Rule Certification for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard | |
| 83 FR 10638 - Suspension of Community Eligibility | |
| 83 FR 10645 - Excentials B.V.; Withdrawal of Food Additive Petition (Animal Use) | |
| 83 FR 10670 - Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products From the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017 | |
| 83 FR 10628 - Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources; Amendments | |
| 83 FR 10626 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Amendment to Ambient Air Quality Standard for Ozone |
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Air Force Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Fish and Wildlife Service
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office
Antitrust Division
Federal Aviation Administration
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Final rule.
The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) is issuing this final rule amending certain Regulation Z mortgage servicing rules issued in 2016 relating to the timing for servicers to transition to providing modified or unmodified periodic statements and coupon books in connection with a consumer's bankruptcy case.
This rule is effective April 19, 2018.
Adam C. Mayle or Joel L. Singerman, Counsels; or Amanda Quester, Senior Counsel, Office of Regulations, at 202-435-7700 or
On August 4, 2016, the Bureau issued the Amendments to the 2013 Mortgage Rules Under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (Regulation X) and the Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z) (2016 Mortgage Servicing Final Rule) amending certain of the Bureau's mortgage servicing rules.
Among other things, the 2016 Mortgage Servicing Final Rule addresses Regulation Z's periodic statement and coupon book requirements when a person is a debtor in bankruptcy.
Based on feedback received regarding implementation of the 2016 Mortgage Servicing Final Rule, the Bureau understands that certain aspects of the single-billing-cycle exemption and timing requirements may be more complex and operationally challenging than the Bureau realized, and that the relevant provisions may be subject to different interpretations, as discussed more below. The Bureau is therefore issuing this final rule revising § 1026.41(e)(5)(iv)(B) and (C) and related commentary to replace the single-billing-cycle exemption with a single-statement exemption. This final rule provides a single-statement exemption for the next periodic statement or coupon book that a servicer would otherwise have to provide, regardless of when in the billing cycle the triggering event occurs. The Bureau is adding new comments 41(e)(5)(iv)(B)-1 through -3 to clarify the operation of the single-statement exemption. The Bureau is also removing § 1026.41(e)(5)(iv)(C) and its related commentary, as they are no longer necessary in light of the changes to § 1026.41(e)(5)(iv)(B) and its related commentary.
The Bureau believes this final rule provides a clearer and more straightforward standard than the timing requirement adopted in the 2016 Mortgage Servicing Final Rule, offering greater certainty for implementation and compliance, without unnecessarily disadvantaging consumers.
In August 2016, the Bureau issued the 2016 Mortgage Servicing Final Rule, which amends certain of the Bureau's mortgage servicing rules in Regulations X and Z.
Under existing § 1026.41(a)(2) in Regulation Z, a servicer generally must provide a consumer, for each billing cycle, a periodic statement meeting certain requirements. Existing § 1026.41(e)(5) provides a blanket
To allow servicers time to make this transition in their systems, the Bureau finalized a single-billing-cycle exemption in the 2016 Mortgage Servicing Final Rule.
Since issuing the 2016 Mortgage Servicing Final Rule, the Bureau received questions indicating that the single-billing-cycle exemption may be more complex and operationally challenging than the Bureau realized, and that the provisions setting forth the exemption and transition timing requirements may be subject to different interpretations. The Bureau therefore proposed to replace the single-billing-cycle exemption with a single-statement exemption, which the Bureau believed would be a clearer and more straightforward standard.
The Bureau has supported implementation of the 2016 Mortgage Servicing Final Rule by providing an updated compliance guide, other implementation aids, a technical corrections final rule,
The Bureau also learned, through its outreach in support of industry's implementation of the 2016 Mortgage Servicing Final Rule, that certain technical aspects of the rule relating to the timing for servicers to transition to providing modified or unmodified periodic statements and coupon books in connection with a consumer's bankruptcy case may create unintended challenges in implementation. As a result, and to alleviate any unintended challenges, the Bureau issued a proposed rule on October 4, 2017, published in the
The Bureau is finalizing this rule pursuant to its authority under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA)
Section 105(a) of TILA, 15 U.S.C. 1604(a), authorizes the Bureau to prescribe regulations to carry out the purposes of TILA. Under section 105(a), such regulations may contain such additional requirements, classifications, differentiations, or other provisions, and may provide for such adjustments and exceptions for all or any class of transactions, as in the judgment of the Bureau are necessary or proper to effectuate the purposes of TILA, to prevent circumvention or evasion thereof, or to facilitate compliance therewith. Under section 102(a), 15 U.S.C. 1601(a), the purposes of TILA are to assure a meaningful disclosure of credit terms so that the consumer will be able to compare more readily the various available credit terms and avoid the uninformed use of credit and to protect the consumer against inaccurate and unfair credit billing practices. For the reasons discussed in this document, the Bureau is adopting these amendments to Regulation Z to carry out TILA's purposes and such additional requirements, adjustments, and exceptions as, in the Bureau's
Section 105(f) of TILA, 15 U.S.C. 1604(f), authorizes the Bureau to exempt from all or part of TILA any class of transactions if the Bureau determines that TILA coverage does not provide a meaningful benefit to consumers in the form of useful information or protection. For the reasons discussed herein, the Bureau is finalizing the amendments relating to exemptions for certain transactions from the requirements of TILA pursuant to its authority under section 105(f) of TILA.
This final rule also includes amendments to the official Bureau commentary in Regulation Z. Good faith compliance with the interpretations would afford protection from liability under section 130(f) of TILA.
Section 1022(b)(1) of the Dodd-Frank Act, 12 U.S.C. 5512(b)(1), authorizes the Bureau to prescribe rules “as may be necessary or appropriate to enable the Bureau to administer and carry out the purposes and objectives of the Federal consumer financial laws, and to prevent evasions thereof.” TILA and title X of the Dodd-Frank Act are Federal consumer financial laws.
Section 1032(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act, 12 U.S.C. 5532(a), provides that the Bureau “may prescribe rules to ensure that the features of any consumer financial product or service, both initially and over the term of the product or service, are fully, accurately, and effectively disclosed to consumers in a manner that permits consumers to understand the costs, benefits, and risks associated with the product or service, in light of the facts and circumstances.” The authority granted to the Bureau in section 1032(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act is broad and empowers the Bureau to prescribe rules regarding the disclosure of the “features” of consumer financial products and services generally. Accordingly, the Bureau may prescribe rules containing disclosure requirements even if other Federal consumer financial laws do not specifically require disclosure of such features.
Section 1032(c) of the Dodd-Frank Act, 12 U.S.C. 5532(c), provides that, in prescribing rules pursuant to section 1032 of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Bureau “shall consider available evidence about consumer awareness, understanding of, and responses to disclosures or communications about the risks, costs, and benefits of consumer financial products or services.” Accordingly, in proposing to amend provisions authorized under section 1032(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Bureau has considered available studies, reports, and other evidence about consumer awareness, understanding of, and responses to disclosures or communications about the risks, costs, and benefits of consumer financial products or services.
As finalized in the 2016 Mortgage Servicing Final Rule, § 1026.41(e)(5)(iv)(B) set forth a single-billing-cycle exemption from the requirement to provide a periodic statement or coupon book in certain circumstances after one of several specific triggering events occurs; and § 1026.41(e)(5)(iv)(C) established timing requirements for resuming compliance after that exemption. The Bureau proposed to revise § 1026.41(e)(5)(iv)(B) and related commentary, and to remove § 1026.41(e)(5)(iv)(C) and related commentary. Instead of a single-billing-cycle exemption, proposed § 1026.41(e)(5)(iv)(B) would have provided a single-statement exemption for the next periodic statement or coupon book that a servicer would otherwise have to provide following a triggering event, regardless of when in the billing cycle the triggering event occurs. Proposed comments 41(e)(5)(iv)(B)-1 through -3 would have clarified how the single-statement exemption would operate in specific circumstances. For the reasons discussed below, the Bureau is finalizing § 1026.41(e)(5)(iv)(B) and related commentary as proposed, and is removing § 1026.41(e)(5)(iv)(C) and related commentary, as proposed.
The Bureau received ten comments on the proposal, including seven from industry trade associations, two from individual consumers, and one from consumer advocacy groups. All comments addressing the substance of the proposal supported replacing the single-billing-cycle exemption with the proposed single-statement exemption. Several industry trade association commenters stated that the proposed changes would simplify implementation or improve compliance. They stated, for example, that the proposed single-statement exemption was clearer and more straightforward than the single-billing-cycle exemption, or that the proposed single-statement exemption would vastly reduce the complexity of compliance. The consumer advocacy groups and two consumer commenters also expressed general support for the proposal. One industry trade association supporting the proposal also suggested that the Bureau clarify in commentary that a servicer would not violate proposed § 1026.41(e)(5)(iv)(B) by providing a periodic statement or coupon book while the single-statement exemption applies, and that the servicer would not be required to correct such a statement. The Bureau also received several comments from industry trade associations that requested amendments to aspects of the periodic statement requirements other than the timing requirements addressed in the proposal, as discussed further below.
The Bureau is adopting § 1026.41(e)(5)(iv)(B) and related commentary as proposed. As finalized, § 1026.41(e)(5)(iv)(B) provides that, as of the date on which one of the triggering events listed in § 1026.41(e)(5)(iv)(A) occurs, a servicer is exempt from the requirements of § 1026.41 with respect to the next periodic statement or coupon book that would otherwise be required but thereafter must provide modified or unmodified periodic statements or coupon books that comply with the requirements of this section. Comments 41(e)(5)(iv)(B)-1 through -3 describe how the single-statement exemption operates in specific circumstances. Comment 41(e)(5)(iv)(B)-1 explains that the exemption applies with respect to a single periodic statement or coupon book following an event listed in § 1026.41(e)(5)(iv)(A) and provides two examples illustrating the timing. Both examples assume that a mortgage loan has a monthly billing cycle, each payment due date is on the first day of the month following its respective billing cycle, and each payment due date has a 15-day courtesy period.
Comment 41(e)(5)(iv)(B)-1.i explains that, if an event listed in § 1026.41(e)(5)(iv)(A) occurs on October 6, before the end of the 15-day courtesy period provided for the October 1 payment due date, and the servicer has not yet provided a periodic statement or coupon book for the billing cycle with a November 1 payment due date, the servicer is exempt from providing a periodic statement or coupon book for that billing cycle. The servicer is required thereafter to resume providing periodic statements or coupon books that comply with the requirements of § 1026.41 by providing a modified or unmodified periodic statement or
Comment 41(e)(5)(iv)(B)-1.ii provides an example for when a servicer already timely provided a periodic statement or coupon book for a billing cycle in which an event listed in § 1026.41(e)(5)(iv)(A) occurs. It provides that, if an event listed in § 1026.41(e)(5)(iv)(A) occurs on October 20, after the end of the 15-day courtesy period provided for the October 1 payment due date, and the servicer timely provided a periodic statement or coupon book for the billing cycle with a November 1 payment due date, the servicer is not required to correct the periodic statement or coupon book already provided and is exempt from providing the next periodic statement or coupon book, which is the one that would otherwise be required for the billing cycle with a December 1 payment due date. The servicer is required thereafter to resume providing periodic statements or coupon books that comply with the requirements of § 1026.41 by providing a modified or unmodified periodic statement or coupon book for the billing cycle with a January 1 payment due date within a reasonably prompt time after December 1 or the end of the 15-day courtesy period provided for the December 1 payment due date.
Because comments 41(e)(5)(iv)(B)-1.i and -1.ii describe when a servicer must provide periodic statements or coupon books following the exemption, § 1026.41(e)(5)(iv)(C) and related commentary are unnecessary. The Bureau is removing § 1026.41(e)(5)(iv)(C) and related commentary.
The Bureau is also adopting as proposed comments 41(e)(5)(iv)(B)-2 and -3 to clarify how the single-statement exemption would operate in additional specific circumstances. Comment 41(e)(5)(iv)(B)-2 states that, if a servicer provides a coupon book instead of a periodic statement under § 1026.41(e)(3), § 1026.41 requires the servicer to provide a new coupon book after one of the events listed in § 1026.41(e)(5)(iv)(A) occurs only to the extent the servicer has not previously provided the consumer with a coupon book that covers the upcoming billing cycle. Comment 41(e)(5)(iv)(B)-3 clarifies that the single-statement exemption in § 1026.41(e)(5)(iv)(B) might apply more than once over the life of a loan. For example, assume the exemption applies beginning on April 14 because the consumer files for bankruptcy on that date and the bankruptcy plan provides that the consumer will surrender the dwelling, such that the mortgage loan becomes subject to the requirements of § 1026.41(f). If the consumer later exits bankruptcy on November 2 and has not discharged personal liability for the mortgage loan pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 727, 1141, 1228, or 1328, such that the mortgage loan ceases to be subject to the requirements of § 1026.41(f), the single-statement exemption would apply again beginning on November 2.
The Bureau believes that these amendments will provide a clearer and more straightforward standard than the timing requirement finalized in the 2016 Mortgage Servicing Final Rule. The Bureau anticipates that the amendments will offer greater certainty for implementation and compliance, without unnecessarily disadvantaging consumers.
The Bureau declines to adopt one commenter's recommendation to clarify in commentary that a servicer does not violate § 1026.41(e)(5)(iv)(B) by providing a periodic statement or coupon book while the single-statement exemption applies. This clarification is unnecessary because Regulation Z does not prohibit a servicer from providing a periodic statement or coupon book while the single-statement exemption applies. The Bureau notes, however, that servicers choosing to provide a periodic statement or coupon book while an exemption applies should provide accurate disclosures and comply with other applicable laws. The Bureau also notes that § 1026.41 does not prohibit servicers from adding language to a periodic statement or coupon book that may be helpful in limiting any potential liability.
As stated above, the Bureau also received several comments from industry trade associations that requested amendments to aspects of the periodic statement requirements other than the timing requirements addressed in the proposal. For example, one industry trade association recommended expanding the small servicer exemption set forth in § 1024.41(e)(4). Another suggested that, when a consumer files a chapter 12 or 13 bankruptcy case, the servicer should be exempt from providing bankruptcy-specific periodic statements or coupon books under § 1026.41(f) until the consumer's bankruptcy plan is confirmed. The Bureau's proposal did not address the small servicer exemption, nor did it raise the question whether the periodic-statement requirement should apply only after a plan is confirmed in chapter 12 or 13 bankruptcies. Because these comments are beyond the scope of the proposal, the Bureau declines to adopt their recommendations.
One industry trade association also requested that the Bureau include language in the final rule that could help insulate a servicer that is unable to suppress a periodic statement when an exemption applies. The commenter stated that events triggering an exemption sometimes occur near-in-time to when a servicer is scheduled to provide the periodic statement. The commenter indicated that, because servicers sometimes do not learn of the triggering events in real-time, a servicer might provide a periodic statement containing inaccurate information. The commenter stated that this could be particularly problematic if the servicer provides a standard periodic statement to a consumer who has recently filed for bankruptcy, instead of a periodic statement containing bankruptcy-specific disclosures and disclaimers under § 1026.41.
This recommendation broaches issues beyond the narrow timing requirements addressed in the proposal, and the Bureau is not adopting it. To the extent servicers are concerned about exposure to liability for providing a periodic statement that becomes inaccurate before it reaches the consumer, the Bureau notes that Regulation Z does not prohibit a servicer from adding language that may be helpful in limiting any potential liability. Further, the Bureau learned during outreach before issuing the 2016 Mortgage Servicing Rule that servicers often learn of new bankruptcy filings, important case activity, and case closings quickly, usually within approximately a day.
Regulation Z § 1026.41(e)(5), as amended by the 2016 Mortgage Servicing Final Rule, becomes effective April 19, 2018, along with the rest of the Regulation Z bankruptcy-specific periodic statement requirements. Thus, the Bureau proposed an April 19, 2018, effective date for the proposed revisions to § 1024.41(e)(5)(iv).
One commenter requested that the Bureau postpone the effective date of all
The Bureau is adopting, as proposed, an April 19, 2018, effective date for this final rule and believes that there is no need to delay the effective date of this final rule. The Bureau believes that the revisions to § 1026.41(e)(5)(iv) would not require substantial reprogramming of systems by industry. The Bureau also believes it is issuing this final rule with sufficient time before the April 19, 2018, effective date to enable servicers to meet the requirements of the final rule.
In developing this final rule, the Bureau considered the potential benefits, costs, and impacts as required by section 1022(b)(2) of the Dodd-Frank Act. Specifically, section 1022(b)(2) calls for the Bureau to consider the potential benefits and costs of a regulation to consumers and covered persons, including the potential reduction of consumer access to consumer financial products or services, the impact on depository institutions and credit unions with $10 billion or less in total assets as described in section 1026 of the Dodd-Frank Act, and the impact on consumers in rural areas. In addition, 12 U.S.C. 5512(b)(2)(B) directs the Bureau to consult, before and during the rulemaking, with appropriate prudential regulators or other Federal agencies, regarding consistency with the objectives those agencies administer. The Bureau consulted, or offered to consult with, the prudential regulators, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the HUD Office of Inspector General, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the Federal Trade Commission, the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Veterans Affairs, including regarding consistency with any prudential, market, or systemic objectives administered by these agencies.
The Bureau previously considered the benefits, costs, and impacts of the 2016 Mortgage Servicing Final Rule's major provisions.
In considering the relevant potential benefits, costs, and impacts of this final rule, the Bureau reviewed the comments received and has applied its knowledge and expertise concerning consumer financial markets. The discussion below of these potential costs, benefits, and impacts is qualitative, reflecting both the specialized nature of the final amendments and the fact that the 2016 Mortgage Servicing Final Rule, which establishes the baseline for the Bureau's analysis, is not yet in effect.
The Bureau requested comment on the discussion of costs, benefits, and impacts in the preamble to the proposed rule as well as the submission of data or other information that could inform the Bureau's consideration of the potential benefits, costs, and impacts of this final rule. The Bureau did not receive any such comments, data, or other information.
This final rule seeks to decrease burden incurred by industry participants by clarifying the timing requirements for certain disclosures required under the 2016 Mortgage Servicing Final Rule. As is described in more detail below, the Bureau does not believe that these changes will have a significant enough impact on consumers or covered persons to affect consumer access to consumer financial products and services.
A mortgage servicer generally must provide a consumer, for each billing cycle, a periodic statement or coupon book meeting certain requirements. Under the 2016 Mortgage Servicing Final Rule, servicers generally must provide a modified periodic statement or coupon book to certain consumers who are debtors in bankruptcy or who have discharged personal liability for the mortgage loan. The Bureau is amending § 1026.41(e)(5)(iv), as proposed, to provide that, when a servicer must transition to sending either modified periodic statements or to sending unmodified periodic statements, the servicer is exempt from the requirements of § 1026.41 with respect to the next periodic statement or coupon book that would otherwise be required but thereafter must provide modified or unmodified periodic statements or coupon books that comply with the requirements of § 1026.41. This single-statement exemption replaces the single-billing-cycle exemption in the 2016 Mortgage Servicing Final Rule.
The Bureau expects that these changes will reduce the cost to servicers of providing periodic statements. The Bureau understands, based on comments received in response to the proposed rule and through other industry outreach that implementing the single-billing-cycle exemption provided under the 2016 Mortgage Servicing Rule might have proved more complex and operationally challenging for servicers than the Bureau realized and believes that a single-statement exemption will be clearer and operationally easier to implement. In addition, the single-billing-cycle exemption would have applied only when the payment due date falls no more than 14 days after the event that triggers the transition to or from modified periodic statements, whereas the final single-statement exemption will apply to these transitions regardless of when during the billing cycle the triggering event occurs. The Bureau believes that servicers will benefit from the more straightforward single-statement exemption standard and from the additional time afforded for some transitions.
Relative to the baseline established by the 2016 Mortgage Servicing Final Rule, the final rule could sometimes afford servicers a longer exemption than the standard provided in the 2016 Mortgage Servicing Final Rule. As a result, the final rule might extend the period of time some consumers go without receiving any periodic statement or coupon book, which could disadvantage those consumers. However, any such delay would generally be at most one billing cycle, and servicers generally are required to provide consumers the information in periodic statements on request. Thus, the Bureau does not expect that the overall effect on consumers will be significant, and there is no basis to believe that these changes will have a significant enough impact on consumers or covered persons to affect consumer access to consumer financial products and services.
With respect to servicers that are not small servicers as defined in § 1026.41(e)(4), the Bureau believes that the consideration of benefits and costs of covered persons presented above provides an accurate analysis of the impacts of the final rule on depository institutions and credit unions with $10 billion or less in total assets that are engaged in servicing mortgage loans.
The Bureau requested comment regarding the impact of the proposed provisions in rural areas and how those impacts may differ from those experienced by consumers generally. After careful consideration of the comments received and based on the Bureau's knowledge and expertise concerning consumer financial markets, the Bureau has no reason to believe that the additional timing flexibility offered to covered persons by this final rule will differentially impact consumers in rural areas.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act,
The RFA generally requires an agency to conduct an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) and a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) of any rule subject to notice-and- comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that the rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
As discussed above, the final rule amends certain Regulation Z mortgage servicing rules issued in 2016 relating to the timing for servicers to transition to providing modified or unmodified periodic statements and coupon books under Regulation Z in connection with a consumer's bankruptcy case.
When the Bureau issued the proposed rule that was finalized as the 2016 Mortgage Servicing Final Rule, it concluded that those provisions would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and that an IRFA was therefore not required.
Similarly, when the Bureau issued the proposed rule in this rulemaking, it concluded that the proposal would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and that an IRFA was therefore not required.
Accordingly, the undersigned certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),
The Bureau has determined that this final rule will provide firms with additional flexibility and clarity with respect to what must be disclosed under the 2016 Mortgage Servicing Final Rule. It does not materially change the underlying information collections in terms of who is responding or when they must provide the disclosures. Additionally the Bureau believes this will have
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Advertising, Appraisal, Appraiser, Banking, Banks, Consumer protection, Credit, Credit unions, Mortgages, National banks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations, Truth in lending.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Bureau amends 12 CFR part 1026 as follows:
12 U.S.C. 2601, 2603-2605, 2607, 2609, 2617, 3353, 5511, 5512, 5532, 5581; 15 U.S.C. 1601
The revision reads as follows:
(e) * * *
(5) * * *
(iv) * * *
(B)
The revision reads as follows:
1.
i. If an event listed in § 1026.41(e)(5)(iv)(A) occurs on October 6, before the end of the 15-day courtesy period provided for the October 1 payment due date, and the servicer has not yet provided a periodic statement or coupon book for the billing cycle with a November 1 payment due date, the servicer is exempt from providing a periodic statement or coupon book for that billing cycle. The servicer is required thereafter to resume providing periodic statements or coupon books that comply with the requirements of § 1026.41 by providing a modified or unmodified periodic statement or coupon book for the billing cycle with a December 1 payment due date within a reasonably prompt time after November 1 or the end of the 15-day courtesy period provided for the November 1 payment due date.
ii. If an event listed in § 1026.41(e)(5)(iv)(A) occurs on October 20, after the end of the 15-day courtesy period provided for the October 1 payment due date, and the servicer timely provided a periodic statement or coupon book for the billing cycle with the November 1 payment due date, the servicer is not required to correct the periodic statement or coupon book already provided and is exempt from providing the next periodic statement or coupon book, which is the one that would otherwise be required for the billing cycle with a December 1 payment due date. The servicer is required thereafter to resume providing periodic statements or coupon books that comply with the requirements of § 1026.41 by providing a modified or unmodified periodic statement or coupon book for the billing cycle with a January 1 payment due date within a reasonably prompt time after December 1 or the end of the 15-day courtesy period provided for the December 1 payment due date.
2.
3.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final special conditions; request for comments.
These special conditions are issued for the Mitsubishi Aircraft Corporation (Mitsubishi) Model MRJ-200 airplane. This airplane will have novel or unusual design features when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport-category airplanes. These design features are electronic flight-control systems and stability-augmentation systems that may affect the structural performance of the airplane. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
This action is effective on Mitsubishi on March 12, 2018. Send your comments by April 26, 2018.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-1006 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Todd Martin, FAA, Airframe and Cabin Safety Section, AIR-675, Transport Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1178; facsimile 425-227-1320.
The substance of these special conditions previously has been published in the
The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above. We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.
On August 19, 2009, Mitsubishi applied for a type certificate for their new Model MRJ-200 airplane. The Model MRJ-200 airplane is a low-wing, conventional-tail design with two wing-mounted turbofan engines. The airplane is equipped with an electronic flight-control system, has seating for 96 passengers and a maximum takeoff weight of 98,800 lbs.
Under the provisions of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.17, Mitsubishi must show that the Model MRJ-200 airplane meets the applicable provisions of part 25, as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-141; part 36, as amended by Amendments 36-1 through 36-30; and part 34, as amended by Amendments 34-1 through the amendment effective at the time of design approval.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.
In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Model MRJ-200 airplane must comply with the fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.17.
The Model MRJ-200 airplane will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature:
Electronic flight-control systems and stability-augmentation systems that may affect the structural performance of the airplane.
The MRJ-200 airplane is equipped with systems that directly or as a result of failure or malfunction, affect its structural performance. Current regulations do not take into account the effects of systems on structural performance including normal operation and failure conditions. Special conditions are needed to account for these features. These special conditions define criteria to be used in the assessment of the effects of these systems on structures. The general approach of accounting for the effect of system failures on structural performance is extended to include any system in which partial or complete failure, alone or in combination with other system partial or complete failures, would affect structural performance.
These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
These special conditions are similar to those previously applied to other airplane models.
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to Model MRJ-200 airplanes. Should Mitsubishi apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.
This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for Mitsubishi Model MRJ-200 airplanes.
For airplanes equipped with systems that affect structural performance, either directly or as a result of a failure or malfunction, the influence of these systems and their failure conditions must be taken into account when showing compliance with the requirements of 14 CFR part 25, subparts C and D.
The following criteria must be used for showing compliance with these special conditions for airplanes equipped with flight-control systems, autopilots, stability-augmentation systems, load-alleviation systems, flutter-control systems, fuel-management systems, and other systems that either directly, or as a result of failure or malfunction, affect structural performance. If these special conditions are used for other systems, it may be necessary to adapt the criteria to the specific system.
1. The criteria defined herein only address the direct structural consequences of the system responses and performance. They cannot be considered in isolation, but should be included in the overall safety evaluation of the airplane. These criteria may, in some instances, duplicate standards already established for this evaluation. These criteria are only applicable to structure the failure of which could prevent continued safe flight and landing. Specific criteria that define acceptable limits on handling characteristics or stability requirements, when operating in the system degraded or inoperative mode, are not provided in these special conditions.
2. Depending upon the specific characteristics of the airplane, additional studies that go beyond the criteria provided in these special conditions may be required to demonstrate the airplane's capability to meet other realistic conditions, such as alternative gust or maneuver descriptions for an airplane equipped with a load-alleviation system.
3. The following definitions are applicable to these special conditions.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
The following criteria will be used in determining the influence of a system and its failure conditions on the airplane structure.
1.
a. Limit loads must be derived in all normal operating configurations of the system from all the limit conditions specified in 14 CFR part 25, subpart C (or defined by special conditions or equivalent level of safety in lieu of those specified in subpart C), taking into account any special behavior of such a system or associated functions, or any effect on the structural performance of the airplane that may occur up to the limit loads. In particular, any significant nonlinearity (rate of displacement of control surface, thresholds, or any other system nonlinearities) must be accounted for in a realistic or conservative way when deriving limit loads from limit conditions.
b. The airplane must meet the strength requirements of 14 CFR part 25 (static strength, residual strength), using the specified factors to derive ultimate loads from the limit loads defined above. The effect of nonlinearities must be investigated beyond limit conditions to ensure that the behavior of the system presents no anomaly compared to the behavior below limit conditions. However, conditions beyond limit conditions need not be considered when it can be shown that the airplane has design features that will not allow it to exceed those limit conditions.
c. The airplane must meet the aeroelastic stability requirements of § 25.629.
2.
a. At the time of occurrence. Starting from 1g level flight conditions, a realistic scenario, including pilot corrective actions, must be established to determine the loads occurring at the time of failure and immediately after the failure.
i. For static-strength substantiation, these loads, multiplied by an appropriate factor of safety that is related to the probability of occurrence of the failure, are ultimate loads to be considered for design. The factor of safety is defined in Figure 1, below.
ii. For residual-strength substantiation, the airplane must be able to withstand two-thirds of the ultimate loads defined in special condition 2.a.i. For pressurized cabins, these loads must be combined with the normal operating differential pressure.
iii. Freedom from aeroelastic instability must be shown up to the speeds defined in § 25.629(b)(2). For failure conditions that result in speeds beyond V
iv. Failures of the system that result in forced structural vibrations (oscillatory failures) must not produce loads that could result in detrimental deformation of primary structure.
b. For the continuation of the flight. For the airplane in the system-failed state, and considering any appropriate reconfiguration and flight limitations, the following apply:
i. The loads derived from the following conditions (or used in lieu of the following conditions) at speeds up to V
1. The limit symmetrical maneuvering conditions specified in §§ 25.331 and 25.345.
2. the limit gust and turbulence conditions specified in §§ 25.341 and 25.345.
3. the limit rolling conditions specified in § 25.349, and the limit unsymmetrical conditions specified in §§ 25.367, and 25.427(b) and (c).
4. the limit yaw-maneuvering conditions specified in § 25.351.
5. the limit ground-loading conditions specified in §§ 25.473 and 25.491.
ii. For static-strength substantiation, each part of the structure must be able to withstand the loads in special condition 2.b.i., multiplied by a factor of safety depending on the probability of being in this failure state. The factor of safety is defined in Figure 2, below.
If P
iii. For residual-strength substantiation, the airplane must be able to withstand two-thirds of the ultimate loads defined in special condition 2.b.ii. For pressurized cabins, these loads must be combined with the normal operating differential pressure.
iv. If the loads induced by the failure condition have a significant effect on fatigue or damage tolerance, then their effects must be taken into account.
v. Freedom from aeroelastic instability must be shown up to a speed determined from Figure 3, below. Flutter clearance speeds V′ and V″ may be based on the speed limitation specified for the remainder of the flight using the margins defined by § 25.629(b).
If P
vi. Freedom from aeroelastic instability must also be shown up to V′ in Figure 3, above, for any probable system-failure condition, combined with any damage required or selected for investigation by § 25.571(b).
c. Consideration of certain failure conditions may be required by other sections of 14 CFR part 25 regardless of calculated system reliability. Where analysis shows the probability of these failure conditions to be less than 10
3.
a. The system must be checked for failure conditions, not extremely improbable, that degrade the structural capability below the level required by part 25, or that significantly reduce the reliability of the remaining system. As far as reasonably practicable, the flightcrew must be made aware of these failures before flight. Certain elements of the control system, such as mechanical and hydraulic components, may use special periodic inspections, and electronic components may use daily checks, in lieu of detection and indication systems, to achieve the objective of this requirement. These certification-maintenance requirements must be limited to components that are not readily detectable by normal detection-and-indication systems, and where service history shows that inspections will provide an adequate level of safety.
b. The existence of any failure condition, not extremely improbable, during flight, that could significantly affect the structural capability of the airplane, and for which the associated reduction in airworthiness can be minimized by suitable flight limitations, must be signaled to the flightcrew. For example, failure conditions that result in a factor of safety between the airplane strength and the loads of part 25, subpart C, below 1.25, or flutter margins below V″, must be signaled to the crew during flight.
4.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule; request for comments.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Agusta S.p.A. (Agusta) Model AB412 and AB412 EP helicopters. This AD requires removing each shoulder harness seat belt comfort clip (comfort clip) and inspecting the seat belt shoulder harness. This AD is prompted by a report of a comfort clip interfering with the seat belt inertia reel. The actions of this AD are intended to prevent an unsafe condition on these helicopters.
This AD becomes effective March 27, 2018.
We must receive comments on this AD by May 11, 2018.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Leonardo S.p.A. Helicopters, Matteo Ragazzi, Head of Airworthiness, Viale G. Agusta 520, 21017 C. Costa di Samarate (Va) Italy; telephone +39-0331-711756; fax +39-0331-229046; or at
Matt Fuller, Senior Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to provide your comments prior to it becoming effective. However, we invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that resulted from adopting this AD. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the AD, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit them only one time. We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking during the comment period. We will consider all the comments we receive and may conduct additional rulemaking based on those comments.
EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued AD No. 2016-0054, dated March 14, 2016, to correct an unsafe condition for Finmeccanica S.p.A. (previously Agusta) Model AB412 and AB412 EP helicopters. EASA advises that a design review resulted in the determination that some passenger seat installations allow the use of comfort clips on flight crew and passenger shoulder harness seat belts to increase comfort to the occupant by locking the seat belt position. These comfort clips could prevent the seat belt inertia reel from retracting the shoulder harness during an emergency landing. The EASA AD further advises that this could result in injury to the seat occupant. To prevent this unsafe condition, the EASA AD requires removal of all comfort clips from service and inspecting the seat belt for wear from the comfort clip.
The FAA is in the process of updating Agusta's name change to Finmeccanica, and then to Leonardo Helicopters, on its FAA type certificate. Because this name change is not yet effective, this AD specifies Agusta.
These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of Italy and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with Italy, EASA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the EASA AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs.
Finmeccanica has issued Bollettino Tecnico No. 412-145, dated March 8, 2016, which specifies procedures for removing each comfort clip from the crew and passenger shoulder harness seat belts and for inspecting the seat belts for wear.
This AD requires, within 50 hours time-in-service, removing from service any comfort clip installed on a crew or passenger shoulder harness seat belt and inspecting the shoulder harness seat belt for rips or abrasions. If there is a rip or any abrasion, the AD requires replacing the seat belt. This AD also prohibits installing a comfort clip on any shoulder harness seat belt.
There are no costs of compliance with this AD because there are no helicopters with this type certificate on the U.S. Registry.
There are no helicopters with this type certificate on the U.S. Registry. Therefore, we find good cause that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary. In addition, for the reason stated above, we find that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD applies to Agusta S.p.A. Model AB412 and AB412 EP helicopters with a seat belt comfort clip installed.
This AD defines the unsafe condition as a shoulder harness seat belt comfort clip interfering with the seat belt inertia reel, which could prevent the seatbelt from locking and result in injury to the occupant during an emergency landing.
This AD becomes effective March 27, 2018.
You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.
(1) Within 50 hours time-in-service:
(i) Remove from service each seat belt comfort clip.
(ii) Inspect each shoulder harness seat belt for a rip and abrasion. If there is a rip or any abrasion, before further flight, replace the shoulder harness seat belt.
(2) After the effective date of this AD, do not install a shoulder harness seat belt comfort clip on any helicopter.
(1) The Manager, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Matt Fuller, Senior Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email; email
(2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office, before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.
(1) Finmeccanica Bollettino Tecnico No. 412-145, dated March 8, 2016, which is not incorporated by reference, contains additional information about the subject of this AD. For service information identified in this AD, contact Leonardo S.p.A. Helicopters, Matteo Ragazzi, Head of Airworthiness, Viale G. Agusta 520, 21017 C. Costa di Samarate (Va) Italy; telephone +39-0331-711756; fax +39-0331-229046; or at
(2) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2016-0054, dated March 14, 2016. You may view the EASA AD on the internet at
Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 2500 Cabin Equipment/Furnishings.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Agusta S.p.A. (Agusta) Model AW189 helicopters. This AD requires inspecting and altering the emergency flotation system (EFS). This AD is prompted by a report of punctured EFS kits. The actions of this AD are intended to prevent an unsafe condition on these helicopters.
This AD is effective April 16, 2018.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Leonardo S.p.A. Helicopters, Matteo Ragazzi, Head of Airworthiness, Viale G.Agusta 520, 21017 C.Costa di Samarate (Va) Italy; telephone +39-0331-711756; fax +39-0331-229046; or at
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Martin R. Crane, Aviation Safety Engineer, Regulations and Policy Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email
On November 2, 2017, at 82 FR 50849, the
The NPRM was prompted by AD No. 2016-0263-E, dated December 22, 2016 (AD 2016-0263-E), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, to correct an unsafe condition for Leonardo S.p.A. Helicopters (previously Agusta) Model AW189 helicopters. EASA advises that during the first scheduled maintenance of an EFS kit, float bags were found punctured due to protruding parts of the pressure relief/topping valves that were not adequately protected. EASA further states that this condition could result in a partial loss of buoyancy of the EFS float bags, possibly resulting in injury to the helicopter's occupants in a ditching event. To prevent this unsafe condition, EASA AD 2016-0263-E requires a one-time inspection of the EFS, repair of any discrepancies found, replacing the pressure relief/topping valve O-ring with a gasket, and replacing the inflate/deflate protection with a new design inflate/deflate protection.
The FAA is in the process of updating Agusta's name change to Leonardo Helicopters on its type certificate. Because this name change is not yet effective, this AD specifies Agusta.
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD, but we did not receive any comments on the NPRM.
These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of Italy and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with Italy, EASA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the EASA AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of the same type design and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed.
The EASA AD requires compliance within 15 hours time-in-service (TIS) or 10 days for helicopters flying overwater above sea state 4 or within 120 hours or 60 days for helicopters operating overwater up to sea state 4. This AD requires compliance within 120 hours TIS regardless of sea state conditions.
We reviewed Leonardo Helicopters Bollettino Tecnico No. 189-135, dated December 20, 2016 (BT 189-135), and Aero Sekur Service Bulletin No. SB-189-25-003, dated November 30, 2016 (SB-189-25-003), which is attached to BT 189-135 as Annex A. BT 189-135 specifies following the procedures in SB-189-25-003 to inspect and modify certain EFS kits installed on Model AW189 helicopters.
We estimate that this AD affects two helicopters of U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators will incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. Labor costs are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Inspecting each float bag, replacing the PRT valve gasket, and replacing the inflate/deflate protection require about 40 work-hours, and required parts cost about $500, for a cost per helicopter of $3,900 and a cost of $7,800 for the U.S. fleet. If required, repairing a float bag will require about 2 work-hours, and required parts cost about $90, for a cost per float bag of $260.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on helicopters identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD applies to Agusta S.p.A. (Agusta) Model AW189 helicopters, certificated in any category, with an emergency float system (EFS) float assembly part number (P/N) 8G9560V00131, serial number (S/N) 066 or lower; P/N 8G9560V00231, S/N 068 or lower; P/N 8G9560V00331, S/N 068 or lower; or P/N 8G9560V00431, S/N 067 or lower, installed.
This AD defines the unsafe condition as a punctured EFS float bag. This condition could result in loss of buoyancy of an EFS
This AD becomes effective April 16, 2018.
You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.
(1) Within 120 hours time-in-service:
(i) Unfold and inspect each float bag assembly for any cuts, tears, punctures, or abrasion. If there is a cut, tear, puncture, or any abrasion, before further flight, repair the float bag assembly.
(ii) Replace each O-ring P/N S-B10104 with a pressure relief/topping (PRT) valve gasket P/N 316683A.
(iii) Install each PRT valve P/N P-G10025 and apply a torque of 4.5 to 5.5 Nm (39.8 to 48.6 inch-pounds).
(iv) Replace each inflate/deflate protection P/N 304694A with a PRT valve protection P/N 304694B.
(v) Install a piece of tape approximately 220 millimeters long over each PRT valve protection P/N 304694B.
(2) After the effective date of this AD, do not install an EFS float assembly P/N 8G9560V00131, S/N 066 or lower; P/N 8G9560V00231, S/N 068 or lower; P/N 8G9560V00331, S/N 068 or lower; or P/N 8G9560V00431, S/N 067 or lower on any helicopter unless you have complied with the actions in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD.
(1) The Manager, Safety Management Section, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Martin R. Crane, Aviation Safety Engineer, Regulations and Policy Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email
(2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office, before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.
(1) Leonardo Helicopters Bollettino Tecnico No. 189-135, dated December 20, 2016, and Aero Sekur Service Bulletin No. SB-189-25-003, dated November 30, 2016, which are not incorporated by reference, contain additional information about the subject of this AD. For service information identified in this AD, contact Leonardo S.p.A. Helicopters, Matteo Ragazzi, Head of Airworthiness, Viale G.Agusta 520, 21017 C.Costa di Samarate (Va) Italy; telephone +39-0331-711756; fax +39-0331-229046; or at
(2) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2016-0263-E, dated December 22, 2016. You may view the EASA AD on the internet at
Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 3212 Emergency Flotation Section.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; correction; correcting amendment.
The FAA is correcting a final rule published on December 13, 2016. In that rule, the FAA amended its regulations to allow operators to use an enhanced flight vision system (EFVS) in lieu of natural vision to continue descending from 100 feet above the touchdown zone elevation (TDZE) to the runway and to land on certain straight-in instrument approach procedures (IAPs) under instrument flight rules (IFR). As part of the final rule, the FAA inadvertently removed some regulatory text. This document corrects that error. Additionally, this document corrects the same error in an amendatory instruction of the EFVS final rule to ensure the correction to the regulation is retained when the regulation is subsequently amended on March 13, 2018.
The correcting amendment (amendatory instruction 2) is effective March 12, 2018. The correction to the final rule published at 81 FR 90126 (December 13, 2016), and delayed at 82 FR 9677 (February 8, 2017) is effective March 13, 2018.
Terry King, Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-8790; email
On December 13, 2016, the FAA published a final rule entitled, “Revisions to Operational Requirements for the Use of Enhanced Flight Vision Systems (EFVS) and to Pilot Compartment View Requirements for Vision Systems.”
As explained in the preamble to the final rule, the FAA provided an adequate transition period for operators and pilots conducting EFVS operations to 100 feet above the touchdown zone elevation.
Section 91.175(e)(1) included a cross-reference to § 91.175(l) prior to the final rule. To accommodate the transition period, the FAA made a conforming amendment to § 91.175(e)(1), effective March 13, 2017, by adding a cross-reference to § 91.176. Additionally, to conform with the conclusion of the transition period, the FAA included instructions to amend § 91.175(e)(1), effective March 13, 2018, by removing the cross-reference to § 91.175(l).
Prior to the EFVS final rule, § 91.175(e)(1) allowed a pilot operating an aircraft, except a military aircraft of the United States, to immediately execute an appropriate missed approach procedure whenever operating under § 91.175(c) or (l) and the requirements of that paragraph are not met at either of the following times: (i) When the
In amending § 91.175(e)(1), the FAA did not intend to remove paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and (ii), which identify the following times referred to in paragraph (e)(1). However, the amendatory instruction advised the Office of the Federal Register to revise § 91.175(e)(1) and the regulatory text that accompanied the amendatory instruction failed to include paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and (ii). As a result, paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and (ii) were inadvertently removed from § 91.175. This error also occurs in amendatory instruction 18, which will amend § 91.175(e)(1) effective March 13, 2018.
The FAA intended only to update the cross references in § 91.175(e)(1) to coincide with the transition period and did not intend to remove paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and (ii). The FAA is therefore revising § 91.175(e)(1) by reinstating paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and (ii) accordingly. Additionally, in amendatory instruction 18 of the EFVS final rule,
Because this amendment results in no substantive change, the FAA finds that the notice and public procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary. For the same reason, the FAA finds good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make the amendments effective in less than 30 days.
Effective March 13, 2018, in rule document 2016-28714 at 81 FR 90126 in the issue of December 13, 2016, on page 90172, in the third column, in amendatory instruction 18, paragraph (e)(1) is corrected to read as follows:
(e) * * *
(1) Whenever operating an aircraft pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section or § 91.176 of this part, and the requirements of that paragraph or section are not met at either of the following times:
(i) When the aircraft is being operated below MDA; or
(ii) Upon arrival at the missed approach point, including a DA/DH where a DA/DH is specified and its use is required, and at any time after that until touchdown.
Air carrier, Air taxis, Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, Transportation.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Federal Aviation Administration amends chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 1155, 40101, 40103, 40105, 40113, 40120, 44101, 44111, 44701, 44704, 44709, 44711, 44712, 44715, 44716, 44717, 44722, 46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 46506-46507, 47122, 47508, 47528-47531, 47534, Pub. L. 114-190, 130 Stat. 615 (49 U.S.C. 44703 note); articles 12 and 29 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (61 Stat. 1180), (126 Stat. 11).
(e) * * *
(1) Whenever operating an aircraft pursuant to paragraph (c) or (l) of this section or § 91.176 of this chapter, and the requirements of that paragraph or section are not met at either of the following times:
(i) When the aircraft is being operated below MDA; or
(ii) Upon arrival at the missed approach point, including a DA/DH where a DA/DH is specified and its use is required, and at any time after that until touchdown.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Final rule; annual update to fee schedule.
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Commission, by its designee, the Executive Director, issues this annual update to the fee schedule in the appendix to the part, which lists per-acre rental fees by county (or other geographic area) for use of government lands by hydropower licensees.
This rule is effective March 12, 2018. Updates appendix A to part 11 with the fee schedule of per-acre rental fees by county (or other geographic area) are applicable from October 1, 2017, through September 30, 2018 (Fiscal Year 2018).
Norman Richardson, Financial Management Division, Office of the Executive Director, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-6219,
Section 11.2 of the Commission's regulations provides a method for computing reasonable annual charges for recompensing the United States for the use, occupancy, and enjoyment of its lands by hydropower licensees.
This Final Rule is effective March 12, 2018. The provisions of 5 U.S.C. 804,
Public lands.
By the Executive Director.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends part 11, chapter I, title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows.
16 U.S.C. 792-828c; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
Final rule.
Pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (2015 Act), which further amended the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (1990 Act), and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance, this rule adjusts for inflation the level of civil monetary penalties assessed under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA).
This rule is effective on March 12, 2018.
Michael Kuhns, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 1849 C Street NW, Mail Stop 4550, Washington, DC 20240; Telephone (202) 208-2860. Email:
Section 518 of SMCRA, 30 U.S.C. 1268, authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to assess civil monetary penalties (CMPs) for violations of SMCRA. The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement's (OSMRE) regulations implementing the CMP provisions of section 518 are located in 30 CFR parts 723, 724, 845, and 846. We are adjusting CMPs in four sections—30 CFR 723.14, 724.14, 845.14, and 846.14.
On November 2, 2015, the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (Sec. 701 of Pub. L. 114-74) (2015 Act) became law. The 2015 Act, which further amended the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (codified as amended at 28 U.S.C. 2461 note), requires Federal agencies to promulgate rules to adjust the level of CMPs to account for inflation. The 2015 Act required an initial “catch-up” adjustment. OSMRE published the initial adjustment in the
Pursuant to SMCRA and the 2015 Act, this final rule reflects the statutorily required CMP adjustments as follows:
In the chart above, there are no numbers listed in the “Points” column relative to 30 CFR 723.15(b), 30 CFR 724.14(b), 30 CFR 845.15(b), and 30 CFR 846.14(b) because those regulatory provisions do not set forth numbers of points. For those provisions, the current regulations only set forth the dollar amounts shown in the chart in the “Current Penalty Dollar Amounts” column; the adjusted amounts, which we are adopting in this rule, are shown in the “Adjusted Penalty Dollar Amounts” column.
OMB issued guidance on the 2018 annual adjustments for inflation.
Generally, OSMRE assigns points to a violation as described in 30 CFR 723.13 and 845.13. The CMP owed is based on the number of points received, ranging from one point to seventy points. For example, under our existing regulations in 30 CFR 845.14, a violation totaling 70 points would amount to a $16,073 CMP. To adjust this amount, we multiply $16,073 by the 2018 inflation factor of 1.02041, resulting in a raw adjusted amount of $16,401.05. Because the 2015 Act requires us to round any increase in the CMP amount to the nearest dollar, in this case a violation of 70 points would amount to a new CMP of $16,401. Pursuant to the 2015 Act, the increases in this Final Rule apply to CMPs assessed after the date the increases take effect, even if the associated violation predates the applicable increase.
OSMRE directly regulates surface coal mining and reclamation operations within a State or on tribal lands if the State or tribe does not obtain its own approved program pursuant to section 503 of SMCRA, 30 U.S.C. 1253. The increases in CMPs contained in this rule will apply to the following Federal program states: Arizona, California, Georgia, Idaho, Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Washington. The Federal programs for those States appear at 30 CFR parts 903, 905, 910, 912, 921, 922, 933, 937, 939, 941, 942, and 947, respectively. Under 30 CFR 750.18, the increase in CMPs also applies to Indian lands under the Federal program for Indian lands.
As a result of litigation,
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that agency regulations exclusively implementing the annual inflation adjustments are not significant, provided they are consistent with the OMB Memorandum.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the Nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements, to the extent permitted by statute.
E.O. 13771 of January 30, 2017, directs Federal agencies to reduce the regulatory burden on regulated entities and control regulatory costs. E.O. 13771, however, applies only to significant regulatory actions, as defined in Section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. As mentioned above, OIRA has determined that agency regulations exclusively implementing the annual adjustment are not significant regulatory actions under E.O. 12866, provided they are consistent with the OMB Memorandum (
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for all rules unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only to rules for which an agency is required to first publish a proposed rule.
This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:
(a) Will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.
(b) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions.
(c) Will not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.
This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector, of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531
This rule does not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have takings implications under Executive Order 12630. A takings implication assessment is not required.
Under the criteria in section 1 of Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. A federalism summary impact statement is not required.
This rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988. Specifically, this rule:
(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation; and
(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.
The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Indian tribes through a commitment to consultation with Indian tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and tribal sovereignty. We have evaluated this rule under the Department's consultation policy, under Departmental Manual Part 512, Chapters 4 and 5, and under the criteria in Executive Order 13175 and have determined that it has no substantial direct effects on Federally-recognized Indian tribes or Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) Corporations, and that consultation under the Department's tribal consultation policy is not required.
This rule does not contain information collection requirements, and a submission to the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) is not required because the rule is covered by a categorical exclusion. This rule is excluded from the requirement to prepare a detailed statement because it is a regulation of an administrative nature. (For further information
This rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in Executive Order 13211. A Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 (section 1(b)(12)), 12988 (section 3(b)(1)(B)), and 13563 (section 1(a)), and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(a) Be logically organized;
(b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(c) Use common, everyday words and clear language rather than jargon;
(d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you believe that we have not met these requirements in issuing this final rule, please contact the individual listed in the
In developing this rule, we did not conduct or use a study, experiment, or survey requiring peer review under the Data Quality Act (Pub. L. 106-554).
We are issuing this final rule without prior public notice or opportunity for public comment. As discussed above, the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 requires agencies to publish adjusted penalties annually. Under the 2015 Act, the public procedure that the Administrative Procedure Act generally requires—notice, an opportunity for comment, and a delay in the effective date—is not required for agencies to issue regulations implementing the annual adjustments required by the 2015 Act.
Administrative practice and procedure, Penalties, Surface mining, Underground mining.
Administrative practice and procedure, Penalties, Surface mining, Underground mining.
Administrative practice and procedure, Law enforcement, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surface mining, Underground mining.
Administrative practice and procedure, Penalties, Surface mining, Underground mining.
For the reasons given in the preamble, the Department of the Interior amends 30 CFR parts 723, 724, 845, and 846 as set forth below.
28 U.S.C. 2461, 30 U.S.C. 1201
(b) In addition to the civil penalty provided for in paragraph (a) of this section, whenever a violation contained in a notice of violation or cessation order has not been abated within the abatement period set in the notice or order or as subsequently extended pursuant to section 521(a) of the Act, 30 U.S.C. 1271(a), a civil penalty of not less than $2,460 will be assessed for each day during which such failure to abate continues, except that:
28 U.S.C. 2461, 30 U.S.C. 1201
(b) The penalty will not exceed $16,401 for each violation. * * *
28 U.S.C. 2461, 30 U.S.C. 1201
(b) In addition to the civil penalty provided for in paragraph (a) of this section, whenever a violation contained in a notice of violation or cessation order has not been abated within the abatement period set in the notice or order or as subsequently extended pursuant to section 521(a) of the Act, 30 U.S.C. 1271(a), a civil penalty of not less than $2,460 will be assessed for each day during which such failure to abate continues, except that:
28 U.S.C. 2461, 30 U.S.C. 1201
(b) The penalty will not exceed $16,401 for each violation. * * *
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is modifying the operating schedule that governs the Military Street Bridge, mile 0.33, the Seventh Street Bridge, mile 0.50, the Tenth Street Bridge, mile 0.94, and the Canadian National Railroad Bridge, mile 1.56, across the Black River at Port Huron, MI. This rule will modify the operating schedules of the bridges by expanding winter hours, and also modifies the operating schedule of all City of Port Huron drawbridges.
This rule is effective April 11, 2018.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Mr. Lee D. Soule, Bridge Management Specialist, Ninth Coast Guard District; telephone 216-902-6085, email
On December 11, 2017, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking entitled Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Black River, Port Huron, MI in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority 33 U.S.C. 499.
The Black River flows southwest through the City of Port Huron, MI and empties into the St. Clair River just below the south end of Lake Huron. Large commercial freighters once traveled up the Black River to facilities past the Canadian National Railroad Bridge, but currently the river is mostly used by recreational vessels with a few small commercial vessels operating in the river. Large commercial vessels do not currently trade in the Black River.
The Military Street Bridge provides a horizontal clearance of 73 feet and a vertical clearance of 13 feet above LWD in the closed position.
The Seventh Street Bridge provides a horizontal clearance of 83 feet and a vertical clearance of 12 feet above LWD in the closed position.
The Tenth Street Bridge provides a horizontal clearance of 90 feet and a vertical clearance of 18 feet above LWD in the closed position.
The Canadian National Railroad Bridge provides a horizontal clearance of 80 feet and a vertical clearance of 14 feet above LWD in the closed position.
The CSX Railroad Bridge, mile 0.09, is out of service and locked in the fully open position.
All five drawbridges provide an unlimited vertical clearance in the open position.
The CSX Railroad Bridge and Canadian National Railroad Bridge are not included in the existing regulation.
The current regulation allows the Military Street Bridge and the Seventh Street Bridge to operate on the hour and half-hour between May 1 and October 31, from 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Saturday, except Federal Holidays. In April and November, between the hours of 4 p.m. and 8 a.m., both bridges require a 3-hour advance notice for openings.
The Tenth Street Bridge is currently required to open on signal from May 1 through October 31, except from 11 p.m. to 8 a.m. a 1-hour advance notice is required for openings. In April and November the bridge requires a 3-hour advance notice for openings at all times.
From December 1 through March 31 all three highway bridges requires at least 24 hours notice for openings.
As noted above, both the CSX Railroad and Canadian National Railroad bridges are not included in the existing regulation.
The Coast Guard provided a comment period of 30 days and no comments were received. The City of Port Huron operates the three highway bridges and requested the winter operating dates to be expanded due to a lack of openings, use of the waterway has substantially changed, and early development of ice in the river that prevents most recreational vessels from transiting the waterway between November 1 and April 30. They requested the winter operating schedules (with 12-hours advance notice from vessels) to apply November 1 through April 30 each year.
In addition to reviewing winter operating dates we have reviewed the current operating schedules for all drawbridges on the waterway. During our coordination with the City of Port Huron and stakeholders, concerns were also received regarding vehicle congestion and predictable bridge openings when the Military Street and Seventh Street Bridges are opened simultaneously for vessels. Both bridges currently open on the hour and half-hour.
This rule alternates, or staggers, openings of the three highway bridges with Military Street and Tenth Street opening on the hour and half-hour, and Seventh Street (the middle highway bridge), on the quarter and three-quarter-hour, thereby providing predictable bridge openings and avoiding all of the highway bridges opening simultaneously, and allowing continuous vessel movements through the highway bridges. To prevent congestion at the bridges, the drawbridges will open at any time five or more vessels are waiting for an opening. This rule is expected to reduce vehicular traffic congestion and delays, and reduce the chance vessels will be stuck between the highway bridges and waiting for extended times for bridge openings.
The Tenth Street Bridge is the furthest upriver highway bridge and provides a higher vertical clearance than the Military Street or the Seventh Street drawbridges, allowing most vessels to pass under the bridge without an opening. The volume of marine traffic and upriver marine facilities that require Tenth Street Bridge openings is significantly lower than Military and Seventh Street Bridges but the vehicular traffic is considerably higher than the other highway bridges. Between May 1 and October 31 this rule will allow the Tenth Street Bridge to open on the hour and half-hour from 8 a.m. to 11 p.m. From 11 p.m. to 8 a.m. the bridge will require a 1-hour advance notice for openings. This schedule will provide predictable bridge openings for vehicles to cross the river at any time while still providing for the reasonable needs of
The Canadian National Railroad Bridge normally remains in the open to navigation position and only closes to navigation to accommodate the passage of trains. This rule will add the Canadian National Bridge to the current regulation. The bridge will open on signal at all times between May 1 and October 31, and will open if 12-hours advance notice is provided between November 1 and April 30, matching the winter schedules of the highway bridges.
This rule was coordinated with the City of Port Huron, MI, local marine facilities, local emergency responders (including Coast Guard units), and local marine stakeholders. It is expected to reflect the current usage of the waterway by marine entities during the navigation season and winter periods, improve both marine and vehicular traffic mobility by reducing congestion and delays, simplify the schedules and language in the existing regulation, and provide for the reasonable needs of navigation.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive Orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protesters.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Executive order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the ability that vessels can still transit the bridge given advanced notice.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard did not receive any comments from the Small Business Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the bridge may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV above this final rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a determination that this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule simply promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. This action is categorically excluded from further review, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.
A Record of Environmental Consideration and a Memorandum for the Record are not required for this rule.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 117 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a) The draw of the Military Street Bridge, mile 0.33, shall open on signal; except that, from May 1 through October 31, from 8 a.m. to 11 p.m., seven days a week, the draw need open only on the hour and half-hour for recreational vessels, or at any time when there are more than five vessels waiting for an opening, and from November 1 through April 30 if at least 12-hours advance notice is given.
(b) The draw of the Seventh Street Bridge, mile 0.50, shall open on signal; except that, from May 1 through October 31, from 8 a.m. to 11 p.m., seven days a week, the draw need open only on the quarter-hour and three-quarter-hour for recreational vessels, or at any time when there are more than five vessels waiting for an opening, and from November 1 through April 30 if at least 12-hours advance notice is given.
(c) The draw of the Tenth Street Bridge, mile 0.94, shall open on signal; except that, from May 1 through October 31, from 8 a.m. to 11 p.m., seven days a week, the draw need open only on the hour and half-hour for recreational vessels, or at any time when there are more than five vessels waiting for an opening, and from 11 p.m. to 8 a.m. if at least 1-hour advance notice is provided, and from November 1 through April 30 if at least 12-hours notice is given.
(d) The draw of the Canadian National Railroad Bridge, mile 1.56, shall open on signal; except from November 1 through April 30 if at least 12-hours advance notice is given.
Office of the Secretary, Department of Education.
Interpretation.
Recently, several States have enacted regulatory regimes that impose new regulatory requirements on servicers of loans under the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program (Direct Loan Program). States also impose disclosure requirements on loan servicers with respect to loans made under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA). Finally, State regulations impact Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program servicing. The Department believes such regulation is preempted by Federal law. The Department issues this notice to clarify further the Federal interests in this area.
March 12, 2018.
Kathleen Smith, Deputy Chief Operating Officer, U.S. Department of Education, Federal Student Aid, 830 First Street NE, Union Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-5453. Telephone: (202) 377-4533 or via email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
Congress created and expanded the Direct Loan Program with the goal of simplifying the delivery of student loans to borrowers, eliminating borrower confusion, avoiding unnecessary costs to taxpayers, and creating a more streamlined student loan program that could be managed more effectively at the Federal level.
Recently, several States have enacted regulatory regimes or applied existing State consumer protection statutes that undermine these goals by imposing new regulatory requirements on the Department's Direct Loan servicers, including State licensure to service Federal student loans. State servicing laws are purportedly aimed only at student loan servicers, but such regulation affects the “[o]bligations and rights of the United States under its contracts” with servicers and with student loan borrowers, the “relationship between a Federal agency and the entity it regulates,” and the rights of the Federal government related to federally held debt. (
Recently, the United States filed a Statement of Interest in a lawsuit brought by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts against a Department loan servicer alleging violations of Massachusetts State law for allegedly unfair or deceptive acts related to the servicing of Federal student loans and administration of programs under the HEA. (Statement of Interest by the United States,
This is not a new position. The United States has previously responded when State law has been utilized in a way that conflicts with the operation and purposes of loan programs the Department administers pursuant to the HEA. On October 1, 1990, the Department issued a notice of its interpretation of regulations governing the FFEL Program (then known as the Guaranteed Student Loan program) (55 FR 40120) that prescribe the actions lenders and guaranty agencies must take to collect loans. The Department explained its view that these regulations preempt State law regarding the conduct of these loan collection activities.
In 2009, the United States intervened in
The Department issues this notice to clarify its view that State regulation of the servicing of Direct Loans impedes uniquely Federal interests, and that State regulation of the servicing of the FFEL Program is preempted to the extent that it undermines uniform administration of the program.
Congress created the Direct Loan Program as part of the Student Loan Reform Act of 1993 (Pub. L. 103-66). Under the program, the Federal government is the direct lender to the borrower and is responsible for all aspects of the lending process from loan origination through repayment, including the proper servicing and collection of the loan. In signing the Master Promissory Note for the loan, the borrower promises to repay the loan and any applicable interest and fees according to the terms and conditions outlined in the HEA, the Department's regulations, and the Note. (20 U.S.C. 1087e.)
Congress provided that the program would be administered by the Department through student loan servicers, directing the Secretary to enter into contracts for loan “servicing” and for “such other aspects of the direct student loan program as the Secretary determines are necessary to ensure the successful operation of the program.” (20 U.S.C. 1087f(b)(4).) The HEA directs the Secretary to award servicing contracts only to entities “which the Secretary determines are qualified to provide such services” and “that have extensive and relevant experience and demonstrated effectiveness.” (20 U.S.C. 1087f(a)(2).) When procuring such services, the Department must, with specific exceptions, abide by “all applicable Federal procurement laws and regulations,” which include the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). (20 U.S.C. 1087f(a), 1018a.) To achieve its goals of streamlining and simplifying the delivery of student loans and of saving taxpayer dollars (
The HEA and the Department's regulations provide comprehensive rules governing the Direct Loan Program, and the Department's contracts with loan servicers further specify the program's rules and requirements. As the United States recently noted in the Statement of Interest in
Recently, States have sought to impose requirements on servicers that conflict with Federal statutes, Department regulations, and these comprehensive contracts. Most notable are State regulations requiring licensure of Direct Loan servicers in order to perform work for the Federal government. “A State may not enforce licensing requirements which, though valid in the absence of federal regulation, give `the State's licensing board a virtual power of review over the federal determination' that a person or agency is qualified and entitled to perform certain functions, or which impose upon the performance of activity sanctioned by federal license additional conditions not contemplated by Congress.” (
Such licensing requirements “interfere[] with the federal government's power to select contractors” and to determine whether contractors are “responsible” under Federal law. (
For example, a State may purport to require a Direct Loan servicer, as a condition of licensure, to demonstrate that it has adopted certain business standards set by the State regulator; to meet certain financial responsibility requirements such as liquidity, financial solvency, capitalization, and surety bond requirements; and to submit to investigations, audits, and background checks by State authorities. Federal law addresses standards of responsibility for prospective contractors, and a State may not, “through its licensing requirements, . . . review the federal government's responsibility determination.” (
Some State servicing laws also purport to impose regulatory requirements on servicing that create additional conflicts with Federal law. For example, some State laws impose deadlines on servicers for responding to borrower inquiries and require specific procedures to resolve borrower disputes. Such laws establish deadlines for completing transfers of loans from one servicer to another and specific protocols for applying overpayments on loans. These are matters specified in the laws and regulations governing the Direct Loan Program as well as the contractual arrangements between the Department and the servicer. The Department has enforcement authority to oversee servicer compliance with these requirements, and “this authority is used by the [Department] to achieve a somewhat delicate balance of statutory objectives.” (
State servicing laws also may undermine Congress's goal of saving taxpayer dollars in administering the Direct Loan Program. Some State laws purport to impose licensing fees, assessments, minimum net worth requirements, surety bonds, data disclosure requirements, and annual reporting requirements on the Department's servicers that will increase the costs of student loan servicing, perhaps exceeding the amount a
A requirement that Federal student loan servicers comply with 50 different State-level regulatory regimes would significantly undermine the purpose of the Direct Loan Program to establish a uniform, streamlined, and simplified lending program managed at the Federal level. As courts have recognized, Congress provided “a clear command for uniformity” in the HEA with respect to the FFEL Program, and then “created a policy of inter-program uniformity by requiring that `loans made to borrowers [under the Direct Loan Program] shall have the same terms, conditions, and benefits, and be available in the same amounts, as loans made to borrowers under [the FFEL Program].' ” (
Uniformity not only reduces costs but also helps to ensure that borrowers are treated equitably and are not confused about the lending and repayment process. State-level regulation subjects borrowers to different loan servicing deadlines and processes depending on where the borrower happens to live, and at what point in time.
These conflicts with statutes, regulations, Federal contracts, and congressional objectives suggest that State regulation of loan servicers would be preempted by Federal law. That result is even more evident where, as in the Direct Loan Program, State regulation implicates uniquely Federal interests. As the Supreme Court has recognized, “obligations to and rights of the United States under its contracts are governed exclusively by Federal law,” and this area of Federal concern extends to “liability to third persons” that “arises out of performance of the contract.” (
Moreover, “the civil liability of Federal officials for actions taken in the course of their duty” is another area “of peculiarly Federal concern, warranting the displacement of State law.” (
“[W]here the Federal interest requires a uniform rule, the entire body of State law applicable to the area conflicts and is replaced by Federal rules.” (
Congress has provided that “[l]oans made, insured, or guaranteed pursuant to a program authorized by title IV of the [HEA] shall not be subject to any disclosure requirements of any State law.” (20 U.S.C. 1098g.) As a Federal district court recently explained, “Congress intended [section] 1098g to preempt any State law requiring lenders to reveal facts or information not required by Federal law.” (
The United States previously addressed the scope of section 1098g in its submission to the Ninth Circuit in
To the extent that State servicing laws attempt to impose new prohibitions on misrepresentation or the omission of material information, those laws would also run afoul of the express preemption provision in 20 U.S.C. 1098g.
The HEA and Department regulations governing the FFEL Program preempt State servicing laws that conflict with, or impede the uniform administration of, the program. State laws that require FFEL Program servicers to respond to a borrower's inquiry or dispute within a certain period of time, for example, conflict with the applicable Federal
The imposition of required dispute resolution procedures under State law would also conflict with the specific Federal regulations that govern the resolution of disputes raised by borrowers. (
Finally, the State servicing laws may conflict with two express preemption provisions applicable to FFEL Program Loans. Federal regulations “preempt any State law, including State statutes, regulations, or rules, that would conflict with or hinder satisfaction” of certain requirements regarding guaranty agency imposition of collection charges, reporting to consumer reporting agencies, and collection efforts on defaulted loans. (34 CFR 682.410(b)(8).) Federal regulations also preempt State laws that would conflict with or hinder the efforts of lenders or their servicers to satisfy and comply with the due diligence steps for loan collection included in those regulations. (34 CFR 682.411(o)(1).) Recently enacted State servicing laws appear to conflict with these preemption provisions.
The Secretary emphasizes that the Department continues to oversee loan servicers to ensure that borrowers receive exemplary customer service and are protected from substandard practices. First, the Department monitors servicer compliance with the Department's contracts, which include requirements related to customer service. These oversight efforts include, but are not limited to, call monitoring, process monitoring, and servicer auditing, conducted both remotely and on-site by the Department's office of Federal Student Aid (FSA). FSA has dedicated staff with the responsibility to ensure that servicers are adhering to regulatory and contractual requirements for servicing loans. For example, FSA reviews interactions between servicers and borrowers and compares the servicers' performance against a detailed Department checklist. FSA provides its performance evaluations to servicers through written reports and meetings and requires servicers to alter their practices when needed to correct deficiencies. FSA also maintains direct access to servicer systems and therefore can review individual borrower accounts to evaluate the servicers' treatment of those accounts against regulatory and contractual requirements.
Second, the Department's procurement and contracting requirements incentivize improved customer service by allocating more loans to servicers that meet performance metrics such as high levels of customer satisfaction and by paying servicers higher rates for loans that are in a non-delinquent status such as those enrolled in an income-driven repayment plan. Poor-performing servicers lose loans in their portfolio to better-performing servicers.
Third, FSA maintains a Feedback System, which includes a formal process for borrowers to report issues or file complaints about their loan experiences, including problems with servicing. Borrowers may also elevate complaints to the FSA Ombudsman Group—a neutral and confidential resource available to borrowers to resolve disputes related to their loans.
The Department seeks to promote exemplary customer service for student loan borrowers, consistent with the framework Congress established for the Federal student loan programs.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Final rule.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in this final rule amends its regulations governing the Servicemembers' and Veterans' Group Life Insurance programs to provide that certain Servicemembers' Group Life insurance (SGLI), Family SGLI (FSGLI), and Veterans' Group Life Insurance (VGLI) applications, elections, and beneficiary designations, required by statute to be “written” or “in writing,” would include those that are digitally or electronically signed and submitted via an agency-approved electronic means. This document adopts as a final rule, with minor changes, the proposed rule published in the
This rule is effective March 12, 2018.
Ruth Berkheimer, Insurance Specialist, Department of Veterans Affairs Insurance Center, 5000 Wissahickon Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19144, (215) 842-2000, ext. 4275 (this is not a toll-free number).
On September 6, 2017, VA published a proposed rule in the
VA provided a 60-day comment period for the public to respond to the proposed rule. The comment period for the proposed rule ended on November 6, 2017, and VA received two comments, which were favorable. Both comments expressed support for accepting electronically or digitally-signed insurance forms, as it will make it easier for Servicemembers and Veterans to update their life insurance coverage information. As all comments received were favorable, the proposed rule is being adopted as final, with minor stylistic edits to conform with Code of Federal Regulations formatting.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. This final rule will have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.
This final rule contains no provisions constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521).
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) defines a “significant regulatory action,” requiring review by OMB, unless OMB waives such review, as “any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.”
The economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy implications of this regulatory action have been examined, and it has been determined not to be a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. VA's impact analysis can be found as a supporting document at
The Secretary hereby certifies that the adoption of this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. This final rule will directly affect only individuals and will not directly affect any small entities. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this final rule is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604.
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number and title for the program affected by this document is 64.103, Life Insurance for Veterans.
Life insurance, Military personnel, Veterans.
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 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. Gina S. Farrisee, Deputy Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on February 27, 2018, for publication.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, VA amends 38 CFR part 9 as set forth below:
38 U.S.C. 501, 1965-1980A, unless otherwise noted.
(a)(1) For purposes of this section, the terms
(i) Hard-copy applications and forms containing a person's name or mark written or made by that person; and
(ii) Applications and forms submitted through a VA approved electronic means that include an electronic or digital signature that identifies and authenticates a particular person as the source of the electronic message and indicates such person's approval of the information submitted through such means.
(2) With regard to the following actions, applications or forms that satisfy the definition in paragraph (a)(1) of this section will be deemed to satisfy the requirement in the referenced statutes that an application, election, or beneficiary designation be “in writing” or “written”:
(i) Decline Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance for the member or Family Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance for the member's insurable spouse (38 U.S.C. 1967(a)(2)(A) or (B));
(ii) Insure the member under Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance or the member's spouse under Family Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance in an amount less than the maximum amount of such insurance (38 U.S.C. 1967(a)(3)(B));
(iii) Restore or increase coverage under Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance for the member or under Family Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance for the member's insurable spouse (38 U.S.C. 1967(c));
(iv) Designate one or more beneficiaries for the member's Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance or former member's Veterans' Group Life Insurance (38 U.S.C. 1970(a)); and
(v) Increase the amount of coverage under Veterans' Group Life Insurance (38 U.S.C. 1977(a)(3)).
(b) Applications or forms that satisfy the definition in paragraph (a)(1) of this section may be utilized to—
(1) Apply for Veterans' Group Life Insurance; and
(2) Reinstate Veterans' Group Life Insurance.
Postal Service
Final rule.
The Postal Service is amending the
Janet Meddick at (202) 268-2652 or Pierre DeFelice at (724) 993-3596 or Garry Rodriguez at (202) 268-7281.
The Postal Service published a notice of proposed rulemaking on December 13, 2017, (82 FR 58580-58582) to amend DMM section 604.10.0,
The Postal Service received 3 formal responses on the proposed rule, all of which included multiple comments.
Comments from the first responder are as follows:
Clarification needed on deducting deficiencies directly from a trust account.
Action by the Postal Service to deduct funds from a mailer's trust account or any other funds in USPS possession would be a last resort effort to collect revenue due after the appeal process has been exhausted and the mailer has not made an appropriate payment arrangement.
Clarification needed on the timing and handling of due process notification on appeals.
The 30 day time frame listed in 3.2.1 is the time for a mailer to respond to the notification of a revenue deficiency assessment. Reasonable extensions for appeal will continue to be entertained for mailers that request such time to review documentation and data to formulate their response.
Comments from the second responder are as follows:
Clarification needed on the expansion of liability, written notification, and due process.
The clarification of “mailer” contained in new section 3.1.1 is intended to ensure that the identification and responsibility of any error in preparation is assessed to the appropriate party(ies), mail owner, mail preparer, and/or list provider. It is not intended as an effort to collect more than what is owed. The definition of “Revenue Deficiency” in new 3.1.1(a) specifically states that a written notification to the mailer citing the amount of the deficiency and the circumstances is required. Accordingly, a policy requiring written notification of the deficiency to the assessed mailer is still in existence.
Clarification needed on the interest charge.
The 6% interest charge is per annum after a final agency decision is rendered by the Pricing and Classification Service Center (PCSC) when the mailer is in default.
Clarification needed on the collection process.
The possible actions that the USPS may choose to enforce would only be applied if an assessed mailer, after a final agency decision has been rendered, fails to make payment, enter into a payment agreement, or otherwise fails to negotiate a settlement of the debt.
Comments from the third responder are as follows:
The third responder had numerous comments that were determined to be beyond the scope of this final rule. The Postal Service will review and address these comments in a separate forum with the responder.
These revisions will ensure the proper payment of postage while providing a superb customer experience from sender to receiver.
Administrative practice and procedure, Postal Service.
The Postal Service adopts the following changes to the
Accordingly, 39 CFR part 111 is amended as follows:
5 U.S.C. 552(a); 13 U.S.C. 301-307; 18 U.S.C. 1692-1737; 39 U.S.C. 101, 401, 403, 404, 414, 416, 3001-3011, 3201-3219, 3403-3406, 3621, 3622, 3626, 3632, 3633, and 5001.
The revenue deficiency process outlined in 3.0 is an administrative process that supplements and does not diminish any rights the Postal Service has to recover revenue deficiencies through other legally available methods, such as when the deficiency arises as a result of fraud, misrepresentation, or the misuse of PC Postage products or other Postage Evidencing Systems.
Revenue deficiency definitions are as follows:
a.
b.
Postal officials review mailings, postage statements, and other relevant documentation in assessing a revenue deficiency. Mailers are required to cooperate and provide any documentation or information requested by postal officials during the review and assessment process. A mailer's failure to provide requested documentation or information during a review may result in a negative inference concerning the documentation or information requested.
Assessed revenue deficiencies may be subject to the following:
a. If a mailer fails to tender payment to the Postal Service within 30 days of receipt of a final agency decision, or fails to comply with the terms or conditions of a payment plan agreed to by the Postal Service concerning the final agency decision, or is suspected by the Postal Service of continuing to repeatedly short pay postage, the Postal Service may:
1. Deduct from the mailer's trust account or any other funds in USPS possession any deficiencies incurred within 12 months of the date of the final mailing on which the deficiency was assessed.
2. Initiate debt collection procedures.
3. Restrict or suspend discounted mailing privileges with the concurrence of the manager, Revenue Assurance and Vice President Controller, or as otherwise allowed by regulation, or in accordance with any agreement with the mailer.
b. Discounted mailing privileges may be suspended or restricted regardless of payment status of an assessed revenue deficiency if underpayment of postage occurs again after a mailer has been assessed a revenue deficiency.
c. Interest on assessed revenue deficiencies will accrue at a rate of 6% per annum beginning 30 days after the receipt of the final agency decision and will continue until the debt is paid.
d. Other fees and costs related to an assessed revenue deficiency may be collected as allowed by law or regulation.
Except as provided in 604.4.4.4 through 604.4.4.5, 3.2.2, and 703.1.0, a mailer may appeal a revenue deficiency assessment by sending a written appeal to the postmaster or manager in 3.2.1a through 3.2.1c within 30 days of receipt of the notification. In all cases, the mailer may be asked to provide more information or documentation to support the appeal. Failure to do so within 30 days of the request is grounds for denying an appeal. Any decision that is not appealed as prescribed becomes the final agency decision. Mailers may send appeals as follows:
a. To the district manager, Finance, for revenue deficiencies for fees. The district manager, Finance, issues the final USPS decision.
b. To the Postmaster, manager, Business Mail Entry, program manager, Revenue and Compliance, or other postal official, for revenue deficiencies for postage. The appeal is then forwarded to the manager, PCSC, who issues the final agency decision.
c. To the manager, Product Classification (see 608.8.0 for address), if the PCSC manager first assessed the deficiency. The manager, Product Classification issues the final agency decision.
Nonprofit mailers have two levels of appeal. They may appeal revenue deficiency assessments as follows:
All appeals must be submitted in writing within 30 days of the previous USPS decision. Any decision that is not appealed as prescribed becomes the final agency decision; no appeals are available within the USPS beyond the second appeal.
We will publish an appropriate amendment to 39 CFR part 111 to reflect these changes.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve a revision to the Commonwealth of Virginia state implementation plan (SIP). This revision consists of an amendment to Virginia's SIP to incorporate by reference, the most recent federal ambient air quality standard for ozone. EPA is approving this revision in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
This final rule is effective on April 11, 2018.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0592. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Gavin Huang, (215) 814-2042, or by email at
On October 26, 2015 (80 FR 65292), EPA revised the primary and secondary national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone to 0.070 parts per million (ppm). The primary and secondary ambient air quality standards are met at an ambient air quality monitoring site when the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration is less than or equal to 0.070 ppm.
On July 25, 2016, the Commonwealth of Virginia through the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) submitted a formal revision to its SIP. The SIP revision seeks to incorporate the 2015 ozone NAAQS promulgated by EPA into the Virginia SIP.
On October 16, 2017 (82 FR 47985 and 82 FR 48035), EPA simultaneously published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) and a direct final rule (DFR) for the Commonwealth of Virginia approving the SIP revision. EPA received adverse comments on the rulemaking and withdrew the DFR prior to the effective date of December 15, 2017. In this final rulemaking, EPA is responding to the comments submitted on the proposed revision to the Virginia SIP and is approving the revision to the Virginia SIP to incorporate by reference the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
In the July 25, 2016 SIP submission, Virginia seeks to add regulation 9VAC5-30-57 “Ozone (8-hour 0.070 ppm)” to the Virginia SIP. This regulation incorporates by reference the 2015 ozone NAAQS as promulgated by EPA and is consistent with the NAAQS set out in 40 CFR part 50.
Virginia's submittal seeks to add to the Virginia SIP Regulation 9VAC5-30-57 which incorporates by reference the 2015 ozone NAAQS, as promulgated by EPA. EPA finds the SIP submittal approvable pursuant to section 110 of the CAA.
EPA received public comments on the NPR that will be addressed in section III of this rulemaking.
During the comment period, EPA received several anonymous comments on this rulemaking. EPA is responding to the comments submitted on the proposed revision to the Virginia SIP specific to this action. All other comments received were either supportive of or not specific to this action and thus are not addressed here.
EPA is approving the July 25, 2016 Virginia SIP revision submittal which seeks to add regulation 9VAC5-30-57 “Ozone (8-hour 0.070 ppm)” to the Virginia SIP pursuant to section 110 of the CAA. Regulation 9VAC5-30-57 incorporates by reference the 2015 ozone NAAQS which set the level of the 8-hour ozone standard at 0.070 ppm.
In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit) “privilege” for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation and voluntarily discloses such violations to the
On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the Privilege law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege to documents and information “required by law,” including documents and information “required by federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval,” since Virginia must “enforce federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less stringent than their federal counterparts. . . .” The opinion concludes that “[r]egarding § 10.1-1198, therefore, documents or other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of these programs could not be privileged because such documents and information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required by federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval.”
Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that “[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by federal law,” any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute, regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12, 1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute inapplicable to enforcement of any federally authorized programs, since “no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.”
Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its program consistent with the federal requirements. In any event, because EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on federal enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under the CAA, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan, independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen enforcement under section 304 of the CAA is likewise unaffected by this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.
In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Virginia 9VAC5-30-57 described in the amendment to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866.
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (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 CAA; and
• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151 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 CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 11, 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 adding regulation 9VAC5-30-57 “Ozone (8-hour 0.070 ppm)” to the Virginia SIP may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Ozone.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This action finalizes amendments of certain requirements that are contained within the final rule titled “Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources,” published in the
This final rule is effective on March 12, 2018.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Mrs. Karen Marsh, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-05), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-1065; email address:
Categories and entities potentially affected by this action include:
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. This table lists the types of entities that the EPA is now aware could potentially be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether your entity is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria found in the final rule. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of the final action is available on the internet. Following signature by the Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this final action at
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), judicial review of this final rule is available only by filing a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by May 11, 2018. Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce these requirements. Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that “[o]nly an objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment (including any public hearing) may be raised during judicial review.” This section also provides a mechanism for the EPA to convene a proceeding for reconsideration, “[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate to the EPA that it was impracticable to raise such objection within [the period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for public comment, (but within the time specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule.” Any person seeking to make such a demonstration to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, EPA WJC West Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the preceding
On June 3, 2016, the EPA published a final rule titled “Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources; Final Rule,” at 81 FR 35824 (“2016 Rule”). The 2016 Rule established new source performance standards (NSPS) for greenhouse gas and volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from the oil and natural gas sector. This rule addressed, among other things, fugitive emissions at well sites and compressor stations (“fugitive emissions requirements”) and emissions from pneumatic pumps. In addition, for a number of affected facilities (
On June 16, 2017, the EPA proposed to stay the fugitive emissions requirements, the well site pneumatic pump requirements, and the requirements for certification of closed vent systems by a professional engineer for 2 years. The EPA proposed the stay of these requirements in order to provide the EPA with sufficient time to propose, take public comment on, and issue a final action on the issues under
EPA received a broad range of comments and information in response to the proposed stay and the NODA. Relevant to this action is information regarding two specific provisions of the fugitive emissions requirements that we have concluded present immediate compliance concerns: (1) The requirement that delayed repairs must be completed during unscheduled or emergency vent blowdowns that occur within the 2-year repair timeframe and prior to other scheduled events, and (2) the monitoring survey requirements for well sites located on the Alaskan North Slope. See section IV of this preamble for a discussion of these concerns and these final amendments. The Agency is still examining comments related to all other issues raised in the proposal and NODA, including other issues related to delayed repair and the Alaskan North Slope, and is not taking final action with respect to these other matters in this final action.
The legal authority for this final action, which amends two narrow provisions of the fugitive emissions requirements in the 2016 Rule, is the same as that for the promulgation of the 2016 Rule. The EPA promulgated the 2016 Rule pursuant to section 111(b)(1)(B) of the CAA, which requires the EPA to issue “standards of performance” for new sources in the list of categories of stationary sources that cause or contribute significantly to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. See 81 FR 35828. CAA section 111(a)(1) defines “a standard of performance” as “a standard for emissions of air pollutants which reflects the degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the best system of emission reduction which (taking into account the cost of achieving such reduction and any nonair quality health and environmental impact and energy requirement) the Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated.” This definition makes clear that the standard of performance must be based on controls that constitute “the best system of emission reduction . . . adequately demonstrated.” The standard that the EPA develops, based on the best system of emission reduction (BSER), is commonly a numerical emissions limit, expressed as a performance level
Agencies have inherent authority to reconsider past decisions and to revise, replace, or repeal a decision to the extent permitted by law and supported by a reasoned explanation.
The EPA is finalizing amendments to two fugitive emissions requirements: (1) The requirements for delayed repairs, and (2) the monitoring survey requirements for well sites located on the Alaskan North Slope.
In this action, the EPA is finalizing amendments to the requirements related to delayed repairs. Specifically, the final rule removes the requirement for completion of delayed repairs during unscheduled or emergency vent blowdowns. Owners and operators are still required to complete repairs during the next compressor station shutdown, well shutdown, well shut-in, after a planned vent blowdown, or within 2 years, whichever is earlier.
The 2016 Rule requires replacement or repair of a component within 30 days of detection of fugitive emissions, but allows delaying the replacement/repair under certain situations specified in the rule. Specifically, the rule requires that the delayed repair “must be completed during the next compressor station shutdown, well shutdown, well shut-in, after an unscheduled, planned or emergency vent blowdown or within 2 years, whichever is earlier.” See 40 CFR 60.5397a(h)(2). While the only unscheduled and emergency event specified in this regulation is with regard to vent blowdown, the EPA stated in the preamble to the 2016 Rule that “if an unscheduled or emergency vent blowdown, compressor station shutdown, well shutdown, or well shut-in occurs during the delay of repair period, the fugitive emissions components would need to be fixed at that time.” See 81 FR 35858, June 3, 2016. This preamble language implied that delayed repairs were required if any of these events occurred, regardless of whether it was planned. As mentioned previously, the EPA discussed in the NODA stakeholder feedback that requiring repair or replacement of fugitive emissions components during unscheduled or emergency vent blowdowns could result in natural gas supply disruptions, safety concerns, and increased emissions. In response, the EPA solicited comments on shutdown, shut-in, and blowdown scenarios that could result in technical, safety, and/or environmental issues, as well as suggestions for addressing them. See 82 FR 51793, November 8, 2017. The EPA learned from the comments, through additional specific examples, that the requirement to complete delayed repairs during an unscheduled or emergency vent blowdown could lead to a number of unintended negative consequences. In particular, emissions from requiring delayed repairs during an unscheduled or emergency shutdown, shut-in, or vent blowdown could result in greater emissions than the leaks that are to be
One commenter described configurations at well sites that can lead to an automatic emergency well shut-in and where the rule, if applied as suggested in the preamble, could have unintended consequences.
Similar scenarios were provided by the commenters for compressor stations, where changes in horsepower demand, upsets of the compressor unit or the station, lightning strikes, power loss, floods, unplanned maintenance or repairs of a pipeline, fire, third-party damage, or instrumentation outages can result in unplanned or emergency blowdowns of certain equipment at a compressor station.
In addition to emissions from avoidable blowdowns described above, several commenters raised concerns about extended gas service disruption.
After examining the comments and supporting data on this issue, the EPA agrees with the commenters that delayed repairs should not be required during an unscheduled or emergency shutdown, shut-in, or vent blowdown due to the potential unintended consequences of further increasing the emissions, in addition to disruption of services. The EPA further concludes that this issue must be addressed immediately to avoid these unintended consequences. Because the proposed 2-year stay or proposed phase-in would offer only a temporary relief from this requirement, which the EPA has already concluded to be unacceptable, the EPA is not finalizing a stay or phase-in of this requirement. Instead, the EPA is taking final action to amend the delayed repair requirement to remove the terms “unplanned” and “emergency” from the list of events that would require completion of delayed repairs.
We are finalizing amendments to the fugitive emission monitoring requirements for well sites located on the Alaskan North Slope.
Under the 2016 Rule, the initial monitoring survey of fugitive emissions components at a new well site must be conducted within 60 days of startup of production at the new well site. For a collection of modified fugitive emissions components, the initial monitoring survey must be conducted within 60 days of production after the modification. The rule requires
During the rulemaking for the 2016 Rule, in response to comments expressing concerns with cold temperatures in several regions, the EPA had attempted to address the issue by providing additional flexibility in the form of allowing consecutive semiannual events to take place every 4 to 6 months. However, as commenters on the NODA correctly observed, the EPA did not address the issue as it relates to initial monitoring at well sites on the Alaskan North Slope; further, even with the additional flexibility, semiannual monitoring at well sites located on the Alaskan North Slope could still be required at a time when the temperature is below the operating temperature of the monitoring instruments.
In light of the technical feasibility issue discussed previously, the EPA concludes that the current fugitive emissions monitoring frequencies for well sites do not reflect the BSER for monitoring fugitive emissions components at well sites on the Alaskan North Slope, and that a different fugitive emissions monitoring schedule is warranted for well sites located on the Alaskan North Slope. Specifically, the EPA has amended the 2016 Rule to require that new or modified well sites that startup production between September and March conduct initial monitoring within 6 months of the startup of production or by June 30, whichever is later. We believe that the amendment would assure that initial monitoring take place when both OGI and EPA Method 21 are operable.
In addition, the EPA is amending the 2016 Rule to require annual (instead of semiannual) monitoring of fugitive emissions at well sites on the Alaskan North Slope. During the rulemaking for the 2016 Rule, the EPA had evaluated annual monitoring at well sites and concluded that semiannual monitoring reflected the BSER for detecting fugitive emissions at well sites. During the rulemaking for the 2016 Rule, we stated in response to a comment that there would be months during the semiannual monitoring periods when the OGI camera could work effectively.
The EPA concludes that the Alaskan North Slope issue must be addressed immediately given that we are currently well into the cold weather months. Because both the proposed 2-year stay and the suggestion that we extend the phase-in period for the fugitive emissions requirements would offer only temporary relief from the initial and subsequent monitoring requirements at well sites, which the EPA has already concluded to be inappropriate for the reasons stated above, the EPA is not finalizing a stay or a longer phase-in of these requirements. Rather, the EPA is taking final action to amend the 2016 Rule to provide a separate fugitive emissions monitoring schedule for well sites located on the Alaskan North Slope to accommodate its arctic climate.
The EPA received a large number of comments covering a wide range of topics in response to our June 16, 2017, proposal and November 8, 2017, NODA. As discussed in sections II and IV of this preamble, the EPA is still in the process of reviewing many of these comments. As noted previously, however, in the course of this review, the EPA has identified two specific provisions of the fugitive emissions requirements in the 2016 Rule that pose significant and immediate compliance concerns, and EPA is taking final action here to make targeted amendments to the 2016 Rule to address these two concerns. The Agency is still evaluating comments related to other issues raised in the proposal and the NODA and is not taking final action with respect to those issues at this time. Accordingly, we are not responding to those comments at this time. This section summarizes the significant comments relevant to the amendments in this final action, and our response to those comments.
The EPA received numerous comments on the legal authorities for its proposal to stay certain requirements of the 2016 Rule for 2 years and for the alternative suggestion of providing
This final rule amends two aspects of the fugitive emissions requirements in the 2016 Rule, which was promulgated pursuant to the EPA's authority to set NSPS standards pursuant to CAA section 111(b) according to the procedures under CAA section 307(d). Summarized below are significant comments on the EPA's authority under CAA sections 111(b) and 307(d) to amend a previously promulgated NSPS.
The commenters further described the statute's procedural requirements, such as a thorough review of specific factors, such as whether the standard reflects BSER, “the cost of those standards, any resulting nonair quality health and environmental impacts, energy requirements, the amount of air pollution reduced by the standards, and how the standards may drive technological innovation.”
The commenters further discussed the holding in the
A standard of performance promulgated under section 111(b) of the CAA must reflect the BSER for that emission source. In the 2016 Rule, the EPA conducted BSER analyses for reducing fugitive emissions at well sites and compressor stations, which resulted in the work practice standards promulgated in that rule. As explained below in this section and elsewhere in this notice, in the process of the current rulemaking, the EPA has identified two narrow provisions of the fugitive emissions requirements that pose immediate compliance concerns. The first issue concerns the potential that the current requirements for delayed repairs could result in an increase (instead of a reduction) of emissions and service disruption. The other issue concerns the technical feasibility of complying with the timeframe specified in the 2016 Rule for monitoring fugitive emissions at well sites in the Alaskan North Slope due to its extreme cold temperature for a lengthy period of time, which could render the monitoring instrument inoperable. After examining the comments and information on these two specific concerns, we conclude that the BSER and the resulting fugitive emissions requirements in the 2016 Rule did not adequately address these two compliance concerns and that revision is warranted. The revision is based on comments, data, and other information submitted during the rulemaking process, as well as our own analyses, all of which can be found in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505. A more detailed discussion of our revised analyses and amendment can be found below in this section as well as in section IV of this preamble.
The commenters that supported changes reiterated comments contained in their petitions for reconsideration following the promulgation of the 2016
One commenter
In contrast, the two commenters that opposed changes to the delayed repair requirements cited a lack of information to support either a stay or compliance deadline extension. One commenter
As discussed earlier, this issue must be addressed immediately to avoid potentially increasing emissions and/or disrupting gas supply. The EPA acknowledges that there are other comments concerning other aspects of the requirements for delayed repair in the fugitive emissions requirements, and that the EPA continues to evaluate these comments. Should any of these comments warrant additional changes to the fugitive requirements, the EPA intends to address them separately.
One commenter provided manufacturer specifications for three of the commonly used monitoring instruments (OGI camera, toxic vapor analyzer (TVA), and multi gas monitors).
Finally, two of the commenters stated that the EPA should exempt well sites and compressor stations located on the Alaskan North Slope from fugitive emissions monitoring similar to the exemptions from leak detection and repair at natural gas processing plants provided in NSPS OOOO and OOOOa.
As the commenters noted, the issues with conducting fugitive emissions monitoring at well sites located on the Alaskan North Slope were raised in the comments on the proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOOOa. In the EPA's responses to public comments on this issue, the EPA stated that specific flexibilities were added to the fugitive emissions monitoring program to avoid potential compliance concerns on the Alaskan North Slope. Specifically, the repair deadline was extended from 15 to 30 days, with an additional 30 days to complete the resurvey after repair; semiannual monitoring at well sites is allowed every 4 to 6 months; when average temperatures are below 0 °F for 2 consecutive months, quarterly monitoring is waived at compressor stations, and Method 21 was added as an alternative method for leak detection and resurvey.
We revisited the issue and reviewed both the relevant record for the 2016 Rule as well as additional information received subsequent to the rulemaking. Based on this evaluation, we recognized that a separate initial monitoring requirement was necessary for well sites that startup production during the months when it may be technically infeasible to meet the 60-day initial monitoring requirement.
For instance, we examined the scenario of a new well starting production in September. Under the current requirements, the initial monitoring survey would be required within 60 days of the startup of production. This would put the deadline in October or November, depending on when the well started producing in September.
The EPA agrees with the commenters that there are immediate compliance concerns due to the operating limitations of monitoring instruments. Therefore, we are finalizing an amendment to the timeframe for the fugitive emission monitoring program for well sites located on the Alaskan North Slope. Specifically, owners or operators must meet the initial compliance deadline of 60 days from the startup of production, unless the well site starts production between September and March. Those well sites that startup production between September and March must complete initial monitoring within 6 months of startup of production or by June 30, whichever is later. Additionally, owners or operators must perform annual monitoring for fugitive emissions, following the initial monitoring survey at all affected well sites located on the Alaskan North Slope, regardless of the startup date. Subsequent monitoring surveys must occur at least every 12 months, with consecutive monitoring surveys conducted at least 9 months apart. The requirements for repair, recordkeeping, and reporting remain the same as those in the 2016 Rule. Recognizing there are several months in which temperatures are within the operating temperature range for the monitoring instruments, the EPA concludes owners or operators have enough flexibility to complete monitoring surveys in this timeframe. Any further amendments for the Alaskan North Slope will be addressed separately. This amendment only applies at well sites located on the Alaskan North Slope. All other well sites must continue to comply with the initial, semiannual, or quarterly monitoring requirements, as appropriate.
With respect to comments on exempting facilities located on the Alaskan North Slope from fugitive monitoring requirements, changes to low temperature waivers, or any other concerns raised by the commenters related to cold weather, addressing them will likely require additional information and analysis. The EPA will continue evaluating these comments.
Although there will be cost savings related to not requiring delayed repairs during unscheduled or emergency events, as well as forgone benefits related to the reductions of fugitive emissions that might have occurred following these repairs, the EPA does not have cost or economic data related to this provision because of the unplanned nature of these events. Therefore, we are unable to determine the cost savings or forgone benefits of amending the requirements for delayed repair requirement related to unscheduled or emergency events.
In order to determine the impacts of the amendments to the fugitive emissions requirements for well sites located on the Alaskan North Slope, we used the same assumptions and methods used to estimate impacts of the 2016 Rule. Specifically, we used the number of affected sources located on the Alaskan North Slope, and the cost and emission reductions estimated for well sites at semiannual and annual fugitive monitoring frequencies that were assumed in the 2016 Rule. The cost savings and emission reductions estimated as a result of these amendments are presented in Tables 2 and 3, respectively. For more information on the assumptions used in this analysis, as well as the costs and emission reductions for fugitive emissions requirements at well sites, see the
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 action is considered an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action. This final rule provides meaningful burden reduction by amending the requirement that components on a delayed repair must conduct repairs during unscheduled or emergency vent blowdowns, and adding flexibilities for the monitoring survey requirements for well sites located on the Alaskan North Slope.
This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the PRA. The information collection requirements in the final 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOOOa have been submitted for approval to the OMB under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by the EPA has been assigned EPA ICR 2523.01. This action does not result in changes to the submitted ICR for 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOOOa, so the information collection estimates of project cost and hour burdens have not been revised.
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An Agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. This action finalizes amendments for two specific requirements in the 2016 Rule. This action will not increase the burden on small entities subject to this rule. The EPA prepared a final RFA analysis for the 2016 Rule, which is available as part of the Regulatory Impact Analysis in the docket at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-7630. We have, therefore, concluded that this action will have no net regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.
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. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. This action finalizes amendments for two specific requirements in the 2016 Rule. Any impacts on children's health caused by the amendments in the rule will be limited, because the scope of the amendments is limited. The Agency, therefore, concludes it is more appropriate to determine the impact on children's health in the context of any substantive changes potentially proposed in the future as part of the reconsideration of the 2016 Rule (as granted on April 18, 2017).
This action is not a “significant energy action” because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The basis for this determination can be found in the 2016 Rule (81 FR 35894).
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
This action finalizes amendments for two specific requirements in the 2016 Rule. Any impacts on minority populations and low-income populations caused by the amendments in the rule will be limited, because the scope of the amendments is limited. The
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Reporting and recordkeeping.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(f) (1) You must conduct an initial monitoring survey within 60 days of the startup of production, as defined in § 60.5430a, for each collection of fugitive emissions components at a new well site or by June 3, 2017, whichever is later. For a modified collection of fugitive emissions components at a well site, the initial monitoring survey must be conducted within 60 days of the first day of production for each collection of fugitive emission components after the modification or by June 3, 2017, whichever is later. Notwithstanding the preceding deadlines, for each collection of fugitive emissions components at a well site located on the Alaskan North Slope, as defined in § 60.5430a, that starts up production between September and March, you must conduct an initial monitoring survey within 6 months of the startup of production for a new well site, within 6 months of the first day of production after a modification of the collection of fugitive emission components, or by the following June 30, whichever is later.
(g) * * *
(1) Except as provided herein, a monitoring survey of each collection of fugitive emissions components at a well site within a company-defined area must be conducted at least semiannually after the initial survey. Consecutive semiannual monitoring surveys must be conducted at least 4 months apart. A monitoring survey of each collection of fugitive emissions components at a well site located on the Alaskan North Slope must be conducted at least annually. Consecutive annual monitoring surveys must be conducted at least 9 months apart.
(2) A monitoring survey of the collection of fugitive emissions components at a compressor station within a company-defined area must be conducted at least quarterly after the initial survey. Consecutive quarterly monitoring surveys must be conducted at least 60 days apart.
(h) * * *
(2) If the repair or replacement is technically infeasible, would require a vent blowdown, a compressor station shutdown, a well shutdown or well shut-in, or would be unsafe to repair during operation of the unit, the repair or replacement must be completed during the next scheduled compressor station shutdown, well shutdown, well shut-in, after a planned vent blowdown or within 2 years, whichever is earlier.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final rule.
This rule identifies communities where the sale of flood insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) that are scheduled for suspension on the effective dates listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain management requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation that the community has adopted the required floodplain management measures prior to the effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will not occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in the
The effective date of each community's scheduled suspension is the third date (“Susp.”) listed in the third column of the tables in this rulemaking.
Information identifying the current participation status of a community can be obtained from FEMA's Community Status Book (CSB).The CSB is available at
If you want to determine whether a particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for further information, contact Adrienne L. Sheldon, PE, CFM, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 212-3966.
The NFIP enables property owners to purchase Federal flood insurance that is not otherwise generally available from private insurers. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management measures aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of
In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that identifies the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities. The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may be provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for more than a year on FEMA's initial FIRM for the community as having flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and public comment procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), are impracticable and unnecessary because communities listed in this final rule have been adequately notified.
Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less than 30 days.
Flood insurance, Floodplains.
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 4001
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; announcement of effective date.
In this document, the Commission announces that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved, for a period of three years, the information collection associated with the Commission's
The amendments to 47 CFR 15.37(k) and 74.851(l) published at 80 FR 71702, November 17, 2015, are effective April 11, 2018. OMB approved the information collection requirements for §§ 15.37(k), 74.851(k), and 74.851(l) on January 18, 2018.
Paul Murray, Office of Engineering and Technology Bureau, at (202) 418-0688, or email:
This document announces that, on January 18, 2018, OMB approved, for a period of three years, the information collection requirements relating to the consumer disclosure and labeling rules contained in the Commission's Wireless Microphones Report and Order (R&O), FCC 15-100 (80 FR 71702, November 17, 2015) (as revised in the Wireless Microphones Order on Reconsideration, FCC 17-95 (82 FR 41549, September 1, 2017)) and the Commission's
To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received final OMB approval on January 18, 2018, for the information collection requirements contained in the modifications to the Commission's rules in 47 CFR parts 15 and 74.
Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number.
No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number is 3060-1250.
The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.
The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
In this document the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, and the Office of Engineering and Technology of the Federal Communications Commission adopt specific language for the consumer disclosures which the Commission adopted in 2015 and which concern the operation of wireless microphone (licensed or unlicensed) or video assist devices capable of operating in the 600 MHz service frequency band. With the close of the incentive auction on April 13, 2017, the 600 MHz service band has been reallocated for new wireless services, and wireless microphones and video assist devices must cease operations in this band no later than July 13, 2020 to avoid harmful interference to new wireless services. This disclosure requirement, including the specific Consumer Alert language, applies to persons who manufacture, sell, lease, or offer for sale or lease, wireless microphones or video assist devices authorized pursuant to and informs consumers of the changes that will affect their use of these devices in the newly established 600 MHz service band.
This rule is effective April 11, 2018.
Paul Murray, Office of Engineering and Technology, 202-418-0688,
The Commission will not send a CRA for this document because it only constitutes specific language to the consumer disclosure rules that were adopted by the Commission in 2015 in the
This document contains the specific Consumer Alert text associated with new information collection requirements that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. This language was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in November 2017 for review under section 3507(d) of the PRA, and on January 18, 2018, OMB approved this information collection, published elsewhere in this issue of the
This is a summary of the Order adopted by the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, and the Office of Engineering and Technology, GN Docket No. 14-166, ET Docket NO. 14-165, GN Docket No. 12-268, DA 17-709, adopted July 24, 2017 and released July 24, 2017. The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554. The full text may also be downloaded at:
1. In this Order, the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, and the Office of Engineering and Technology provide the specific language that must be used in the consumer disclosure required by the Commission in 2015 in §§ 15.37(k) and 74.851(l) of the Commission's rules. It is applicable to persons who manufacture, sell, lease, or offer for sale or lease, wireless microphone or video assist devices—either (a) wireless microphones or other low power auxiliary stations (“wireless microphones”) or video assist devices, authorized pursuant to part 74, Subpart H of the Commission's rules, or (b) unlicensed wireless microphones authorized pursuant to § 15.236—to the extent that these devices are capable of operating in the 600 MHz service band (617-652 MHz/663-698 MHz). This specific Consumer Alert text in the consumer disclosure rules informs consumers of the specific frequencies associated with the 600 MHz service band and also informs them that wireless microphone users must cease any wireless microphone operations in the 600 MHz service band no later than July 13, 2020. In addition, in many instances the text informs consumers that they may be required to cease use of these devices earlier if their use has the potential to cause harmful interference to 600 MHz service licensees' wireless operations in the band.
2. On August 5, 2015, the Commission adopted the
3. In the
4.
5.
The information requirements were approved by OMB as of January 18, 2018, as published elsewhere in this issue of the
Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 parts 15 and 74 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, 304, 307, 336, 554a, and 549.
(k) * * *
(4) The consumer disclosure text described in paragraph (k)(1) of this section is set forth in Figure 1 to this paragraph.
47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, 307, 309, 310, 336, and 554.
(l) * * *
(4) The consumer disclosure text described in paragraph (l)(1) of this section is set forth as Figure 1 to this paragraph.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Final rule; correction.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is correcting a final rule regarding Federal Acquisition Regulation Principles. This correction addresses minor technical errors in the final rule.
This correction is effective March 23, 2018.
Mr. Ricky Clark, Senior Procurement Analyst, Procurement Policy and Warrant Management Services (003A2A), 425 I Street NW, Washington DC 20001, (202) 632-5276. (This is not a toll-free telephone number.)
VA is correcting its final rule, “Revise and Streamline VA Acquisition Regulation to Adhere to Federal Acquisition Regulation Principles (VAAR Case 2014-V002)” that published February 21, 2018, in the
In FR Doc. 2018-03164, appearing on page 7401 in the
1. On page 7404, in the second column, redesignate amendatory instructions 7 through 22 as amendatory instructions 8 through 23 and add new amendatory instruction 7 to read as follows:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Halliburton Field, Duncan, OK. The FAA is proposing this action as a result of an airspace review caused by the decommissioning of the Duncan VHF omnidirectional range (VOR) navigation aid as part of the VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) Program and the cancellation of the associated instrument procedures. The geographic coordinates of the airport would also be updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database, as well as an editorial change removing the city associated with the airport name in the airspace designation.
Comments must be received on or before April 26, 2018.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826, or (800) 647-5527. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2018-0100; Airspace Docket No. 18-ASW-3, 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 online at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Halliburton Field, Duncan, OK, to support instrument flight rules operations.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2018-0100; Airspace Docket No. 18-ASW-3.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by amending the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.6-mile radius (decreased from a 6.7-mile radius) at Halliburton Field, Duncan, OK, and removing the extension to the north of the airport associated with the Halliburton Field Localizer. This proposal would add an extension within 4 miles each side of the 359° bearing from the airport from the 6.6-mile radius to 11.6 miles north of the airport. The geographic coordinates of the airport would also be updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database, and the name of the city associated with the airport in the airspace description would be removed to comply with a change to FAA Order 7400.2L, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters.
This action is necessary due to an airspace review caused by the decommissioning of the Duncan VOR as part of the VOR MON Program and cancellation of the associated instrument procedures.
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 regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile radius of Halliburton Field, and within 4.0 miles each side of the 359° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.6-mile radius to 11.6 miles north of the airport.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notification; withdrawal of petition for rulemaking.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the withdrawal, without prejudice to a future filing, of a food additive petition (animal use) proposing that the food additive regulations be amended to provide for the safe use of L-selenomethionine as a dietary source of selenium in feed for poultry, swine, and ruminants.
The food additive petition was withdrawn on November 10, 2017.
For access to the docket, go to
Chelsea Trull, Center for Veterinary Medicine, HFV-224, Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-402-6729,
In a document published in the
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
Proposed rule; withdrawal.
We, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), are announcing the withdrawal of a proposed rule pertaining to an amendment to the Arkansas regulatory program (Arkansas program) and the Arkansas Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation (AMLR) Plan (hereinafter, the plan) under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act). Arkansas submitted the amendment to revise substantial portions of its regulatory program and AMLR Plan to be no less effective than the counterpart Federal regulations, as well as to clarify ambiguities, improve operational efficiency, correct grammar and punctuation, revise dates, and delete and add citations and subsections.
The proposed rule published September 10, 2012, at 77 FR 55430, is withdrawn March 12, 2018.
Tulsa Field Office, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 1645 South 101st East Avenue, Suite 145, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74128.
William L. Joseph, Director, Tulsa Field Office, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 1645 South 101st East Avenue, Suite 145, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74128. Telephone: (918) 581-6430. Email:
Section 503(a) of the Act permits a State to assume primacy for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations on non-Federal and non-Indian lands within its borders by demonstrating that its program includes, among other things, state laws and regulations that govern surface coal mining and reclamation operations in accordance with the Act and consistent with the Federal regulations. See 30 U.S.C. 1253(a)(1) and (7). On the basis of these criteria, the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) conditionally approved the Arkansas program effective November 21, 1980. You can find background information on the Arkansas program, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and the conditions of approval of the Arkansas program, in the November 21, 1980,
The Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Program was established by Title IV of the Act in response to concerns over extensive environmental damage caused by past coal mining activities. The program is funded by a reclamation fee collected on each ton of coal that is produced. The money collected is used to finance the reclamation of abandoned coal mines and for other authorized activities. Section 405 of the Act allows States and Tribes to assume exclusive responsibility for reclamation activity within the State or on Indian lands if they develop and submit to the Secretary for approval, a program (often referred to as a plan) for the reclamation of abandoned coal mines. On the basis of these criteria, the Secretary approved the Arkansas Plan effective May 2, 1983. You can find background information on the Arkansas Plan, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and the approval of the plan in the May 2, 1983,
By letter dated June 25, 2012 (Administrative Record No. AR-572), Arkansas submitted a proposed amendment to its program and plan pursuant to SMCRA. Arkansas submitted the amendment in response to a September 30, 2009, letter (Administrative Record No. AR-571) from OSMRE in accordance with 30 CFR 732.17 (c), concerning multiple changes to ownership and control requirements. Arkansas also proposed substantive and nonsubstantive revisions to other sections of its regulatory program and its abandoned mine land reclamation plan at its own initiative.
We announced receipt of the proposed amendment in the September 10, 2012,
OSMRE reviewed the proposed amendment, and in a letter dated January 3, 2013 (Administrative Record No. AR-572.03), requested clarifications and suggested revisions to some provisions. Arkansas responded with minor revisions to their submittal by a letter dated January 11, 2013 (Administrative Record No. AR-572.04). OSMRE requested additional clarifications from Arkansas by email on February 28, 2013 (Administrative Record No. AR-572.05), and on March 5, 2013 (Administrative Record No. AR-572.06). Arkansas responded by email on March 5, 2013 (Administrative Record No. AR-572.07). On April 24, 2013 (Administrative Record No. AR-572.10), OSMRE notified Arkansas that our technical review was complete. On April 25, 2013, Arkansas submitted a revised version of the proposed amendment reflecting all clarifications and edits made during the technical review period (Administrative Record No. AR-572.09). On March 6, 2014, Arkansas submitted a revised amendment that withdrew the proposed changes to Reg.20.817.57 (Administrative Record No. AR-572.11). On July 1, 2014, Arkansas submitted a final version of the proposed amendment with minor corrections regarding page numbering and typographical errors (Administrative Record No. AR-572.12). On July 11, 2014, Arkansas requested the withdrawal of sections related to its Abandoned Mine Land and Administrative sections from its original amendment request (Administrative Record No. AR 572.14).
The Office of the Solicitor, upon their review of the proposed amendment, found additional inconsistencies with the Federal rule. In a letter dated August 7, 2017, Arkansas notified us that they were withdrawing the proposed amendment at this time (Administrative Record No. AR-572.15). Arkansas stated in the letter that they would submit a new proposed amendment after working with OSMRE informally to address the deficiencies.
Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.
The Office of the Federal Register received this document on March 7, 2018.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), Interior.
Proposed rule; public comment period and opportunity for public hearing on proposed amendment.
We, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), are announcing receipt of a proposed amendment to the Pennsylvania program under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act). Through this proposed amendment, Pennsylvania seeks to revise its Bituminous Mine Subsidence and Land Conversation Act to include language clarifying the circumstances where a finding of presumptive evidence of pollution is warranted under the Commonwealth's Clean Streams Law.
This document gives the locations and times where the Pennsylvania program documents and this proposed amendment to that program are available for your inspection, establishes the comment period during which you may submit written comments on the amendment, and describes the procedures we will follow for the public hearing, if one is requested.
We will accept written comments on this amendment until 4:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time (e.s.t.), April 11, 2018. If requested, we will hold a public hearing on the amendment on April 6, 2018. We will accept requests to speak at a hearing until 4:00 p.m., e.s.t. on March 27, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by SATS No. PA-166-FOR; Docket ID: OSM-2017-0008 by any of the following methods:
•
•
Mr. Ben Owens, Chief, Pittsburgh Field Division, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 3 Parkway Center, Pittsburgh, PA 15220, Telephone: (412) 937-2827, Email:
Thomas Callaghan, P. G., Director, Bureau of Mining and Reclamation, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Rachel Carson State Office Building, P.O. Box 8461, Harrisburg, PA 17105-8461, Telephone: (717) 787-5015, E-Mail:
Mr. Ben Owens, Chief, Pittsburgh Field Division, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 3 Parkway Center, Pittsburgh, PA 15220; Telephone: (412) 937-2827; Email:
Section 503(a) of the Act permits a State to assume primacy for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations on non-Federal and non-Indian lands within its borders by demonstrating that its State program includes, among other things, State laws and regulations that govern surface coal mining and reclamation operations in accordance with the Act and consistent with the Federal regulations. See 30 U.S.C. 1253(a)(1) and (7). On the basis of these criteria, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally approved the Pennsylvania program, effective July 31, 1982.
You can find additional background information on the Pennsylvania program, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and conditions of approval in the July 30, 1982,
By letter dated August 4, 2017 (Administrative Record No. PA 899.00), Pennsylvania sent us an amendment to its program under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201
A. By way of State Bill 624, Pennsylvania proposes additional language to the BMSLCA, Section 5 (i) that states:
In a permit application to conduct bituminous coal mining operations, subject to this act, planned subsidence in a predictable and controlled manner which is not predicted to result in the permanent disruption of premining existing or designated uses of surface waters of the Commonwealth shall not be considered presumptive evidence that the proposed bituminous coal mining operations have the potential to cause pollution as defined in section 1 of the act of June 22, 1937 (P.L. 1987, No. 394), known as `The Clean Streams Law.
B. Further, Pennsylvania proposes additional language to BMSLCA, Section 5 (j) as follows:
The provisions of subsection (i) shall only apply if: (1) A person submits an application to conduct bituminous mining operations subject to this act to the department that provides for the restoration of the premining range of flows and restoration of premining biological communities in any waters of this Commonwealth predicted to be adversely affected by subsidence. The restoration shall be consistent with the premining existing and designated uses of the waters of this Commonwealth; and (2) the application is approved by the department.
Under the provisions of 30 CFR 732.17(h), we are seeking your comments on whether the amendment satisfies the applicable program approval criteria of 30 CFR 732.15. If we approve the amendment, it will become part of the State program.
If you submit written or electronic comments on the proposed rule during the 30-day comment period, they should be specific, confined to issues pertinent to the proposed regulations, and explain the reason for any recommended change(s). We appreciate any and all comments, but those most useful and likely to influence decisions on the final regulations will be those that either involve personal experience or include citations to and analyses of SMCRA, its legislative history, its implementing regulations, case law, other pertinent State or Federal laws or regulations, technical literature, or other relevant publications.
We cannot ensure that comments received after the close of the comment period (see
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.
If you wish to speak at the public hearing, contact the person listed under
To assist the transcriber and ensure an accurate record, we request, if possible, that each person who speaks at the public hearing provide us with a written copy of his or her comments. The public hearing will continue on the specified date until everyone scheduled to speak has been given an opportunity to be heard. If you are in the audience and have not been scheduled to speak and wish to do so, you will be allowed to speak after those who have been scheduled. We will end the hearing after everyone scheduled to speak, and others present in the audience who wish to speak, have been heard.
If only one person requests an opportunity to speak, we may hold a public meeting rather than a public hearing. If you wish to meet with us to discuss the amendment, please request a meeting by contacting the person listed under
Pursuant to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Guidance dated October 12, 1993, the approval of state program amendments is exempted from OMB review under Executive Order 12866.
When a State submits a program amendment to OSMRE for review, our regulations at 30 CFR 732.17(h) require us to publish a notice in the
Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to modify the operating schedule that governs the Chambers Bay railroad lift bridge (Chambers Bay Bridge) across Chambers Bay, mile 0.01, near Steilacoom in Pierce County, WA. The modified schedule would remove the stationed bridge operator at the subject drawbridge during the evening hours due to minimal usage between these hours.
Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before April 11, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2017-0695 using Federal eRulemaking Portal at
See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the
If you have questions on this proposed rule, call or email Steven M. Fischer, Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District Bridge Program Office, telephone 206-220-7282; email
The Coast Guard proposes to add a new operating schedule that governs the Chambers Bay Bridge. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF) owns and operates the vertical lift Chambers Bay Bridge, mile 0.01, near Steilacoom in Pierce County, WA, and has requested a change to the operating schedule based on minimum
Chambers Bay Bridge has a vertical clearance of 10ft in the closed-to-navigation position, and 50ft of vertical clearance in the open-to-navigation position (reference MHW elevation of 12.2 feet). We published a test deviation on July 20, 2017, in the
The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels and the navigable waters passing under, through or near the Chambers Bay Bridge. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.
Chambers Bay provides no alternate routes to pass around the Chambers Bay Bridge. This new rule would allow BNSF to better balance the needs of marine and rail traffic. In the last 6 years, only 2% of the subject bridge lifts have occurred between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m., which equates to approximately 5 openings a year. Between February 2009 to June 2015, 1,932 total openings were conducted, and of those, 40 occurred between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analysis based on these statutes and Executive Orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance, it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. This regulatory action determination is based on the ability for mariners to transit under the bridge from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. with no operator present if a four hour notice is given. The drawbridge will also be required to open as soon as possible, but no later than one hour after notification, for vessels engaged in emergency response.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit under the bridge may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A. above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule will not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule simply promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32) (e), of the Instruction.
A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration and a Memorandum for the Record are not required for this proposed rule. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in this docket and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
Bridges.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
The draw of the Chambers Bay railroad lift bridge, mile 0.01, at Chambers Bay, shall open on signal except between 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. The draw shall open on signal from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. when at least four hours of notice has been given via the phone number posted on the bridge, and as soon as possible, no later than 1 hour after notification, for vessels engaged in emergency response.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. This revision fulfills Pennsylvania's emissions statement requirement for the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).
Written comments must be received on or before April 11, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0739 at
Gavin Huang, (215) 814-2042, or by email at
On March 27, 2008, EPA strengthened the ozone standard from 0.08 to 0.075 parts per million (ppm). 73 FR 16436. On May 21, 2012, EPA designated areas as nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, which include the following counties in Pennsylvania: Carbon, Lehigh, Northampton, Lancaster, Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, Philadelphia, Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Butler, Fayette, Washington, Westmoreland, and Berks counties.
Additionally, Pennsylvania is located in the ozone transport region (OTR) established by Congress in section 184 of the CAA. Pursuant to section 184(b)(2), any stationary source that emits or has the potential to emit at least 50 tons per year (tpy) of volatile organic compounds (VOC) shall be considered a major stationary source and subject to the requirements which would be applicable to major stationary sources if the area were classified as a moderate nonattainment area.
Section 182 of the CAA identifies additional plan submissions and requirements for ozone nonattainment areas. Specifically, section 182(a)(3)(B) of the CAA requires that states develop and submit rules which establish annual reporting requirements for certain stationary sources. Sources that are within marginal (or worse) ozone nonattainment areas must annually report the actual emissions of NO
In summary, because Pennsylvania is located in the OTR, Pennsylvania sources that are located in ozone attainment areas and emit above 50 tpy of VOC or 100 tpy of NO
On November 3, 2017, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, through the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) submitted a SIP revision to satisfy the emissions statement requirement of section 182(a)(3)(B) of the CAA for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. In the submittal, PADEP also submitted a certification for its nonattainment new source review (NNSR) program, which will be addressed in a separate rulemaking action.
On January 12, 1995 (60 FR 2881), EPA approved Pennsylvania's SIP submittal which included Pennsylvania regulations that satisfy the emission reporting requirements in CAA section 182(a)(3)(B). Pennsylvania's emissions reporting requirements are codified in the Pennsylvania Code at 25 Pa. Code 135.21 “Emissions Statements.”
25 Pa. Code 135.21 requires that stationary sources or facilities that emit NO
Under 25 Pa. Code 135.21(d), sources that emit less than 25 tons of NO
In the November 3, 2017 SIP submittal, Pennsylvania states that, upon review, the Commonwealth certifies that the existing emissions statement program continues to comply with the 2008 ozone NAAQS requirements.
EPA is proposing to approve the November 3, 2017 Pennsylvania SIP revision certifying that Pennsylvania's existing SIP-approved emissions statement regulation meets the emissions statement requirement of section 182(a)(3)(B) of the CAA for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed rule, which proposes to approve Pennsylvania's certification that Pennsylvania's SIP-approved emissions statement regulation meets the emissions statement requirement of section 182(a)(3)(B) of the CAA, does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision formally submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia (Virginia). Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), states' SIPs must require stationary sources in ozone nonattainment areas classified as marginal or above to report annual emissions of nitrogen oxides (NO
Written comments must be received on or before April 11, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0738 at
Sara Calcinore, (215) 814-2043, or by email at
Under the CAA, EPA establishes NAAQS for criteria pollutants in order to protect human health and the
On May 21, 2012 and June 11, 2012, EPA designated nonattainment areas for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 77 FR 30088 and 77 FR 34221. Effective July 20, 2012, the Washington, DC-MD-VA area was designated as marginal nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The Washington, DC-MD-VA nonattainment area is comprised of Arlington County, Fairfax County, Loudoun County, Prince William County, Alexandria City, Fairfax City, Falls Church City, Manassas City, and Manassas Park City.
Section 182 of the CAA identifies additional plan submissions and requirements for ozone nonattainment areas. Specifically, section 182(a)(3)(B) of the CAA requires that states develop and submit, as a revision to their SIP, rules which establish annual reporting requirements for certain stationary sources. Sources that are within marginal or above ozone nonattainment areas must annually report the actual emissions of NO
Additionally, portions of Virginia are included in the ozone transport region (OTR) established by Congress in section 184 of the CAA. The OTR is comprised of the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and the Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area that includes the District of Columbia and portions of Virginia. The areas designated as in the Virginia portion of the OTR are as follows: Arlington County, Fairfax County, Loudoun County, Prince William County, Stafford County, Alexandria City, Fairfax City, Falls Church City, Manassas City, and Manassas Park City.
Pursuant to section 184(b)(2), any stationary source located in the OTR that emits or has the potential to emit at least 50 tpy of VOC shall be considered a major stationary source and subject to the requirements which would be applicable to major stationary sources if the area was classified as a moderate nonattainment area.
In summary, sources located within the portions of Virginia included in the OTR, including areas designated as attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, that emit more than 50 tpy of VOC or 100 tpy of NO
The EPA published guidance on source emissions statements in a July 1992 memorandum titled, “Guidance on the Implementation of an Emission Statement Program” and in a March 14, 2006 memorandum titled, “Emission Statement Requirements Under 8-hour Ozone NAAQS Implementation” (2006 memorandum). In addition, on March 6, 2015, EPA issued a final rule addressing a range of nonattainment area SIP requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, including the emissions statement requirements of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) (2015 final rule). 80 FR 12264. The 2006 memorandum clarified that the source emissions statement requirement of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) was applicable to all areas designated nonattainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS and classified as marginal or above under subpart 2, part D, title I of the CAA. Per EPA's 2015 final rule, the source emissions statement requirement also applies to all areas designated nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
According to EPA's 2015 final rule, most areas that are required to have an emissions statement program for the 2008 ozone NAAQS already have one in place due to a nonattainment designation for an earlier ozone NAAQS. EPA's 2015 final rule states that, “If an area has a previously approved emissions statement rule in force for the 1997 ozone NAAQS or the 1-hour ozone NAAQS that covers all portions of the nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, such rule should be sufficient for purposes of the emissions statement requirement for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.” In cases where an existing emissions statement rule is still adequate to meet the emissions statement requirement under the 2008 ozone NAAQS, states may provide the rationale for that determination to EPA in a written statement for approval in the SIP to meet the requirements of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B). In this statement, states should identify how the emissions statement requirements of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) are met by their existing emissions statement rule.
In summary, the Commonwealth of Virginia is required to submit, as a formal revision to its SIP, a statement certifying that Virginia's existing emissions statement program satisfies the requirements of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) and covers the Washington, DC-MD-VA nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
On August 1, 2017, the Commonwealth of Virginia, through the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ), submitted, as a formal revision to its SIP, a statement certifying that Virginia's existing SIP-approved emissions statement program covers the Virginia portion of the Washington, DC-MD-VA nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and is at least as stringent as the requirements of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B). In its submittal, Virginia states that the emissions statement requirements of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) are contained under 9VAC5-20-160 (Registration) of the Virginia Administrative Code and are SIP-approved under 40 CFR 52.2420(c). According to Virginia, these provisions mandate that facilities emitting more than 25 tpy of NO
The provisions under 9VAC5-20-160 that implement Virginia's emissions statement program were approved into the Virginia SIP on May 2, 1995 (60 FR 21451).
EPA's review of the Commonwealth of Virginia's submittal finds that Virginia's existing, SIP-approved emissions statement program under 9VAC5-20-160 satisfies the requirements of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) for emission statements for sources located in marginal or above nonattainment areas including such sources in the Virginia portion of the Washington, DC-MD-VA nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA notes 9VAC5-20-160 also requires sources located in portions of Virginia included in the OTR to submit required emission statements in accordance with CAA section 184 (OTR requirements) and 182 (plan submissions and requirements for ozone nonattainment areas). Pursuant to CAA sections 182 and 184, Virginia is required to have an emissions statement program for sources located in marginal or above nonattainment areas and the portions of Virginia included in the OTR. EPA finds the provisions under 9VAC5-20-160 satisfy these requirements of CAA sections 182 and 184 because they apply to the Northern Virginia Emissions Control Area, which includes the Virginia localities within the Virginia portion of the Washington, DC-MD-VA nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (
EPA is proposing to approve the Commonwealth of Virginia's SIP revision submitted on August 1, 2017, which certifies that Virginia's existing SIP-approved emissions statement program under 9VAC5-20-160 satisfies the requirements of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit) “privilege” for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty waiver for violations of environmental laws
On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the Privilege law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege to documents and information “required by law,” including documents and information “required by federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval,” since Virginia must “enforce federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less stringent than their federal counterparts. . . .” The opinion concludes that “[r]egarding § 10.1-1198, therefore, documents or other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of these programs could not be privileged because such documents and information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required by federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval.”
Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that “[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by federal law,” any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute, regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12, 1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute inapplicable to enforcement of any federally authorized programs, since “no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.”
Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its program consistent with the federal requirements. In any event, because EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on federal enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under the CAA, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan, independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen enforcement under section 304 of the CAA is likewise unaffected by this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by April 11, 2018 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
The proposed survey will collect data on place of birth, age, date of birth, sex,
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by the City of Birmingham, grantee of FTZ 98, requesting subzone status for the facility of Brose Tuscaloosa, Inc., located in Vance, Alabama. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on March 6, 2018.
The proposed subzone (21.1 acres) is located at 10100 Brose Drive, Vance, Alabama (Tuscaloosa County). No additional authorization for production activity has been requested at this time. The proposed subzone would be subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 98.
In accordance with the Board's regulations, Qahira El-Amin of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the Executive Secretary.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is April 23, 2018. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to May 7, 2018.
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's website, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Qahira El-Amin at
AGRU America Charleston, LLC (AGRU America) submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility in North Charleston, South Carolina. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on March 5, 2018.
AGRU America already has authority to produce high density polyethylene (HDPE) pipe within Site 5 of FTZ 21. The current request would add four foreign status materials/components to the scope of authority. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), additional FTZ authority would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials/components described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.
Production under FTZ procedures could exempt AGRU America from customs duty payments on the foreign-status materials/components used in export production. On its domestic sales, for the foreign-status materials/components noted below, AGRU America would be able to choose the duty rate during customs entry procedures that applies to HDPE pipe. AGRU America 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 materials/components sourced from abroad include: Plastic pipe fittings; steel flanges; threaded steel bolts of more than six mm diameter; and, vulcanized rubber gaskets, washers, and seals (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 5.5%).
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 April 23, 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 Juanita Chen at
On November 2, 2017, Estee Lauder Inc. submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within FTZ 52 in Melville, New York.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by the Puerto Rico Trade and Export Company, grantee of FTZ 61, requesting subzone status for the facility of Manuel Freije Arce, Inc., located in Cataño, Puerto Rico. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on March 6, 2018.
The proposed subzone (6.07 acres) is located at Marginal Street, Highway #165 Km 3.2, Palmas Ward, Cataño, Puerto Rico. The proposed subzone would be subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 61. No authorization for production activity has been requested at this time.
In accordance with the Board's regulations, Camille Evans of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the Executive Secretary.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is April 23, 2018. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to May 7, 2018.
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's website, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Camille Evans at
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that Fushun Jinly Petrochemical Co., Ltd. (Fushun Jinly), a producer and exporter of small diameter graphite electrodes from the People's Republic of China (China), did not make sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value (NV) during the period of review (POR) February 1, 2016 through January 31, 2017. In addition, Commerce preliminarily determines that the Fangda Group and Xuzhou Jianglong Carbon Products Co., Ltd. made no shipments of the subject merchandise during the POR.
Applicable March 12, 2018.
Dennis McClure or John Anwesen, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5973 or (202) 482-0131, respectively.
The merchandise subject to the order is small diameter graphite electrodes. The products are currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 8545.11.0010, 3801.10, and 8545.11.0020. Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the order remains dispositive. A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.
Based on an analysis of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) information, and no shipment certifications submitted by the Fangda Group
Consistent with our practice in non-market economy (NME) cases, Commerce is not rescinding this review, in part, but intends to complete the review with respect to these companies, for which it has preliminarily found no shipments, and issue appropriate instructions to CBP based on the final results of the review.
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For the mandatory respondent, Fushun Jinly, export prices have been calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Because China is a non-market economy (NME) within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act, NV has been calculated in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act.
For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
Commerce exercised its discretion to toll all deadlines affected by the closure of the Federal Government from January 20 through 22, 2018. If the new deadline falls on a non-business day, in accordance with Commerce's practice, the deadline will become the next business day. The revised deadline for the preliminary results of this review is now March 5, 2018.
Commerce preliminarily determines that Fushun Jinly is eligible to receive a separate rate in this review.
Commerce intends to disclose calculations performed for these preliminary results to the parties within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c), interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review.
Interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by Commerce's ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
Upon issuing the final results of review, Commerce will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
Pursuant to Commerce's assessment practice in NME cases, for entries that were not reported in the U.S. sales databases submitted by the exporter individually examined during this review, but that entered under the case number of that exporter (
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for shipments of the subject merchandise from China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) finds that revocation of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on steel wire garment hangers from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) would likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy at the levels indicated in the Final Results of Review section of this notice.
Applicable March 12, 2018.
John Conniff, Office III, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1009.
The
Commerce has exercised its discretion to toll all deadlines affected by for the duration of the closure of the Federal Government from January 20 through 22, 2018. If the new deadline falls on a non-business day, in accordance with Commerce's practice, the deadline will become the next business day. The revised deadline for the final results of this expedited sunset review is now March 5, 2018.
The merchandise subject to the
Specifically excluded from the scope of the
The products subject to the
All issues raised in this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is dated
Pursuant to sections 752(b)(1) and (3) of the Act, we determine that revocation of the
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
Commerce is issuing and publishing these final results and this notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(b), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that Hyundai Steel Co. (Hyundai Steel) and Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd. (DSM), exporters/producers of certain cut-to-length plate from the Republic of Korea, received countervailable subsidies during the period of review (POR) January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016. However, the countervailable subsidies received by DSM were
Applicable March 12, 2018.
John Conniff (for Hyundai Steel) or Jolanta Lawska (for DSM), AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-1009 and (202) 482-8362, respectively.
Commerce exercised its discretion to toll all deadlines affected by the closure of the Federal Government on January 22, 2018. If the new deadline falls on a non-business day, in accordance with Commerce's practice, the deadline will become the next business day. The revised deadline for the final results of this review is now March 5, 2018.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(l), 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. Commerce initiated a review of 14 companies in this administrative review.
The merchandise covered by the order is certain cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate from Korea. For a complete description of the scope of the order,
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, we preliminarily determine that there is a subsidy,
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(i), we calculated an individual subsidy rate for DSM and Hyundai Steel. For the period January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016, we preliminarily determine that the following net subsidy rates for the producers/exporters under review to be as follows:
Commerce intends to disclose to parties to this proceeding the calculations performed in reaching the preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of these preliminary results.
Interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
Parties are reminded that briefs and hearing requests are to be filed electronically using ACCESS and that electronically filed documents must be received successfully in their entirety by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date.
Unless the deadline is extended pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, Commerce will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues raised by parties in their comments, within 120 days after issuance of these preliminary results.
Upon completion of the administrative review, Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. We intend to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, Commerce also intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the amounts indicated above for each company listed on shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
This administrative review and notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
As a result of this first sunset review, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) finds that revocation of the antidumping duty order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules, from the People's Republic of China (China) would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping, at the level indicated in the “Final Results of Sunset Review” section of this notice,
Applicable March 12, 2018.
Magd Zalok or Howard Smith, 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) 482-4162 or (202) 482-5193, respectively.
On December 7, 2012, Commerce published in the
The merchandise covered by the order is crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, and modules, laminates, and panels, consisting of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not partially or fully assembled into other products, including, but not limited to, modules, laminates, panels and building integrated materials. Merchandise covered by this order is classifiable under subheadings 8501.61.0000, 8507.20.80, 8541.40.6020, 8541.40.6030, and 8501.31.8000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).
Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.
A complete discussion of all issues raised in this sunset review, specifically the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail if the
Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1), 752(c)(1) and (3) of the Act, Commerce determines that revocation of the
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective orders is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing the results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that sales of light-walled rectangular pipe and tube (LWRPT) from Mexico by Productos Laminados de Monterrey S.A. de C.V (Productos Laminados) and affiliated reseller, Aceros Cuatro Caminos S.A. de C.V. (A4C) (collectively, Prolamsa) were not made at prices below normal value during the period of review of August 1, 2015, through July 31, 2016.
Applicable March 12, 2018.
Madeline Heeren, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-9179.
On September 6, 2017, Commerce published the
The products covered by the scope of the order are certain light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from Mexico. For a complete description of the scope,
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues raised by parties is attached to this notice as Appendix. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically
No changes were made as a result of our review of the record and comments received from interested parties. For a discussion,
The final weighted-average dumping margin is as follows:
We will disclose the calculations performed to parties in this proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this notice, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Commerce shall determine and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries.
We intend to issue assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of this notice for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication of these final results, as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for respondents noted above will be the rate established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this administrative review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the manufacturer of the subject merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 3.76 percent, the all-others rate established
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during the period of review. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties did occur and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that certain frozen warmwater shrimp (shrimp) from India is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than normal value during the period of review (POR) February 1, 2016, through January 31, 2017.
Applicable March 12, 2018.
Manuel Rey or Brittany Bauer, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5518 or (202) 482-3860, respectively.
Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on shrimp from India. The review covers 231 producers and/or exporters of the subject merchandise. Commerce selected two mandatory respondents for individual examination: Devi Fisheries Limited/Satya Seafoods Private Limited/Usha Seafoods/Devi Aquatech Private Limited (collectively, Devi); and Devi Marine Food Exports Private Ltd./Kader Exports Private Limited/Kader Investment and Trading Company Private Limited/Liberty Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd./Liberty Oil Mills Ltd./Premier Marine Products Private Limited/Universal Cold Storage Private Limited (collectively, Liberty Group). The POR is February 1, 2016, through January 31, 2017.
We preliminarily determine that sales to the United States have been made below normal value and, therefore, are subject to antidumping duties. If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of this review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. We invite all interested parties to comment on these preliminary results.
The merchandise subject to the order is certain frozen warmwater shrimp.
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(2) 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,
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that weighted-average dumping margins exist for the respondents for the period February 1, 2016, through January 31, 2017, as follows:
Review-Specific Average Rate Applicable to the Following Companies:
Commerce
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS. An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis raised in any written briefs, not later
Upon completion of the administrative review, Commerce shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), because Devi and the Liberty Group reported the entered value for of their all their U.S. sales, we will calculate importer-specific
For the companies which were not selected for individual review, we will assign an assessment rate based on the average
We intend to issue liquidation instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.
The following deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for each specific company listed above will be that established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore,
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 the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that producers and/or exporters subject to this administrative review made sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results of review.
Applicable March 12, 2018.
Yang Jin Chun or Thomas Schauer, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-5760 or (202) 482-0410, respectively.
Commerce initiated the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate products (CTL plate) from the Republic of Korea (Korea).
The products covered by the antidumping duty order are certain CTL plate. Imports of CTL plate are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under subheadings 7208.40.3030,
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Export price and constructed export price are 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,
We preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the respondents for the period February 1, 2016, through January 31, 2017.
We intend to disclose the calculations performed for these preliminary results to the parties within five days after public announcement of the preliminary results in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c), interested parties may submit case briefs not 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 not later than five days after the date for filing case briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically
If a respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is above
For entries of subject merchandise during the period of review produced by Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd. or Hyundai Steel Company for which they did not know their 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 liquidation instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.
The following cash deposit requirements for estimated antidumping duties will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of this review for all shipments of CTL plate from Korea entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for companies subject to this review will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margins established in the final results of the review; (2) for merchandise exported by companies not covered in this review but covered in a prior segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment for the producer of the merchandise; (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will continue to be 0.98 percent,
These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this period of review. 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.
Commerce is issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
As a result of determinations by the Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the International Trade Commission (ITC) that revocation of the antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders on certain cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate (CTL plate) from India, Indonesia, and the Republic of Korea (Korea) would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and countervailable subsidies and material injury to an industry in the United States, Commerce is publishing notice of the continuation of the AD and CVD orders.
Applicable March 12, 2018.
Terre Keaton Stefanova, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, or John Conniff, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1280 and (202) 482-1009, respectively.
On December 1, 2016, Commerce published the notice of initiation of the sunset reviews of the AD and CVD orders
As a result of these sunset reviews, Commerce found that revocation of the AD orders on CTL plate from India, Indonesia, and Korea would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping.
On March 2, 2018, pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752(a) of the Act, the ITC published its determination that revocation of the AD and CVD orders on CTL plate from India, Indonesia, and Korea would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.
The merchandise covered by the orders are certain hot-rolled carbon-quality steel: (1) Universal mill plates (
Steel products included in the scope, regardless of Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) definitions, are products in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements, (2) the carbon content is two percent or less, by weight, and (3) none of the elements listed below is equal to or exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or 1.50 percent of silicon, or 1.00 percent of copper, or 0.50 percent of aluminum, or 1.25 percent of chromium, or 0.30 percent of cobalt, or 0.40 percent of lead, or 1.25 percent of nickel, or 0.30 percent of tungsten, or 0.10 percent of molybdenum, or 0.10 percent of niobium, or 0.41 percent of titanium, or 0.15 percent of vanadium, or 0.15 percent zirconium. All products that meet the written physical description, and in which the chemistry quantities do not equal or exceed any one of the levels listed above, are within the scope of the orders unless otherwise specifically excluded.
The following products are specifically excluded from the orders: (1) Products clad, plated, or coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastic or other non-metallic substances; (2) SAE grades (formerly AISI grades) of series 2300 and above; (3) products made to ASTM A710 and A736 or their proprietary equivalents; (4) abrasion-resistant steels (
Imports of steel plate are currently classified in the HTSUS under subheadings 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7225.40.3050, 7225.40.7000, 7225.50.6000, 7225.99.0090, 7226.91.5000, 7226.91.7000, 7226.91.8000, and 7226.99.0000. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the merchandise covered by the orders is dispositive.
As a result of the determinations by Commerce and the ITC that revocation of the AD and CVD orders would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and countervailable subsidies and material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(a), Commerce hereby orders the continuation of the AD and CVD orders on CTL plate from India, Indonesia, and Korea.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection will continue to collect AD and CVD cash deposits at the rates in effect at the time of entry for all imports of subject merchandise. The effective date of continuation of these orders will be the date of publication in the
These five-year (sunset) reviews and this notice are in accordance with sections 751(c) of the Act and published pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that certain frozen warmwater shrimp (shrimp) from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than normal value during the period of review (POR) February 1, 2016, through January 31, 2017.
Applicable March 12, 2018.
Irene Gorelik, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6905.
Commerce exercised its discretion to toll deadlines affected by the closure of the Federal Government from January 20 through 22, 2018. If the new deadline falls on a non-business day, in accordance with Commerce's practice, the deadline will become the next business day. The revised deadline for the preliminary results of this review is now March 5, 2018.
The merchandise subject to the
Commerce conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
Based on our analysis of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) information and information provided by a number of companies, we preliminarily determine that 11 companies
Commerce finds that 30 companies for which a review was requested have not established eligibility for a separate rate and are considered to be part of the Vietnam-wide entity for these preliminary results.
Commerce
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues parties intend to discuss. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case and rebuttal briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, at a date and time to be determined.
Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of issues raised in the written comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results in the
Upon issuance of the final results, Commerce will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
For the respondents that were not selected for individual examination in this administrative review but qualified for a separate rate, the assessment rate will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin assigned to Fimex VN in the final results of this review.
For entries that were not reported in the U.S. sales database submitted by Fimex VN during this review, Commerce will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the Vietnam-wide rate. In addition, if we continue to find no shipments for the companies identified in the “Preliminary Determination of No Shipments” section above, Commerce will instruct CBP to liquidate any suspended entries of subject merchandise from those companies at the Vietnam-wide rate.
For the final results, if we continue to treat the 30 companies identified in Appendix II as part of the Vietnam-wide entity, we will instruct CBP to apply an
The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for shipments of the subject merchandise from Vietnam entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by sections 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the companies listed above, which have a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be that established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of 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.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
As a result of determinations by the Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the International Trade Commission (ITC) that revocation of the antidumping duty (AD) order on pure magnesium in granular form from the People's Republic of China (China) would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, Commerce is publishing this notice of continuation of the AD order.
Applicable March 12, 2018.
Joseph Degreenia, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 432-6430
On November 19, 2001, Commerce published the AD order on pure magnesium in granular form from China.
There is an existing AD order on pure magnesium from China.
The scope of this order includes imports of pure magnesium products, regardless of chemistry, including, without limitation, raspings, granules, turnings, chips, powder, and briquettes, except as noted above.
Pure magnesium includes: (1) Products that contain at least 99.95 percent primary magnesium, by weight (generally referred to as “ultra pure” magnesium); (2) products that contain less than 99.95 percent but not less than 99.8 percent primary magnesium, by weight (generally referred to as “pure” magnesium); (3) chemical combinations of pure magnesium and other material(s) in which the pure magnesium content is 50 percent or greater, but less than 99.8 percent, by weight, that do not conform to an “ASTM Specification for Magnesium Alloy”
As a result of the determinations by Commerce and the ITC that revocation of the
The effective date of continuation of the
This five-year (sunset) review and this notice are in accordance with sections 751(c) of the Act and published pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable March 12, 2018.
Maliha Khan at (202) 482-0895, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.
On January 16, 2018, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) initiated the countervailing duty (CVD) investigation of certain plastic decorative ribbon (plastic decorative ribbon) from the People's Republic of China.
Section 703(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires Commerce to issue the preliminary determination in a CVD investigation within 65 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation. However, section 703(c)(1)(A) of the Act permits Commerce to postpone the preliminary determination until no later than 130 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation if a petitioner makes a timely request for a postponement. Under 19 CFR 351.205(e), a petitioner must submit a request for postponement 25 days or more before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination and must state the reason for the request. Commerce will grant the request unless
On February 27, 2018, Berwick Offray, LLC (the petitioner) submitted a timely request pursuant to section 703(c)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(e) to postpone fully the preliminary determination. The petitioner stated that the purpose of its request was to provide Commerce with adequate time to solicit information from the respondents and to allow Commerce sufficient time to analyze respondents' questionnaire responses.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.205(e), the reason for requesting a postponement of the preliminary determination and the record does not present any compelling reasons to deny the request. Therefore, in accordance with section 703(c)(1)(A) of the Act, and in light of the closure of the Federal Government from January 20 through 22, 2018, Commerce is postponing the deadline for the preliminary determination to May 29, 2018.
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 703(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(l).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting via webinar.
The New England Fishery Management Council's is convening an ad-hoc sub-panel of its Scientific and Statistical Committee to peer review two reports.
This webinar will be held on Friday, March 30, 2018 at 1:30 p.m. Webinar registration URL information:
Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is convening an ad-hoc sub-panel of its Scientific and Statistical Committee to peer review two reports. These reports are:
• Powell, Eric N., Kelsey Kuykendall, and Paula Moreno. Analysis of ancillary survey data and surfclam fishery tow data for the Georges Shoals Habitat Management Area on Georges Bank and the Great South Channel Habitat Management Area. Science Center for Marine Fisheries, August 2016. 29p.
• Powell, Eric N., Roger Mann, Kelsey M. Kuykendall, M. Chase Long, and Jeremy Timbs. The “East of Nantucket” Survey. Science Center for Marine Fisheries, February 2018. 33p.
The Council plans to use the results of these studies to support decision making in a fishery management plan framework adjustment. The Council is seeking advice from peer reviewers about how the data and conclusions from the two studies might be used to support development and evaluation of alternatives to consider possible exemption areas for hydraulic clam dredge gear within the newly designated Great South Channel habitat management area. This 748 nm
Although non-emergency issues not contained on the agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency. The public also should be aware that the meeting will be recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council will hold a two day meeting of its Standing, Reef Fish, Shrimp, and Socioeconomics Scientific and Statistical Committees (SSC).
The meeting will convene on Monday, March 26, 2018, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m., and Tuesday, March 27, 2018, from 8:30 a.m. to 12 noon, EDT.
The meeting will be held in the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council's Conference Room, 2203 N Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, FL 33607; telephone: (813) 348-1630.
Steven Atran, Senior Fishery Biologist, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management
You may register for the SSC Meeting: Standing, Reef Fish, Shrimp, and Socioeconomic on March 26-27, 2018 at:
The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version along with other meeting materials will be posted on the Council's file server. To access the file server, the URL is
Although other non-emergency issues not on the agenda may come before the Scientific and Statistical Committee for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions of the Scientific and Statistical Committee will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agenda 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 action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kathy Pereira at the Gulf Council Office (see
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce
Notice; public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Skate Committee to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.
This meeting will be held on Wednesday March 28, 2018 at 1 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Hilton Garden Inn, 100 Boardman Street, Boston, MA 02128; telephone: (617) 567-6789.
Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
The Committee will review draft alternatives to prolong the wing fishery, which may include adjusting the management uncertainty buffer, and changes to the incidental possession limit and its trigger. They will also recommend preferred alternatives for Framework 6 to the Council. Other business will be discussed as necessary.
Although non-emergency issues not contained on this agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. This meeting will be recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Notice of SEDAR 59 Data Scoping webinar for South Atlantic Greater Amberjack.
The SEDAR 59 assessment of the South Atlantic stock of Greater Amberjack will consist of a series of webinars. See
A SEDAR 59 Data Scoping webinar will be held on Friday, March 30, 2018, from 9 a.m. until 12 p.m.
The meeting will be held via webinar. The webinar is open to members of the public. Those interested in participating should contact Julia Byrd at SEDAR (see
Julia Byrd, SEDAR Coordinator, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405; phone: (843) 571-4366; email:
The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions, have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. 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 Data Scoping webinar are as follows:
Participants will identify who will be providing updated and/or new datasets.
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 a public meeting.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Pacific Council) is sponsoring a meeting to review a new method proposed to improve catch estimation methods in sparsely sampled mixed stock fisheries. The Catch Estimation Methodology Review meeting is open to the public and may be streamed online as a “listen only” webinar.
The Catch Estimation Methodology Review meeting will commence at 8:30 a.m. PDT, Wednesday, March 28, 2018 and continue until 5 p.m. or as necessary to complete business for the day. The meeting will reconvene on Thursday, March 29, 2018 starting at 8:30 a.m. PDT and continuing as necessary to complete business for the day.
The meeting will be held at the Center for Ocean Health Library, Ocean Health Building, University of California Santa Cruz, 115 McAllister Way, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 in Room 201 on March 29. The Center for Ocean Health Library is next door to the NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center.
Although this meeting will be conducted as an in-person meeting, there may also be a “listen-only” webinar option. To attend the “listen-only” webinar, visit:
This is a “listen only” broadcast, you may use your computer speakers or headset to listen. If you do not have a headset or computer speakers, you may use your telephone to listen to the meeting by dialing this TOLL number +1 (415) 930-5321 (not a toll-free number); enter the phone attendee audio access code: 580-006-830. There will be no technical assistance available for the “listen only” webinar. If there are technical difficulties, the broadcast may end and may not be restarted.
Ms. Stacey Miller, NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center; telephone: (541) 867-0535; or Mr. John DeVore, Staff Officer, Pacific Fishery Management Council; telephone: (503) 820-2413.
The purpose of the Catch Estimation Methodology Review meeting is to review a proposed method for estimating catch of species in sparsely sampled mixed-stock commercial groundfish fisheries. The methodology proponents have developed a Bayesian hierarchical model to estimate species compositions with accurate measures of
Although non-emergency issues not identified in the meeting agenda may come before the meeting participants for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Formal action at the meeting will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the meeting participants' intent to take final action to address the emergency.
Visitors who are foreign nationals (defined as a person who is not a citizen or national of the United States) will require additional security clearance to access the NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center. Foreign national visitors should contact Ms. Stacey Miller at (541) 867-0535 at least 2 weeks prior to the meeting date to initiate the security clearance process.
PC-based attendees: Windows® 7, Vista, or XP operating system required. Mac®-based attendees: Mac OS® X 10.5 or newer required. Mobile attendees: iPhone®, iPad®, Android
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt at (503) 820-2411 at least 10 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Groundfish Committee to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.
This meeting will be held on Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 9 a.m.
The meeting will be held at the Hilton Garden Inn Logan Airport, 100 Boardman Street, Boston, MA 02129; phone: (617) 561-0798.
Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
The committee will review the Groundfish Advisory Panel recommendations and provide recommendations to the Council on Groundfish Monitoring Amendment 23 specifically the draft alternatives and Plan Development Team (PDT) work related to development of the action. They will also discuss priorities for 2018 and the PDT work to date and make recommendations to the Council. Other business will be discussed as necessary.
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 these meetings. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the date. This meeting will be recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
NMFS announces a public meeting of the General Advisory Committee to the U.S. Section to the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission on June 28, 2018, and a public meeting of the Scientific Advisory Subcommittee to the General Advisory Committee on June 27, 2018. The meeting topics are described under the
The meeting of the Scientific Advisory Subcommittee (SAS) to the General Advisory Committee (GAC) will be held on June 27, 2018, from 10:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. PDT (or until business is concluded). The meeting of the GAC will be held on June 28, 2018, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. PDT (or until business is concluded).
The GAC and SAS meetings will be held in the Pacific Conference Room (Room 300) at NMFS, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, 8901 La Jolla Shores Drive, La Jolla, California 92037-1508. Please notify Taylor Debevec (see
Taylor Debevec, West Coast Region, NMFS, at
In accordance with the Tuna Conventions Act (16 U.S.C. 951
The 93rd meeting of the IATTC, the 37th Meeting of the Parties to the Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Program (AIDCP), and working group meetings for both the IATTC and AIDCP will be held from August 16 to August 30, 2018 in Guatemala. For more information on these meetings, please visit the IATTC's website:
The SAS meeting topics will include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) Outcomes of the 2018 meeting of the Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC) to the IATTC (
(2) Evaluation of the IATTC staff's recommended conservation measures for 2018;
(3) Issues related to the impact of fishing on non-target species, such as sharks, seabirds, sea turtles;
(4) Evaluation of U.S. proposals for the 93rd meeting of the IATTC and proposals from other IATTC members; and
(5) Other issues as they arise.
The GAC meeting topics will include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) Outcomes of the 2018 meeting of the SAC to the IATTC (
(2) Recommendations and evaluations by the SAS;
(3) Issues related to the impact of fishing on non-target species, such as sharks, seabirds, sea turtles;
(4) Formulation of advice on issues that may arise at the 93rd meeting of the IATTC, including the IATTC staff's recommended conservation measures, U.S. proposals, and proposals from other IATTC members; and
(5) Other issues as they arise.
The meeting location is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Taylor Debevec (see
16 U.S.C. 951
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.
The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold meetings of the following Citizen Science Advisory Panel Action Teams: Volunteers; Communication/Outreach/Education; Projects/Topics Management; and Data Management via webinar.
The Volunteers Team meeting will be held on Monday, March 26, 2018 at 1 p.m.; Communication/Outreach/Education Team on Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 10 a.m.; Projects/Topics Management Team will be held on Thursday, March 29, 2018 at 2 p.m.; and Data Management Team on Friday, March 30, 2018 at 10 a.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) 302-8433 or toll free: (866) SAFMC-10; fax: (843) 769-4520; email:
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 Volunteers, Data Management, Projects/Topics Management, Finance, and Communication/Outreach/Education to develop program policies and operations for the Council's Citizen Science Program.
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 the 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
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's (Council) Demersal Committee will hold a public meeting via webinar.
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, March 27, 2018, from 9 a.m. to noon.
The meeting will be held via webinar. The webinar may be accessed at
Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, telephone: (302) 526-5255.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's Demersal Committee will meet jointly with a subset of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Management Board. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss draft management alternatives for an action which will consider adding the following management options to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan: (1) Conservation equivalency for the recreational black sea bass fishery, (2) Transit provisions for Block Island Sound for recreational fisheries for all three species, and (3) Slot limits for recreational fisheries for all three species. The two groups will also discuss the possibility of evaluating and modifying recreational management measures based on the annual catch limit, rather than the recreational harvest limit.
A detailed agenda and background documents will be posted to the Council's website (
The 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 receipt of applications for exempted fishing permits; request for comments.
NMFS announces the receipt of five applications for exempted fishing permits (EFPs) from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (ADCNR), Mississippi Department of Marine Resources (MDMR), Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF), and Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD). If granted, the EFPs would authorize the applicants, with certain conditions, to set the season(s) for red snapper caught by the private angling component, the Federal charter vessel/headboat (for-hire) component, or both, as applicable, and landed in each respective state. The EFPs would do so by exempting persons from the annual closed Federal fishing seasons if they are landing red snapper in the participating states during the states' open seasons as set by those states, as described in more detail below. These annual closed Federal fishing seasons are the seasonal closure for red snapper which is January 1 through May 31 each year, and the closures that occur based on when NMFS projects that the red snapper annual catch targets will be reached. The private angling component includes state-permitted for-hire vessels and any red snapper landings by these for-hire vessel would be counted against the private angling component quota. However, these state-permitted for-hire vessels would not be able to fish in Federal waters. NMFS would set separate Federal seasons for Federally permitted for-hire vessels and private-anglers not covered by any EFP. Red snapper landings would be monitored by the respective states and the state seasons set under the EFPs would close when a state's assigned quota is reached, or projected to be reached. These studies, to be conducted in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf), are intended to test the effectiveness of Gulf state management of recreationally caught red snapper.
Written comments must be received on or before April 2, 2018.
You may submit comments on the application, identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2018-0029”, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Peter Hood, 727-824-5305; email:
The EFPs are requested under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act)(16 U.S.C. 1801
Currently, the recreational harvest of red snapper in the Gulf EEZ is managed, among other measures, through the use of a 2-fish recreational bag limit, 16-inch (40-6 cm), total length (TL) minimum size limit, and separate quotas and annual catch targets (ACTs) for the private angling and Federal for-hire components within the recreational sector. State-permitted for-hire vessels are included in the private angling component, but are not be able to fish in Federal waters. The recreational sector for red snapper in or from Federal waters is closed from January 1 through May 31 each year. Prior to June 1 each year, NMFS determines the respective component Federal season lengths based on the ACTs, taking into account red snapper recreational seasons in state waters. The recreational components were established through Amendment 40 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP), which allocated red snapper resources between the private angling and Federal for-hire components; established component-specific accountability measures (AMs) through the use of component ACTs to reduce the likelihood of quota overages, and implemented a 3-year sunset provision for the regulations implemented through Amendment 40 (80 FR 22422, April 22, 2015). The sunset provision was subsequently extended for an additional 5 years (through December 31, 2022) by Amendment 45 to the FMP (81 FR 86971, December 2, 2016). The Gulf EEZ recreational quota for red snapper is 6.733 million lb (3.054 million kg), round weight. The current component quotas are 2.848 million lb (1.292 million kg), round weight, for for-hire and 3.885 million lb (1.762 million kg), round weight, for private angling.
The recreational harvest of red snapper is also constrained by section 407(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This section requires separate quotas for commercial and recreational fishing (which for the purposes of the subsection includes charter fishing), and a prohibition on the retention of fish when each sector quota is reached. Thus, should the total recreational sector quota be reached, recreational fishing in the Gulf EEZ is prohibited.
The marine resource management agencies of the five Gulf states have submitted EFP applications for the recreational harvest of red snapper for the 2018 and 2019 fishing years. These EFPs would be used to test data collection and quota monitoring efforts for state management of red snapper. Under the proposed EFPs, persons landing red snapper in the participating states would be exempt from current Federal regulations authorizing the annual closed Federal fishing seasons (seasonal closure and ACT closure) and, therefore, could fish for and possess red snapper in the EEZ consistent with the state seasons. The timing of state season openings would be determined by each state. Each Gulf state would monitor its respective recreational landings, and if the landings reach, or are projected to reach, the assigned quota, the state would close its season for the remainder of the fishing year. Private anglers and for-hire operators landing red snapper in the states participating in the EFPs would be required to have the appropriate permits and licenses for the states where they will land the fish and abide by any other relevant Federal regulations, including a recreational bag limit of 2 fish per person per day and a minimum size limit of 16 inches (40.6 cm), TL. The following provides an overview of each state's EFP application. More detailed information is provided in the respective applications and can be viewed at website:
FWC requests an EFP to conduct a pilot study during the 2018 and 2019 fishing years to test data collection and quota monitoring methodologies for the private angling component. The EFP application does not include federally permitted for-hire vessels. FWC requests that 1,305,360 lb (592,101 kg), round weight, of red snapper from the Gulf recreational private angling component quota be made available each year for fish landed in Florida. This requested quota is based on the proportion of red snapper landed in Florida during 2006 through 2015, except for 2010 landings, which are excluded as a result of the Deepwater Horizon MC252 oil spill. The quotas, reduced by a 20 percent buffer to account for management uncertainty, would be the basis for calculating Florida's Special Red Snapper Fishing Season. Private anglers would be required to sign up for the state's Gulf Reef Fish Angler program to land select reef fish species not included in the EFP application and still subject to applicable regulations, as well as red snapper. Red snapper landings would be monitored through the state's Gulf Reef Fish Survey. In addition, anglers would provide landings information through a smartphone/tablet application. For 2018, the projected red snapper fishing season for private anglers would be May 25 through June 17 for the Gulf waters off Florida, based on the requested quota. If recreational landings are less than the assigned quota at the end of this season, and the Federal recreational quota has not been met, fishing could reopen in the fall of 2018 and/or 2019 to land the uncaught portion of the quota. Should the recreational quota be exceeded in 2018, FWC proposes a quota overage adjustment (payback) for the following year.
The purpose of the EFP requested by ADCNR is to test an Alabama red snapper management program for the private angling component. The EFP application does not include federally permitted for-hire vessels. ADCNR proposes an annual state private angling component quota of 984,291 lb (446,467 kg), round weight, for 2018 and 2019. ADCNR determined that this quota equals 10 percent of the red snapper biomass estimated by university researchers to occur in waters off Alabama. The red snapper biomass is estimated from fishery-independent biomass estimates over the three most recent years that data are available (the years 2014 through 2016 for the 2018 fishing year). For 2018, ADCNR would allow red snapper to be landed in Alabama on weekends (Friday through Sunday) starting on June 1 and continuing until the assigned quota, less 10 percent used as a buffer to prevent quota overages, is reached or projected to be reached. Currently, ADCNR is projecting a 47-day season from June 1 through July 17. If sufficient quota is available, ADCNR would reopen the season in the fall. The 2019 state private angling recreational season would be determined at a later date. Red snapper landings by anglers fishing from private angler vessels and state-permitted charter vessels would be monitored through a mandatory electronic reporting program. Should the assigned quota be exceeded in 2018, ADCNR proposes a payback of the quota overage for the following year.
MDMR is requesting an EFP to determine if a state recreational quota for red snapper can be accurately managed through a state management program for the private angling component. In addition, recreational harvest and biological information on this species would be collected and analyzed by the state. The EFP application does not include federally permitted for-hire vessels. The EFP application requests an annual quota of 137,949 lb (62,573 kg), round weight, of
The EFP application from the LDWF proposes to test a state-based management approach for red snapper. The application requests that the state recreational quota be 743,000 lb (337,019 kg), round weight, for the private angling component and 317,000 lb (143,789 kg), round weight, for the Federal for-hire component for the 2018 and 2019 fishing years. LDWF determined these quotas based on the historical landings formula (50 percent * [1986-2005, 2007-2009, 2011-2013 landings in pounds] + 50 percent * [2007-2009, 2011-2013 landings in pounds] applied to Federal for-hire and private angling component allocations from Amendment 40 (80 FR 22422, April 22, 2015). LDWF proposes to begin both the private angling and for-hire seasons on May 25 in 2018, and May 24 in 2019 (the Friday before Memorial Day) until the respective quota is reached. The private angling season would consist of 3-day weekends (Friday through Sunday), but also include the Memorial Day, Independence Day, and Labor Day holidays each year. The Federal for-hire season would be 7 days per week. Recreational landings would be monitored through LDWF's LA Creel survey; however, private anglers and for-hire operators would be encouraged to also report landings through a state-approved electronic reporting system. Should the overall recreational quota for the state be exceeded in 2018, LDWF proposes a payback of the overage for the 2019 fishing year.
The purpose of the EFP submitted by TPWD is to test data collection and recreational quota monitoring methodologies during the 2018 and 2019 fishing years for use in managing the recreational harvest of red snapper off Texas. TPWD requests 1,056,495 lb (479,218 kg), round weight, of red snapper to be used by the private angling and Federal for-hire components. The red snapper private angling season in state waters begins January 1 each year. Because offshore weather conditions off Texas are generally unfavorable around the traditional June 1 Federal recreational red snapper season start date, TPWD, working through the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission, proposes to prohibit red snapper caught in Federal waters from being landed in Texas until sometime after June 1 in 2018. At that time, a season will be established allowing red snapper from Federal waters to be landed. In 2019, the recreational season could start prior to June 1 to take advantage of better weather conditions that occur off Texas in the winter and spring and would be determined by the state at a later date. The red snapper recreational harvest would be monitored using the Texas Marine Sport Harvest Monitoring Program (TMSHMP), NOAA's Southeast Region Headboat Survey, and a self-reported harvest system using the iSnapper application for smartphones and tablets. To ensure timely reporting of private angler and charter vessel landings, intercepts from the TMSHMP creel survey would be sent in daily to TPWD. Additionally, weekly landing reports from NOAA's Southeast Region Headboat Survey would be used to monitor headboat landings. Texas will project total landings by sector based on the number of red snapper observed by samplers during the season. All red snapper landed in Texas will be counted against Texas' assigned recreational quota and the Texas season would be closed when the combined estimated recreational red snapper landings are projected to reach the recreational quota. Should the assigned quota be exceeded in 2018, TPWD proposes to make adjustments in red snapper regulations such as shortening the season for catching fish in the Gulf EEZ, changing the timing of the season, or revising state bag limits to account for the overage.
The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) reviewed the EFP applications at its January 2018 meeting. The Council recommended approval of each state's EFP application as long as the length of the Gulf-wide Federal for-hire component season is not affected by the issuance of these EFPs.
Because all the state EFP applications include the private angling component, if they are all issued and accepted that component's overall Gulf quota would be divided among the states, as requested, and landings would be regulated through each state's management program covered under the EFP. Federal waters would be closed to red snapper private angling, but the EFP would exempt from the closure those individuals with a license from a state that is open to land red snapper. However, if not all of the EFPs are issued and accepted, NMFS would set a Gulf-wide Federal private angling season to allow those anglers from the non-participating states to fish for red snapper in the EEZ.
For the Federal for-hire component, only LDWF and TPDW have proposed including this component in their EFPs. Therefore, if EFPs were approved as submitted by the five Gulf states, NMFS would still set a Federal season throughout the entire Gulf EEZ for the Federal for-hire component. Depending on the parameters of any final EFPs, the potential exists for Texas and Louisiana federally permitted for-hire vessels to fish during both the state season covered under an EFP and the Federal for-hire Gulf EEZ season.
In addition, the quotas requested by Texas and Louisiana are based on higher landings from past years rather than landings in recent years. Because NMFS projects the Federal season based on recent landings, NMFS would have to reduce the length of the Federal for-hire season to account for the additional pounds of fish requested by Texas and Louisiana. This would be inconsistent with the Council's recommendation that NMFS issue the EFPs as long as the length of the Gulf-wide Federal for-hire component season is not affected. Alternatively, NMFS could reduce the quotas requested by Texas and Louisiana to be consistent with recent landings. Regardless of whether both or just one of the components is managed under the state EFPs, should NMFS determine that the Gulf-wide recreational red snapper quota has been meet, the exemption from the closure under the EFP would no longer be valid for that fishing year because the retention of red snapper in Federal waters would be prohibited under the regulations that implement the mandatory provisions of Section 407(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
NMFS finds these applications warrant further consideration. If they are granted, NMFS may include conditions or modifications such as
Final decisions on issuance of the EFPs will depend on a NMFS review of public comments received on the applications, consultations with the affected states, the Council, and the U.S. Coast Guard, and a determination that each is consistent with all applicable laws.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application for a permit modification.
Notice is hereby given that Mariana Fuentes, Ph.D., Florida State University, 581 Oakland Avenue, Tallahassee, FL 32301, has requested a modification to scientific research Permit No. 19496.
Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before April 11, 2018.
The modification request and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the Features box on the Applications and Permits for Protected Species (APPS) home page,
Written comments on this application should be submitted to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, at the address listed above. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile to (301) 713-0376, or by email to
Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division at the address listed above. The request should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this application would be appropriate.
Erin Markin or Amy Hapeman, (301) 427-8401.
The subject modification to Permit No. 19496, issued on June 16, 2016 (81 FR 1621), is requested under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Permit No. 19496 authorizes the permit holder to take loggerhead (
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of receipt of an application for an exempted fishing permit; request for comments.
NMFS announces the receipt of an application for an exempted fishing permit (EFP) from Clean Ocean Initiative, Inc. (Clean Ocean). If granted, the EFP would authorize Clean Ocean to fish for and retain Caribbean prohibited corals collected from 10 decommissioned submarine telecommunication cables being retrieved from U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) waters in the Caribbean off of Puerto Rico.
Comments must be received no later than March 27, 2018.
You may submit comments on the application by either of the following methods:
•
•
The application and related documents are available for review upon written request to any of the above addresses. All comments received, including all voluntarily submitted personal identifying information (
Sarah Stephenson, telephone: 727-824-5305, email:
The EFP is requested under the authority of the
This action involves activity covered by regulations implementing the Fishery Management Plan for Corals and Reef Associated Plants and Invertebrates of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (FMP). The proposed application for exempted fishing involves activity that would otherwise be prohibited by regulations at 50 CFR part 622, as they pertain to coral and invertebrate FMP species managed by the Caribbean Fishery Management Council (Council). The EFP would exempt this activity from Federal regulations at § 622.472(b) (Caribbean prohibited coral). See 50 CFR 622.2 defining Caribbean prohibited coral and Appendix A to part 622.
Submarine telecommunication cables have been deployed throughout the U.S. EEZ in the Caribbean for many years and these cables may act as substrate for organisms to use as benthic habitat, such as corals and invertebrates. The applicant requests authorization to collect and retain prohibited coral, excluding Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed species, from 10 decommissioned submarine telecommunication cables as they are being retrieved from waters in the U.S. EEZ off Puerto Rico. The applicant has been permitted by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Antilles Section, to retrieve these decommissioned submarine cables in territorial and U.S. EEZ off Puerto Rico waters. The EFP would only apply to coral collection and retention activities in Federal waters.
As part of an overall effort to remove decommissioned submarine cables, Clean Ocean would identify additional submarine cables in the U.S. EEZ off Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands for possible future removal. If the applicant identifies any additional cables that could be removed, NMFS expects Clean Ocean will submit an additional application for an EFP authorizing coral collection and retention activities similar to those described herein.
The 10 cables from which the applicant is proposing to collect corals and invertebrates in its EFP application were deployed between 1874 and 1963 and have been inactive since 1986. Cable routes initiate in Puerto Rico and extend across the Caribbean basin, terminating in the Dominican Republic, Turks and Caicos, Antigua, or Florida. Activities permitted under the EFP would initiate at the inner boundary of the U.S. EEZ off Puerto Rico and terminate at the outer boundary of the U.S. EEZ, with an estimated minimum starting depth of 1,000 ft (305 m). Total lengths of the cables to be salvaged in territorial and Federal waters range from 41 nautical miles (nmi) to 172 nmi, and the total estimated length to be retrieved from all 10 decommissioned cables is 947 nmi. The portion of the cable retrieved in Federal waters, from which the applicant seeks to collect and retain prohibited corals under an EFP, is unknown, but represents a smaller portion of this total length. As described in the application, the proposed activities would be expected to take up to 18 months and any EFP would be valid for up to 18 months from date of issuance.
Before cable retrieval activities commence, the applicant is proposing to conduct benthic surveys to identify and record the presence of coral species and other species (sponges, mollusks, anemones, etc.) along each cable corridor. These surveys would be conducted via a remotely operated vehicle (ROV) operated from a 115-ft (35 m) survey vessel. The ROV would remove as many organisms as possible from the cable and transplant them to the surrounding area, ensuring adequate distance from the cable so they are not impacted during the cable recovery phase. The ROV would not bring organisms to the surface but would instead relocate those organisms at depth. If there are too many organisms on a particular section of cable to effectively relocate them by ROV, or if the organisms are too large or too small to relocate, the ROV would not remove and transplant them. Instead, for those sections of cable with large organisms or dense aggregations, the ROV would cut the submarine cable on either side of these organisms and that section would remain on the bottom with organisms attached. Sections of cable with organisms that are too small to be removed and transplanted would be retrieved during the cable recovery phase.
Once the benthic surveys and any organism relocations are complete, the ROV would then locate the cable retrieval start point and prepare the cable for retrieval. The cables would be retrieved through the use of a 275-ft (84-m) pipe lay barge. As each cable is being retrieved, any attached coral and invertebrates remaining on the cable would be removed onboard the barge using a specialized funnel fitted around the cable. Resultant specimens would be deposited into a collection container monitored by Clean Ocean's marine biologist. Species information and measurements of all collected organisms would be recorded, and corals and invertebrates selected for further study would be identified. Those specimens selected for further study would be placed in a controlled aquatic storage area onboard the survey vessel and any remaining specimens would be returned to the water from the barge as soon as possible with as little harm practicable. Retained specimens would be transferred to Clean Ocean's Coral Research Center in Ponce, Puerto Rico, and made available to scientists and graduate students for the study of their taxonomy, growth, behavior, and genetics.
The EFP would allow Clean Ocean to harvest and possess non-ESA-listed corals from Federal waters for which harvest is otherwise prohibited. The majority of the operations under the EFP would occur at depths where there is little to no light penetration; thus, any corals anticipated to be encountered on the cables would be deep-water species. Cable diameters depend on the type of cable, fiber optic or coaxial, and range from 1.75 to 3 inches (4.4-7.6 cm). Deep-water corals tend to grow at a slow rate, but these submarine cables have been on the bottom for over 50 years, providing adequate time for early settlers to grow to a substantial size. Clean Ocean conducted preliminary benthic surveys of its cable retrieval operations, in territorial waters at depths from 100 to 250 ft (30.5 to 76.2 m), to evaluate organisms and habitats along the cable corridors. Based on those initial results, Clean Ocean expects that most of the cable lengths to be retrieved are submerged under the sand and have few, if any, organisms attached. Moreover, given the operating depths for the activities under the proposed EFP, which occur in deeper Federal waters, it is not expected that the applicant would encounter any ESA-listed corals. Finally, the USACE conditioned the permits for the cable retrieval so that those activities, which start in shallower territorial waters, occur at depths where ESA-listed corals are not expected to occur.
In addition to non-ESA listed corals, federally managed aquarium trade species, including sponges, anemones, polychaete worms, feather stars, and tunicates, could potentially be collected during the proposed activities. Aquarium trade species are managed in the U.S. Caribbean EEZ under an annual catch limit (ACL) of 8,155 lb (3,699 kg), round weight. The ROV would be expected to remove most organisms from the cable prior to cable retrieval commences, and it is unlikely that the amount of organism fragments
NMFS finds this application warrants further consideration, based on a preliminary review. In addition to the above, possible conditions the agency may impose on this permit, if it is granted, include but are not limited to, requiring Clean Ocean to submit monthly reports on the amount of coral and aquarium trade species collected, and to announce at least daily the present and following week's anticipated start and stop locations via VHF channel 16 to allow fishers time to relocate their gear and avoid trap-cable interactions.
A final decision on issuance of the EFP will depend on NMFS' review of public comments received on the application, consultations with the affected state(s), the Council, and the U.S. Coast Guard, and a determination that it is consistent with all applicable laws.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Groundfish Advisory Panel to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.
This meeting will be held on Monday, March 26, 2018 at 9:30 a.m.
The meeting will be held at the Hilton Garden Inn Logan Airport, 100 Boardman Street, Boston, MA 02129; phone: (617) 561-0798.
Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
The Advisory Panel will provide recommendations to the Groundfish Committee on Groundfish Monitoring Amendment 23 specifically the draft alternatives and Plan Development Team (PDT) work related to development of the action. They will also discuss priorities for 2018 and the PDT work to date and make recommendations to the Groundfish Committee. Other business will be discussed as necessary.
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 these meetings. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at 978-465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. This meeting will be recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Skate Advisory Panel to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.
This meeting will be held on Wednesday March 28, 2018 at 9 a.m.
The meeting will be held at the Hilton Garden Inn, 100 Boardman Street, Boston, MA 02128; telephone: (617) 567-6789.
Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
The Advisory Panel will review draft alternatives to prolong the wing fishery, which may include adjusting the management uncertainty buffer, and changes to the incidental possession limit and its trigger. They will also recommend preferred alternatives for Framework 6 to the Committee. Other business will be discussed as necessary.
Although non-emergency issues not contained on this agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. This meeting will be recorded. Consistent with 16
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request for comments.
NMFS has received a request from the U.S. Navy (Navy) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to vibratory and impact pile driving associated with proposed construction of the Service Pier Extension (SPE) at Naval Base Kitsap Bangor, Washington. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to incidentally take marine mammals during the specified activities. NMFS will consider public comments prior to making any final decision on the issuance of the requested MMPA authorizations and agency responses will be summarized in the final notice of our decision.
Comments and information must be received no later than April 11, 2018.
Comments should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. Physical comments should be sent to 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 and electronic comments should be sent to
Rob Pauline, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the application and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained online at:
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth.
NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.
The MMPA states that the term “take” means to harass, hunt, capture, kill or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal.
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
This action is consistent with categories of activities identified in CE B4 of the Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the issuance of the proposed IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review.
We will review all comments submitted in response to this notice prior to concluding our NEPA process or making a final decision on the IHA request.
On August 9, 2017 NMFS received a request from the Navy for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to pile driving and removal associated with proposed construction of the SPE on Naval Base Kitsap Bangor, Washington. The application was deemed adequate and complete by NMFS on November 15, 2017.
The Navy's request is for take by Level B harassment of five marine mammal species and Level A harassment of one species. Neither the Navy nor NMFS expect serious injury or immortality to result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.
The Navy is proposing to extend the service pier to provide additional berthing capacity and improve associated facilities for existing homeported and visiting submarines at Naval Base Kitsap Bangor. The project includes impact and vibratory pile driving and vibratory pile removal. Sounds resulting from pile driving and removal may result in the incidental take of marine mammals by Level A and Level B harassment in the form of auditory injury or behavioral harassment. Naval Base Kitsap Bangor is located on Hood Canal approximately 20 miles (32 kilometers) west of Seattle, Washington. The in-water construction period for the proposed action will occur over 12 months.
The proposed IHA would be effective from October 1, 2018, to September 30, 2019 and cover two in-water work windows. Timing restrictions would be complied with to avoid conducting activities when juvenile salmonids are most likely to be present (February-July). To protect Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed salmonid species, pile driving will only be conducted during the designated in-water work window between July 16 and January 15. A total of 160 days of in-water work will be required during the effective dates of the proposed IHA. Approximately 125 days will be required for installation of steel piles and will use a combination of vibratory (preferred) and impact methods. An estimated 35 days will be required for impact installation of concrete piles. Vibratory pile installation and removal may require a maximum of 5 hours per day while up to 45 minutes of daily impact driving may be required.
Naval Base Kitsap Bangor is located north of the community of Silverdale in Kitsap County on the Hood Canal (Figure 1-1 in application). Hood Canal is a long, narrow, fjord-like basin of western Puget Sound. Throughout its 67 mi (108 km) length, the width of the canal varies from 1 to 2 mi (1.6 to 3.2 km) and exhibits strong depth/elevation gradients. The tides in Hood Canal are mixed semidiurnal, with one flood and one ebb tidal event with a small to moderate range (1 to 6 ft (0.3 to 1.8 m)) and a second flood and second ebb with a larger range (8 to 16 ft (2.4 to 4.9 m)) during a 24-hour and 50-minute tidal day (URS and SAIC, 1994; Morris
The proposed location for the SPE is just north of Carlson Spit and south of Keyport/Bangor (KB) Dock (Figure 1-2 in application). Two restricted areas are associated with Naval Base Kitsap Bangor, Naval Restricted Areas 1 and 2 (33 CFR 334.1220), which are depicted in Figure 1-2 in the application relative to the project area.
As part of the proposed action, the Navy proposes to extend the existing Service Pier and construct associated support facilities. This action is needed to accommodate the proposed relocation of two SEAWOLF Class submarines from Naval Base Kitsap Bremerton. The existing Bangor waterfront Service Pier will be extended, and associated support facilities will be constructed, including a Waterfront Support Building, Pier Services and Compressor Building, roadway and utility upgrades, a parking lot, and a laydown area. Construction of upland facilities will not result in harassment of marine mammals; therefore, these activities are not included in the Navy's IHA request and are not discussed further.
The proposed extension of the Service Pier will be approximately 68 by 520 ft (21 by 158 m) and will require installation of approximately 203 36-inch (90-centimeter (cm)) diameter steel piles and 50 24-inch (60 cm) diameter steel pipe support piles. Approximately 103 18-inch (45 cm) square concrete fender piles will also be installed. In addition, 27 36-inch (90 cm) diameter steel falsework piles will be temporarily installed and subsequently removed. The pier extension will extend to the southwest from the south end of the existing Service Pier and will parallel Carlson Spit in water depths of 30 to 50 ft (9 to 15 m) below mean lower low water (MLLW), such that the berthing areas for the new submarines will be in water depths of approximately 50 to 85 ft (15 to 26 m) below MLLW. A concrete float 150 ft (46 m) long and 15 ft (4.6 m) wide will be attached to the south side of the SPE. The existing Port Security Barrier (PSB) system will be reconfigured slightly to attach to the end of the new pier extension, with approximately 540 ft (165 m) removed. Removal and disposal of existing PSBs will be implemented as described for the Land-Water Interface project (Navy, 2016a). Construction is expected to require one barge with a crane, one supply barge, a tugboat, and work skiffs. Concurrent driving of separate piles will not occur.
Construction will be preceded by removal of an existing wave screen (including piles) and other existing piles from the Service Pier (Figure 1-4 in application). A total of 36 creosote timber piles (19 18-inch (45 cm) and 17 15-inch (38 cm) piles) will be removed by wrapping the piles with a cable or chain and pulling them or using vibratory extraction; piles will be cut at the mudline if splitting or breakage occurs and they are not able to be pulled. A new wave screen will be installed under the SPE (Figure 1-4). This screen will be approximately 200 ft (60 m) long and 27 ft (8 m) high (below 20 ft (6 m) MLLW to above 7 ft (2 m) MLLW), made of concrete or steel, and attached to steel support piles for the SPE.
Pile driving for steel piles will use a combination of vibratory and impact driving. Because impact driving of steel piles can produce underwater noise levels that have been known to be harmful to fish and wildlife, including marine mammals, vibratory driving will be the primary method utilized to drive steel piles except when geotechnical conditions require use of an impact hammer. An impact hammer will also be used to “proof” load-bearing piles driven by vibratory methods. Driving of the concrete piles will use impact methods only. For impact driving, there will be a maximum of 1,600 pile strikes per day. All types of in-water work will occur only during the in-water work period.
Falsework Piles. It is anticipated that 27 36-inch (90 cm) diameter steel piles will be temporarily installed. Falsework piles are used to temporarily support a construction component in place until construction is sufficiently advanced to where the new construction can support itself. All falsework piles will be installed using a vibratory pile driver only and will be extracted with a vibratory pile driver at the conclusion of construction.
Permanent Piles. As shown in Table 1 permanent piles installed include 203 36-inch (90 cm) diameter steel pipe, 50 24-inch (60 cm) diameter steel fender, and 103 18-inch (45 cm) diameter concrete piles. Driving of the steel support piles will use a combination of vibratory (primary) and impact methods and will require up to 125 days of pile driving. When impact driving steel pipe piles, a bubble curtain or other noise attenuation device would be employed for all pile strikes with the possible exception of short periods when the device is turned off to test the effectiveness of the noise attenuation device. Driving of the concrete piles will use impact methods only, and will require up to 35 days of pile driving and would occur for a maximum of 45 minutes a day. Vibratory pile driving
Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are described in detail later in this document (please see “Proposed Mitigation” and “Proposed Monitoring and Reporting”).
Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and behavior and life history, of the potentially affected species. Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be found in NMFS's Stock Assessment Reports (SAR;
Table 2 lists all species with expected potential for occurrence in Hood Canal and summarizes information related to the population or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and ESA and potential biological removal (PBR), where known. An expected potential was defined as species with any regular occurrence in Hood Canal since 1995. Note that while not observed on a consistent basis, west coast transient killer whales have been recorded intermittently in Hood Canal with the most recent sightings occurring in 2016 as described below. They have also been recorded remaining in the area for extended periods. As such, they have been listed as one of the species for which authorized take has been requested. For taxonomy, we follow Committee on Taxonomy (2017). PBR is defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population (as described in NMFS's SARs). While no mortality is anticipated or authorized here, PBR and annual serious injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources are included here as gross indicators of the status of the species and other threats.
Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in NMFS's U.S. Pacific Marine Mammal SARs (Carretta
The following species have been sighted in Hood Canal but are not likely to be found in the activity area and therefore are not analyzed for noise exposure. Humpback whales (
Among the genetically distinct assemblages of killer whales in the northeastern Pacific, the West Coast Transient stock, which occurs from California to southeastern Alaska, is one of two stocks that may occur in Puget Sound. The other is the Southern Resident killer whale population, which has not been detected in Hood Canal since 1995.
The geographical range of the West Coast Transient stock of killer whales includes waters from California through southeastern Alaska with a preference for coastal waters of southern Alaska and British Columbia (Krahn
There are few data to describe the transient killer whale habitat use within Hood Canal. Killer whales were historically documented in Hood Canal by sound recordings in 1958 (Ford, 1991), a photograph from 1973, sound recordings in 1995 (Unger, 1997), and also anecdotal accounts of historical use. More recently, there have been sightings data ranging from intermittent observations of one or two animals, to the lengthy stays that were recorded in 2003 of 11 transients that remained for nearly 2 months (59 days), and in 2005 of a group of six that were sighted over a nearly 4-month period. In 2005, transients were documented in the region for a total of 172 days between January and July (London, 2006). There is about a 10-year data gap for Hood Canal transient killer whale use with the sightings reported to the Orca Network in March 2016, when there were sightings over 2 days. Following this, there was a report from 1 day in April 2016 and 8 days in May 2016, with whales in Dabob Bay at least one of the days (Orca Network, 2016). As the sightings in early 2016 were discontinuous, it is likely that the whales were using Hood Canal as part of a larger area moving in and out of Hood Canal. It is not known how large an area these animals were using; it is also unknown if these sightings were all of the same group of transient killer whales, or if animals were using the same areas. However, the temporally discontinuous data suggest a high degree of variability in the habitat use
West Coast Transient killer whales most often travel in small pods of up to four individuals (Baird and Dill, 1996). From 2004-2010 in the Salish Sea, the most frequently observed group size was four whales (Houghton
NMFS conservatively recognizes two stocks in Washington waters: The Oregon/Washington Coast stock and the Washington Inland Waters stock (Carretta
In Washington Inland waters, harbor porpoise are known to occur in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and the San Juan Island area year-round (Calambokidis and Baird, 1994; Osmek
Sightings in Hood Canal north of the Hood Canal Bridge have increased in recent years (Navy 2017). During line transect vessel surveys conducted in the Hood Canal in 2011 for the TPP near Naval Base Kitsap Bangor and Dabob Bay (HDR Inc., 2012), an average of six harbor porpoises were sighted per day in the deeper waters. Group sizes ranged from 1 to 10 individuals (HDR Inc., 2012). Aerial surveys conducted throughout 2013 to 2015 in Puget Sound indicated density in Puget Sound was 0.91 individuals/square kilometers (km
In the North Pacific, NMFS has designated two Steller sea lion stocks: (1) The western U.S. stock consisting of populations at and west of Cape Suckling, Alaska (144 degrees West longitude); and (2) the Eastern U.S. stock, consisting of populations east of Cape Suckling, Alaska. The western U.S. stock is listed as depleted under the MMPA and endangered under the ESA. Although there is evidence of mixing between the two stocks (Jemison
The eastern stock of Steller sea lions is found along the coasts of southeast Alaska to northern California where they occur at rookeries and numerous haulout locations along the coastline (Jeffries
In Washington, Steller sea lions use haulout sites primarily along the outer coast from the Columbia River to Cape Flattery, as well as along the Vancouver Island side of the Strait of Juan de Fuca (Jeffries
Surveys at Naval Base Kitsap Bangor indicate Steller sea lions begin arriving in September and depart by the end of May (Navy, 2016b)
NMFS has defined one stock for California sea lions (U.S. Stock), with five genetically distinct geographic populations: (1) Pacific Temperate, (2) Pacific Subtropical, (3) Southern Gulf of California, (4) Central Gulf of California, and (5) Northern Gulf of California. The Pacific Temperate population includes rookeries within U.S. waters and the Coronados Islands just south of the U.S./Mexico border. Animals from the Pacific Temperate population range north into Canadian waters, and movement of animals between U.S. waters and Baja California waters has been documented (Carretta
During the summer, California sea lions breed on islands from the Gulf of California to the Channel Islands and seldom travel more than about 31 mi (50 km) from the islands. The primary rookeries are located on the California Channel Islands of San Miguel, San Nicolas, Santa Barbara, and San Clemente. Their distribution shifts to the northwest in fall and to the southeast during winter and spring, probably in response to changes in prey availability. In the nonbreeding season, adult and subadult males migrate
Jeffries
California sea lions are typically present most of the year except for mid-June through July in Washington inland waters, with peak abundance numbers between October and May (NMFS, 1997; Jeffries
Three harbor seal stocks occur in Washington's inland waters:
• Hood Canal;
• Northern Inland Waters; and
• Southern Puget Sound stocks.
Based on radiotelemetry results, interchange between inland and coastal stocks is unlikely (Jeffries
Harbor seals are a coastal species, rarely found more than 12 mi (19 km) from shore, and frequently occupy bays, estuaries, and inlets (Baird, 2001). Individual seals have been observed several miles upstream in coastal rivers (Baird, 2001). Ideal harbor seal habitat includes haulout sites, shelter during the breeding periods, and sufficient food (Bjørge, 2002). Haulout areas can include intertidal and subtidal rock outcrops, sandbars, sandy beaches, peat banks in salt marshes, and man-made structures such as log booms, docks, and recreational floats (Wilson, 1978; Prescott, 1982; Schneider and Payne, 1983, Gilbert and Guldager, 1998; Jeffries
Harbor seals are the most common, widely distributed marine mammal found in Washington marine waters and are frequently observed in the nearshore marine environment. They occur year-round and breed in Washington. Numerous harbor seal haulouts occur in Washington inland waters. Numbers of individuals at haulouts range from a few to between 100 and 500 individuals (Jeffries
Harbor seals are expected to occur year-round at Naval Base Kitsap Bangor. In Hood Canal, where Naval Base Kitsap Bangor is located, known haulouts occur on the west side of Hood Canal at the mouth of the Dosewallips River and on the western and northern shorelines in Dabob Bay, located approximately 8.1 miles away from the Navy's installation (Figure 4-1). Vessel-based surveys conducted from 2007 to 2010 at Naval Base Kitsap Bangor observed harbor seals in every month of surveys (Agness and Tannenbaum, 2009; Tannenbaum
Past IHA applications for Naval Base Kitsap Bangor indicated a few observations of harbor seal births or neonates. In 2014, the Navy's knowledge of harbor seal births increased due to increased pinniped surveys on the waterfront and increased contact with waterfront personnel who have had lengthy careers at Bangor (Navy, 2016b). Known harbor seal births include one on the Carderock wave screen in August 2011; at least one on a small 10 x 10 ft (3 x 3 m) floating dock at EHW-2 in fall 2013, as reported by EHW-2 construction crew; and afterbirth on a float at Magnetic Silencing Facility with an unknown date. In addition, Navy biologists learned that harbor seal pupping has occurred on a section of the Service Pier since approximately 2001, according to the Port Operations vessel crews. Harbor seal mother and pup sets were observed in 2014 hauled out on the Carderock wavescreen and swimming in nearby waters, and swimming in the vicinity of Delta Pier (Navy, 2016b).
Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine mammals are able to hear. Current data indicate that not all marine mammal species have equal hearing capabilities (
• Mid-frequency cetaceans (larger toothed whales, beaked whales, and most delphinids): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 150 hertz (Hz) and 160 kilohertz (kHz);
• High-frequency cetaceans (porpoises, river dolphins, and members of the genera Kogia and Cephalorhynchus; including two members of the genus Lagenorhynchus, on the basis of recent echolocation data and genetic data): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 275 Hz and 160 kHz;
• Pinnipeds in water; Phocidae (true seals): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 50 Hz to 86 kHz; and
• Pinnipeds in water; Otariidae (eared seals): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur between 60 Hz and 39 kHz.
The pinniped functional hearing group was modified from Southall
For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency ranges, please see NMFS (2016) for a review of available information. Five marine mammal species (two cetacean and three pinniped (two otariid and 1 phocid) species) have the reasonable potential to co-occur with the proposed survey activities. Of the cetacean species that may be present, killer whales are classified as mid-frequency cetaceans and harbor porpoises are classified as high-frequency cetaceans.
This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that components of the specified activity may impact marine mammals and their habitat. The “Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment” section later in this document includes a quantitative analysis of the number of individuals that are expected to be taken by this activity. The “Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination” section considers the content of this section, the “Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment” section, and the “Proposed Mitigation” section, to draw conclusions regarding the likely impacts of these activities on the reproductive success or survivorship of individuals and how those impacts on individuals are likely to impact marine mammal species or stocks.
Sound travels in waves, the basic components of which are frequency, wavelength, velocity, and amplitude. Frequency is the number of pressure waves that pass by a reference point per unit of time and is measured in Hz or cycles per second. Wavelength is the distance between two peaks of a sound wave; lower frequency sounds have longer wavelengths than higher frequency sounds and attenuate (decrease) more rapidly in shallower water. Amplitude is the height of the sound pressure wave or the `loudness' of a sound and is typically measured using the dB scale. A dB is the ratio between a measured pressure (with sound) and a reference pressure (sound at a constant pressure, established by scientific standards). It is a logarithmic unit that accounts for large variations in amplitude; therefore, relatively small changes in dB ratings correspond to large changes in sound pressure. When referring to sound pressure levels (SPLs; the sound force per unit area), sound is referenced in the context of underwater sound pressure to 1 micro pascal (μPa). One pascal is the pressure resulting from a force of one newton exerted over an area of one square meter. The source level (SL) represents the sound level at a distance of 1 m from the source (referenced to 1 μPa). The received level is the sound level at the listener's position. Note that all underwater sound levels in this document are referenced to a pressure of 1 µPa and all airborne sound levels in this document are referenced to a pressure of 20 µPa.
Root mean square (rms) is the quadratic mean sound pressure over the duration of an impulse. Rms is calculated by squaring all of the sound amplitudes, averaging the squares, and then taking the square root of the average (Urick, 1983). Rms accounts for both positive and negative values; squaring the pressures makes all values positive so that they may be accounted for in the summation of pressure levels (Hastings and Popper 2005). This measurement is often used in the context of discussing behavioral effects, in part because behavioral effects, which often result from auditory cues, may be better expressed through averaged units than by peak pressures.
When underwater objects vibrate or activity occurs, sound-pressure waves are created. These waves alternately compress and decompress the water as the sound wave travels. Underwater sound waves radiate in all directions away from the source (similar to ripples on the surface of a pond), except in cases where the source is directional. The compressions and decompressions associated with sound waves are detected as changes in pressure by aquatic life and man-made sound receptors such as hydrophones.
Even in the absence of sound from the specified activity, the underwater environment is typically loud due to ambient sound. Ambient sound is defined as environmental background sound levels lacking a single source or point (Richardson
• Wind and waves: The complex interactions between wind and water surface, including processes such as breaking waves and wave-induced bubble oscillations and cavitation, are a main source of naturally occurring ambient noise for frequencies between 200 Hz and 50 kHz (Mitson, 1995). In general, ambient sound levels tend to increase with increasing wind speed and wave height. Surf noise becomes important near shore, with measurements collected at a distance of 8.5 km from shore showing an increase of 10 dB in the 100 to 700 Hz band during heavy surf conditions;
• Precipitation: Sound from rain and hail impacting the water surface can become an important component of total noise at frequencies above 500 Hz, and possibly down to 100 Hz during quiet times;
• Biological: Marine mammals can contribute significantly to ambient noise levels, as can some fish and shrimp. The frequency band for biological
• Anthropogenic: Sources of ambient noise related to human activity include transportation (surface vessels and aircraft), dredging and construction, oil and gas drilling and production, seismic surveys, sonar, explosions, and ocean acoustic studies. Shipping noise typically dominates the total ambient noise for frequencies between 20 and 300 Hz. In general, the frequencies of anthropogenic sounds are below 1 kHz and, if higher frequency sound levels are created, they attenuate rapidly (Richardson
The sum of the various natural and anthropogenic sound sources at any given location and time—which comprise “ambient” or “background” sound—depends not only on the source levels (as determined by current weather conditions and levels of biological and shipping activity) but also on the ability of sound to propagate through the environment. In turn, sound propagation is dependent on the spatially and temporally varying properties of the water column and sea floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a result of the dependence on a large number of varying factors, ambient sound levels can be expected to vary widely over both coarse and fine spatial and temporal scales. Sound levels at a given frequency and location can vary by 10-20 dB from day to day (Richardson
In-water construction activities associated with the project would include impact pile driving, vibratory pile driving and vibratory pile extraction. The sounds produced by these activities fall into one of two general sound types: Pulsed and non-pulsed (defined in the following paragraphs). The distinction between these two sound types is important because they have differing potential to cause physical effects, particularly with regard to hearing (
Pulsed sound sources (
Non-pulsed sounds can be tonal, narrowband, or broadband, brief or prolonged, and may be either continuous or non-continuous (ANSI, 1995; NIOSH, 1998). Some of these non-pulsed sounds can be transient signals of short duration but without the essential properties of pulses (
Impact hammers operate by repeatedly dropping a heavy piston onto a pile to drive the pile into the substrate. Sound generated by impact hammers is characterized by rapid rise times and high peak levels, a potentially injurious combination (Hastings and Popper 2005). Vibratory hammers install piles by vibrating them and allowing the weight of the hammer to push them into the sediment. Vibratory hammers produce significantly less sound than impact hammers. Peak SPLs may be 180 dB or greater, but are generally 10 to 20 dB lower than SPLs generated during impact pile driving of the same-sized pile (Oestman
Please refer to the information given previously (
When PTS occurs, there is physical damage to the sound receptors in the ear (
Relationships between TTS and PTS thresholds have not been studied in marine mammals—PTS data exists only for a single harbor seal (Kastak
Marine mammal hearing plays a critical role in communication with conspecifics, and interpretation of environmental cues for purposes such as predator avoidance and prey capture. Depending on the degree (elevation of threshold in dB), duration (
Currently, TTS data only exist for four species of cetaceans (bottlenose dolphin (
Habituation can occur when an animal's response to a stimulus wanes with repeated exposure, usually in the absence of unpleasant associated events (Wartzok
Available studies show wide variation in response to underwater sound; therefore, it is difficult to predict specifically how any given sound in a particular instance might affect marine mammals perceiving the signal. If a marine mammal does react briefly to an underwater sound by changing its behavior or moving a small distance, the impacts of the change are unlikely to be significant to the individual, let alone the stock or population. However, if a sound source displaces marine mammals from an important feeding or breeding area for a prolonged period, impacts on individuals and populations could be significant (
Changes in dive behavior can vary widely, and may consist of increased or decreased dive times and surface intervals as well as changes in the rates of ascent and descent during a dive (
Disruption of feeding behavior can be difficult to correlate with anthropogenic sound exposure, so it is usually inferred by observed displacement from known foraging areas, the appearance of secondary indicators (
Variations in respiration naturally vary with different behaviors and alterations to breathing rate as a function of acoustic exposure can be expected to co-occur with other behavioral reactions, such as a flight response or an alteration in diving. However, respiration rates in and of themselves may be representative of annoyance or an acute stress response. Various studies have shown that respiration rates may either be unaffected or could increase, depending on the species and signal characteristics, again highlighting the importance in understanding species differences in the tolerance of underwater noise when determining the potential for impacts resulting from anthropogenic sound exposure (
Marine mammals vocalize for different purposes and across multiple modes, such as whistling, echolocation click production, calling, and singing. Changes in vocalization behavior in response to anthropogenic noise can occur for any of these modes and may result from a need to compete with an increase in background noise or may reflect increased vigilance or a startle response. For example, in the presence of potentially masking signals, humpback whales and killer whales have been observed to increase the length of their songs (Miller
Avoidance is the displacement of an individual from an area or migration path as a result of the presence of a sound or other stressors, and is one of the most obvious manifestations of disturbance in marine mammals (Richardson
A flight response is a dramatic change in normal movement to a directed and rapid movement away from the perceived location of a sound source. The flight response differs from other avoidance responses in the intensity of the response (
Behavioral disturbance can also impact marine mammals in more subtle ways. Increased vigilance may result in costs related to diversion of focus and attention (
Many animals perform vital functions, such as feeding, resting, traveling, and socializing, on a diel cycle (24-hour cycle). Disruption of such functions resulting from reactions to stressors such as sound exposure are more likely to be significant if they last more than one diel cycle or recur on subsequent days (Southall
Neuroendocrine stress responses often involve the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal system. Virtually all neuroendocrine functions that are affected by stress—including immune competence, reproduction, metabolism, and behavior—are regulated by pituitary hormones. Stress-induced changes in the secretion of pituitary hormones have been implicated in failed reproduction, altered metabolism, reduced immune competence, and behavioral disturbance (
The primary distinction between stress (which is adaptive and does not normally place an animal at risk) and “distress” is the cost of the response. During a stress response, an animal uses glycogen stores that can be quickly replenished once the stress is alleviated. In such circumstances, the cost of the stress response would not pose serious fitness consequences. However, when an animal does not have sufficient
Relationships between these physiological mechanisms, animal behavior, and the costs of stress responses are well-studied through controlled experiments and for both laboratory and free-ranging animals (
Under certain circumstances, marine mammals experiencing significant masking could also be impaired from maximizing their performance fitness in survival and reproduction. Therefore, when the coincident (masking) sound is man-made, it may be considered harassment when disrupting or altering critical behaviors. It is important to distinguish TTS and PTS, which persist after the sound exposure, from masking, which occurs during the sound exposure. Because masking (without resulting in TS) is not associated with abnormal physiological function, it is not considered a physiological effect, but rather a potential behavioral effect.
The frequency range of the potentially masking sound is important in determining any potential behavioral impacts. For example, low-frequency signals may have less effect on high-frequency echolocation sounds produced by odontocetes but are more likely to affect detection of mysticete communication calls and other potentially important natural sounds such as those produced by surf and some prey species. The masking of communication signals by anthropogenic noise may be considered as a reduction in the communication space of animals (
Masking affects both senders and receivers of acoustic signals and can potentially have long-term chronic effects on marine mammals at the population level as well as at the individual level. Low-frequency ambient sound levels have increased by as much as 20 dB (more than three times in terms of SPL) in the world's ocean from pre-industrial periods, with most of the increase from distant commercial shipping (Hildebrand, 2009). All anthropogenic sound sources, but especially chronic and lower-frequency signals (
Local observations of marine mammals at Naval Base Kitsap Bangor during a Test Pile Project (TPP) concluded that pinniped (harbor seal and California sea lion) foraging behaviors decreased slightly during construction periods involving impact and vibratory pile driving, and both pinnipeds and harbor porpoise were more likely to change direction while traveling during construction (HDR Inc., 2012). Pinnipeds were more likely to dive and sink when closer to pile driving activity, and a greater variety of other behaviors were observed with increasing distance from pile driving. Relatively few observations of cetacean behaviors were obtained during pile driving. Most harbor porpoises were observed swimming or traveling through the project area, and no obvious behavioral changes were associated with pile driving.
Three years of marine mammal monitoring were conducted to support vibratory and impact pile driving for the construction of Explosives Handling Wharf #2 (EHW-2) at Kitsap Bangor (Hart Crowser, 2013; 2014; 2015). Over the 3 years of monitoring, harbor seals, California sea lions, and Steller sea lions were detected within the shutdown and behavioral disturbance zones (Primary Surveys). Results from monitoring varied slightly year to year, but in general, it has been found that marine mammals were equally observed moving away from (or swimming parallel to) the pile or having no motion during vibratory pile driving. During impact driving, animals were most frequently observed moving away (or moving parallel to) or having no relative motion to the pile (Hart Crowser, 2013; 2014; 2015). Harbor porpoises' predominant behavior during construction (vibratory pile driving) was swimming or traveling through the project area. During pre-construction monitoring, marine mammal observers also reported harbor porpoise foraging. Marine mammal observers did not detect adverse reactions to TPP or EHW-2 construction activities consistent with distress, injury, or high speed withdrawal from the area, nor did they report obvious changes in less acute behaviors.
Airborne noise will primarily be an issue for pinnipeds that are swimming or hauled out near the project site within the range of noise levels elevated above the acoustic criteria. We recognize that pinnipeds in the water could be exposed to airborne sound that may result in behavioral harassment when looking with heads above water. Most likely, airborne sound would cause behavioral responses similar to those discussed above in relation to underwater sound. However, these animals would previously have been “taken” as a result of exposure to underwater sound above the behavioral harassment thresholds, which are in all cases larger than those associated with airborne sound. Thus, the behavioral harassment of these animals is already accounted for in these estimates of potential take. Multiple instances of exposure to sound above NMFS' thresholds for behavioral harassment are not believed to result in increased behavioral disturbance, in either nature or intensity of disturbance reaction. Therefore, we do not believe that authorization of incidental take resulting from airborne sound for pinnipeds is warranted, and airborne sound is not discussed further here.
The most likely impact to fish from pile driving activities at the project area would be temporary behavioral avoidance within an undetermined portion of the affected area. The duration of fish avoidance of this area after pile driving stops is unknown, but a rapid return to normal recruitment, distribution and behavior is anticipated. In general, impacts to marine mammal prey species from the proposed project are expected to be minor and temporary due to the relatively short timeframe of pile driving and extraction.
Impacts to salmonid and forage fish populations, including ESA-listed species, will be minimized by adhering to the designated in-water work period. These work periods are designated when out-migrating juvenile salmonids are least likely to occur. Some habitat degradation is expected during construction, but the impacts to fish species and their habitats will be temporary and localized. The presence, shading potential, and associated artificial lighting of the larger Service Pier structure, because it would exist in offshore waters of at least 30 feet below MLLW, is not anticipated to alter the behavior of juvenile salmonids using the nearshore migratory pathway. Adult salmonids would not experience a substantial barrier effect, and there would be little or no overall delay in their movements. The numbers of marine mammals affected by impacts to prey populations will be small; therefore, the impact will be insignificant in the context of marine mammal populations.
It is important to note that pile driving and removal activities at the project site will not obstruct movements or migration of marine mammals.
In summary, given the relatively short and intermittent nature of sound associated with individual pile driving and extraction events and the relatively small area that would be affected, pile driving activities associated with the proposed action are not likely to have a permanent, adverse effect on any fish habitat, or populations of fish species. Thus, any impacts to marine mammal habitat are not expected to cause significant or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals or their populations.
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes proposed for authorization through this IHA, which will inform both NMFS' consideration of whether the number of takes is “small” and the negligible impact determination.
Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines “harassment” as any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
Authorized takes would primarily be by Level B harassment, as pile driving has the potential to result in disruption of behavioral patterns for individual marine mammals. There is also some potential for auditory injury (Level A harassment) to result for the harbor seal, due to larger predicted auditory injury zones and regular presence around the waterfront area. Auditory injury is unlikely to occur for mid-frequency cetaceans or otariid species due to small predicted zones. The proposed mitigation and monitoring measures are expected to minimize the severity of such taking to the extent practicable.
As described previously, no serious injury or mortality is anticipated or proposed to be authorized for this activity. Below we describe how the take is estimated.
Described in the most basic way, we estimate take by considering: (1) Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available science indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur some degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of water that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and, (4) and the number of days of activities. Below, we describe these components in more detail and present the proposed take estimate.
NMFS uses acoustic thresholds that identify the received level of underwater sound above which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur PTS of some degree (equated to Level A harassment).
These thresholds were developed by compiling and synthesizing the best available science and soliciting input multiple times from both the public and peer reviewers to inform the final product, and are provided in Table 3. The references, analysis, and methodology used in the development of the thresholds are described in NMFS 2016 Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at:
Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the activity that will feed into identifying the area ensonified above the acoustic thresholds.
Pile driving will generate underwater noise that potentially could result in disturbance to marine mammals swimming by the project area. Transmission loss (TL) underwater is the decrease in acoustic intensity as an acoustic pressure wave propagates out from a source until the source becomes indistinguishable from ambient sound. TL parameters vary with frequency, temperature, sea conditions, current, source and receiver depth, water depth, water chemistry, and bottom composition and topography. A standard sound propagation model, the Practical Spreading Loss model, was used to estimate the range from pile driving activity to various expected SPLs at potential project structures. This model follows a geometric propagation loss based on the distance from the driven pile, resulting in a 4.5 dB reduction in level for each doubling of distance from the source. In this model, the SPL at some distance away from the source (
The degree to which underwater noise propagates away from a noise source is dependent on a variety of factors, most notably by the water bathymetry and presence or absence of reflective or absorptive conditions including the sea surface and sediment type. The TL model described above was used to calculate the expected noise propagation from both impact and vibratory pile driving, using representative source levels to estimate
For the analyses that follow, the TL model described above was used to calculate the expected noise propagation from pile driving, using an appropriate representative source level from Table 4 to estimate the area exceeding the noise criteria. The source levels were derived from the Navy's document titled
For vibratory pile driving distances to the PTS thresholds, the TL model described above incorporated the auditory weighting functions for each hearing group using a single frequency as described in the NMFS Optional Spreadsheet (NMFS, 2016b). When NMFS' Technical Guidance (2016) was published, in recognition of the fact that ensonified area/volume could be more technically challenging to predict because of the duration component in the new thresholds, we developed a User Spreadsheet that includes tools to help predict a simple isopleth that can be used in conjunction with marine mammal density or occurrence to help predict takes. We note that because of some of the assumptions included in the methods used for these tools, we anticipate that isopleths produced are typically going to be overestimates of some degree, which may result in some degree of overestimate of Level A take. However, these tools offer the best way to predict appropriate isopleths when more sophisticated 3D modeling methods are not available. NMFS continues to develop ways to quantitatively refine these tools, and will qualitatively address the output where appropriate. For stationary sources, including pile driving, NMFS User Spreadsheet predicts the closest distance at which a marine mammal, if it remained beyond that distance the whole duration of the activity, would not incur PTS.
For impact pile driving distances to the cumulative PTS thresholds for 36-inch (90 cm) and 24-inch (60 cm) steel and concrete pile, the TL model described above incorporated frequency weighting adjustments by applying the auditory weighting function over the entire 1-second SEL spectral data sets from impact pile driving. The Navy believes, and NMFS concurs, that this methodology provides a closer estimate than applying the weighting function at a single frequency as suggested in the NMFS Spreadsheet. The NMFS Spreadsheet is considered to be a conservative method that typically results in higher estimates of the PTS onset distance from the pile driving activity. The Navy analysis focused on the data provided from the Naval Kitsap Bangor Test Pile Program (steel piles) and the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard Intermediate Maintenance Facility Pier 6 Fender Pile Replacement Project (concrete piles) (Grebner
An unconfined bubble curtain will be used during impact driving of steel piles, since the project is located in an area without high currents. While bubble curtain performance is variable, data from the Bangor Naval Base Test Pile Program indicated an average peak SPL reduction of 8 dB to 10 dB at 10 meters was achieved for impact driving of 36- and 48-inch steel pipes (Navy 2015). However, for the SPE project, a reduction of 8 dB was utilized as shown in Table 5.
Tables 6 and 7 show the radial distances to impact and vibratory Level A isopleths. Based on the dual criteria provided in the NMFS Spreadsheet, the cumulative SEL was selected over peak threshold to calculate injury thresholds because the ensonified distances were larger.
Using the same source level and transmission loss inputs discussed above the Level B isopleths were calculated for impact and vibratory driving (Table 8). Note that these attenuation distances are based on sound characteristics in open water. The actual attenuation distances are constrained by numerous land features and islands; these actual distances are reflected in the ensonified areas given below.
In this section we provide the information about the presence, density, or group dynamics of marine mammals that will inform the take calculations.
Transient killer whales are rare in Hood Canal and there are few data to describe transient killer whale abundance within Hood Canal. There have been anecdotal accounts of the whales in Hood Canal for decades. There was a report from 1 day in April 2016 and 8 days in May 2016 of whales Dabob Bay (Orca Network, 2016). It is likely that the whales were using Hood Canal as part of a larger area moving in and out of Hood Canal. It is not known how large an area these animals were using; it is also unknown if these sightings were all of the same group of transient killer whales, or if animals were using the same areas. However, the temporally discontinuous data suggest a high degree of variability in the habitat use and localized relative abundances of transient killer whales in Hood Canal. Given that whales were observed on eight days, in May 2016, NMFS will assume that whales could be observed on up to 8 days during the SPE project. The most commonly observed group size in Puget Sound from 2004 to 2010 was 6 whales (Navy 2017).
Harbor porpoises may be present in Puget Sound year-round typically in groups of one to five individuals and are regularly detected in Hood Canal. Aerial surveys conducted throughout 2013 to 2015 in Puget Sound indicated density in Puget Sound was 0.91 individuals/km
Steller sea lions are routinely seen hauled out on submarines at Naval Base Kitsap. The Navy relied on monitoring data from 2012 to 2016 to determine the average of the maximum count of hauled out Steller sea lions for each month in the in-water work window (Appendix A). The average of the monthly maximum counts during the in-water work window was 3.14, rounded to 3 exposures per day.
California sea lions can occur at Naval Base Kitsap Bangor in any month, although numbers are low from June through August (Appendix A in the application).
California sea lions peak abundance occurs between October and May (NMFS, 1997; Jeffries
Boat-based surveys and monitoring indicate that harbor seals regularly swim in the waters at Naval Base Kitsap Bangor (Appendix A in Application). Hauled-out adults, mother/pup pairs, and neonates have been documented occasionally, but quantitative data are limited. Incidental surveys in August and September 2016 recorded as many as 28 harbor seals hauled out under Marginal Wharf or swimming in adjacent waters. Additional animals were likely present at other locations during the same time of the surveys. To be conservative, the Navy estimated that an additional 7 animals were present based on typical sightings at the other piers at Bangor. Therefore, the Navy and NMFS assume that up to 35 seals could occur near the SPE project area on any given day.
Here we describe how the information provided above is brought together to produce a quantitative take estimate.
To quantitatively assess exposure of marine mammals to noise levels from pile driving over the NMFS threshold guidance, one of three methods was used depending on the species spatial and temporal occurrence. For species with rare or infrequent occurrence during the in-water work window, the likelihood of occurrence was reviewed based on the information in Chapter 3 of the application and the potential maximum duration of work days and total work days. Only one species was in this category, transient killer whale, and it had the potential to linger for multiple days based on historical information. The calculation was:
For species that regularly occur in Puget Sound, but for which local abundance data are not available, marine mammal density estimates were used when available to determine the number of animals potentially exposed in a ZOI on any one day of pile driving or extraction. Only harbor porpoise was in this category.
The equation for this species with only a density estimate and no site-specific abundance was:
For species with site-specific surveys available, exposures were estimated by:
(3) Exposure estimate = Abundance × maximum days of pile driving
All three pinniped species were in this category. Average monthly maximum counts of Steller sea lions and California sea lions (see Appendix A for abundance data of these species) were averaged over the in-water work window. The maximum number of animals observed during the month(s) with the highest number of animals present on a survey day was used in the analysis. For harbor seals, an abundance estimate for the Bangor waterfront was used.
The following assumptions were used to calculate potential exposures to impact and vibratory pile driving noise for each threshold.
• For formulas (2) and (3), each species will be assumed to be present in the project area each day during construction. The timeframe for takings would be one potential take (Level B harassment exposure) per individual, per 24 hours.
• The pile type, size, and installation method that produce the largest ZOI were used to estimate exposure of marine mammals to noise impacts. Vibratory installation of 36-inch (90 cm) steel piles created the largest ZOI, so the exposure analysis calculates marine mammal exposures based on 36- inch steel piles for the 125 days when steel piles would be installed. For the estimated 35 days when concrete fender piles would be installed, impact driving was the only installation method and only 18-inch piles were proposed, so the exposure analysis calculated marine mammal exposures based on impact driving 18-inch concrete piles.
• All pilings will have an underwater noise disturbance distance equal to the pile that causes the greatest noise disturbance (
• Days of pile driving were conservatively based on a relatively slow daily production rate, but actual daily production rates may be higher, resulting in fewer actual pile driving days. The pile driving days are used solely to assess the number of days during which pile driving could occur if production was delayed due to equipment failure, safety, etc. In a real construction situation, pile driving production rates would be maximized when possible.
Using the first calculation described in the above section, exposures to underwater pile driving were calculated using the average group size times the 8 days transient killer whales would be anticipated in the Hood Canal during pile driving activities. The Navy assumed that the average pod size was six individuals.
Using this rationale, 48 potential Level B exposures of transient killer whales from vibratory pile driving are estimated (six animals times 8 days of exposure). Based on this analysis, the Navy requests and NMFS proposes 48 Level B incidental takes for behavioral harassment. Concrete and steel ZOIs from impact driving will be fully monitorable (maximum distances to behavioral thresholds of 46 m and 541 m, respectively, and maximum distance to injury thresholds is 14 m), so no killer whale behavioral or injury takes are expected from impact driving.
Applying formula (2) to the animal density (0.44animals/km
Concrete ZOIs will be fully monitorable, so no takes were calculated for the estimated 35 days of concrete fender pile installation. Formula (3) as described in the previous section was used with site-specific abundance data to calculate potential exposures of Steller sea lions during steel pile driving for the SPE project. Animals could be exposed when traveling, resting, and foraging. Because a Level A injury shut-down zone will be implemented, Level A harassment is not expected to occur.
The Navy conservatively assumes that any Steller sea lion that hauls out at Bangor could swim into the behavioral harassment zone each day during pile driving because this zone extends across Hood Canal and up to 11.7 km from the driven pile. The Navy estimated 3 animals could be exposed to harassment per day. These values provide a worst case assumption that on all 125 days of pile driving, all animals would be in the water each day during pile driving. Applying formula (3) to this abundance and the 125 steel pile driving days, the Navy requests and NMFS proposes the take of up to 375 Steller sea lions. If project work occurs during months when Steller sea lions are less likely to be present, actual exposures would be less. Additionally, if daily pile driving duration is short, exposure would be expected to be less because some animals would remain hauled out for the duration of pile driving. Any exposure of Steller sea lions to pile driving noise will be minimized to short-term behavioral harassment.
Concrete ZOIs will be fully monitorable (maximum distance of 46 m), so no takes were calculated for the estimated 35 days of concrete fender pile installation (Figure 6-3 in application). Formula (3) was used with site-specific abundance data to calculate potential exposures of California sea lions during pile driving for the SPE project. Because a Level A injury shut-down zone will be implemented, no exposure to Level A noise levels will occur at any location. Based on site-specific data regarding the average maximum counts, the Navy assumes that 49 exposures per day could occur over 125 planned steel pile driving days. Therefore, NMFS proposes authorizing 6,125 Level B takes.
The Navy calculated up to 35 harbor seals may be present per day during summer and early fall months. Exposure of harbor seals to pile driving noise will be primarily in the form of short-term behavioral harassment (Level B) during steel pile driving. Concrete ZOIs will be fully monitorable (maximum distance of 46 m), so no takes were calculated for the estimated 35 days of concrete fender pile installation (Figure 6-3 in application). Formula (3) was used with site-specific abundance data to calculate potential exposures of harbor seals due to pile driving for the SPE.
The Navy assumes that any harbor seal that hauls out at Bangor could swim into the behavioral harassment zone each day during impact pile driving. The largest ZOI for behavioral disturbance (Level B) would be 11.7 km for vibratory driving and extraction of 36-inch steel piles. Applying formula (3) to the abundance of this species (35 individuals) and the 125 pile driving days, the Navy requests and NMFS proposes the Level A and Level B take of up to 4,375 harbor seals during pile driving for the SPE. The largest ZOI for Level A injury will be 217 m for impact driving (with bubble curtain) of 36-inch steel piles. A monitors' ability to observe the entire 217 m injury zone may be difficult because construction barges and the current Service Pier structure and associated mooring floats and vessels will interfere with a monitors' ability to observe the entire injury zone. Some individuals could enter, and remain in, the injury zone undetected by monitors, resulting in potential PTS. It is estimated that one of the 35 individuals present on the Bangor waterfront would enter, and remain in, the injury zone without being detected by marine mammal monitors each day during steel impact driving. Therefore, with 125 steel pile driving days and one individual per day being exposed to Level A noise levels, 125 Level A takes of harbor seals are proposed by NMFS. Subtracting 125 Level A takes from the estimated total of 4,375 takes would result in 4,250 Level B takes. It should be noted that Level A takes of harbor seals would likely be multiple exposures of the same individuals, rather than single exposures of unique individuals. This request overestimates the likely Level A exposures because: (1) Seals are unlikely to remain in the Level A zone underwater long enough to accumulate sufficient exposure to noise resulting in PTS, and (2) the estimate assumes that new seals are in the Level A ZOI every day during pile driving. No Level A
Table 9 provides a summary of proposed authorized Level A and Level B takes as well as the percentage of a stock or population proposed for take.
In order to issue an IHA under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses (latter not applicable for this action). NMFS regulations require applicants for incidental take authorizations to include information about the availability and feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting such activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact upon the affected species or stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 216.104(a)(11)).
In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, we carefully consider two primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat. This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented (probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as planned) the likelihood of effective implementation (probability implemented as planned) and;
(2) the practicability of the measures for applicant implementation, which may consider such things as cost, impact on operations, and, in the case of a military readiness activity, personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
In addition to the specific measures described later in this section, the Navy would conduct briefings between construction supervisors and crews, marine mammal monitoring team, and Navy staff prior to the start of all pile driving activity, and when new personnel join the work, in order to explain responsibilities, communication procedures, marine mammal monitoring protocol, and operational procedures.
All in-water construction activities will occur during daylight hours (sunrise to sunset) except from July 16 to September 15, when impact pile driving will only occur starting 2 hours after sunrise and ending 2 hours before sunset, to protect foraging marbled murrelets during the nesting season (April 15-September 23). Sunrise and sunset are to be determined based on National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration data, which can be found at
A performance test of the noise attenuation device shall be conducted prior to initial use for impact pile driving. If a bubble curtain or similar measure is utilized, the performance test shall confirm the calculated pressures and flow rates at each manifold ring. The contractor shall also train personnel in the proper balancing of air flow to the bubblers. The contractor shall submit an inspection/performance report to the Navy for approval within 72 hours following the performance test. Corrections to the noise attenuation device to meet the performance stands shall occur prior to use for impact driving.
If the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concurs that turning off the noise attenuation will not negatively impact marbled murrelets, baseline sound measurements of steel pile driving will occur prior to the implementation of noise attenuation to evaluate the performance of a noise attenuation device. Impact pile driving without
The Navy will start the bubble curtain prior to the initiation of impact pile driving. The contractor will provide an initial set of strikes from the impact hammer at reduced energy, followed by a 30-second waiting period, then two subsequent sets. (The reduced energy of an individual hammer cannot be quantified because it varies by individual drivers. Also, the number of strikes will vary at reduced energy because raising the hammer at less than full power and then releasing it results in the hammer “bouncing” as it strikes the pile, resulting in multiple “strikes.”)
The shutdown zones are based on the distances from the source predicted for each threshold level. Although different functional hearing groups of cetaceans and pinnipeds were evaluated, the threshold levels used to develop the disturbance zones were selected to be conservative for cetaceans (and therefore at the lowest levels); as such, the disturbance zones for cetaceans were based on the high frequency threshold (harbor porpoise). The shutdown zones are based on the maximum calculated Level A radius for pinnipeds and cetaceans during installation of 36-inch steel and concrete piles with impact techniques, as well as during vibratory pile installation and removal. These actions serve to protect marine mammals, allow for practical implementation of the Navy's marine mammal monitoring plan and reduce the risk of a take. The shutdown zone during any non-pile driving activity will always be a minimum of 10 m (33 ft) to prevent injury from physical interaction of marine mammals with construction equipment.
During all pile driving, the shutdown, Level A, and Level B zones as shown in Tables 10, 11, and 12 will be monitored out to the greatest extent possible with a focus on monitoring within 1,000 m for steel pile and 100 m for concrete pile installation.
For steel pile impact pile driving, monitors would initiate shutdown when harbor seals approach or enter the zone. However, because of the size of the zone and the inherent difficulty in monitoring harbor seals, a highly mobile species, it may not be practical, which is why Level A take is requested.
The isopleths delineating shutdown, Level A, and Level B zones during impact driving of all steel piles are shown in Table 10. Note that the Level A isopleth is larger than the Level B isopleth for harbor porpoises.
The isopleths for the shutdown, Level A, and Level B zones during vibratory driving of all steel piles are shown in Table 11.
The shutdown, Level A, and Level B isopleths for implementation during impact driving of concrete piles are shown in Table 12. Given that the shutdown zone for all authorized species is larger than the Level A and Level B isopleths there should be no take recorded during concrete pile driving.
Note that the radii of the disturbance zones may be adjusted if in-situ acoustic monitoring is conducted by the Navy to establish actual distances to the thresholds for a specific pile type and installation method. However, any proposed acoustical monitoring plan must be pre-approved by NMFS. The results of any acoustic monitoring plan must be reviewed and approved by NMFS before the radii of any disturbance zones may be revised.
The mitigation measures described above should reduce marine mammals' potential exposure to underwater noise levels which could result in injury or behavioral harassment. Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, as well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means effecting the least practicable impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth, requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the proposed action area. Effective reporting is critical both to compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the required monitoring.
Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
• Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area in which take is anticipated (
• Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or chronic), through better understanding of: Action or environment (
• Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;
• How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) populations, species, or stocks;
• Effects on marine mammal habitat (
• Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
Marine mammal monitoring will include the following proposed requirements.
Marine Mammal Observers (MMOs) will be positioned at the best practicable vantage points, taking into consideration security, safety, and space limitations. During pile driving, one MMO will be stationed in a vessel, and at least four will be stationed on the pier, along the shore, or on the pile driving barge to maximize observation coverage. Each MMO location will have a minimum of one dedicated MMO (not including boat operators). The exact number of MMOs and the observation locations are to be determined based upon site accessibility and line of sight for adequate coverage. It is expected that a minimum of four MMOs will be required, with additional MMOs added into the protocol as deemed necessary for effective coverage. Additional standards required for visual monitoring include:
(a) Independent observers (
(b) At least one observer must have prior experience working as an observer;
(c) Other observers may substitute education (undergraduate degree in biological science or related field) or training for experience;
(d) Where a team of three or more observers are required, one observer should be designated as lead observer or monitoring coordinator. The lead observer must have prior experience working as an observer; and
(e) We will require submission and approval of observer CVs.
Monitoring will be conducted by qualified observers, who will monitor for marine mammals and implement shutdown/delay procedures when applicable by calling for the shutdown to the hammer operator. Qualified observers are trained biologists, with the following minimum qualifications:
(a) Visual acuity in both eyes (correction is permissible) sufficient for discernment of moving targets at the water's surface with ability to estimate target size and distance; use of binoculars may be necessary to correctly identify the target;
(b) Advanced education in biological science or related field (undergraduate degree or higher required);
(c) Experience and ability to conduct field observations and collect data according to assigned protocols (this may include academic experience);
(d) Experience or training in the field identification of marine mammals, including the identification of behaviors;
(e) Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the construction operation to provide for personal safety during observations;
(f) Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of observations including but not limited to the number and species of marine mammals observed; dates and times when in-water construction activities were conducted; dates and times when in-water construction activities were suspended to avoid potential incidental injury from construction sound of marine mammals observed within a defined shutdown zone; and marine mammal behavior; and
(g) Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with project personnel to provide real-time information on marine mammals observed in the area as necessary.
MMOs will survey the disturbance zone 15 minutes prior to initiation of pile driving through 30 minutes after completion of pile driving to ensure there are no marine mammals present. In case of reduced visibility due to weather or sea state, the MMOs must be able to see the shutdown zones or pile driving will not be initiated until visibility in these zones improves to acceptable levels. Marine Mammal Observation Record forms (Appendix A of the application) will be used to document observations. Survey boats engaged in marine mammal monitoring will maintain speeds equal to or less than 10 knots.
MMOs will use binoculars and the naked eye to search continuously for marine mammals and will have a means to communicate with each other to discuss relevant marine mammal information (
Shutdown shall occur if a species for which authorization has not been granted or for which the authorized numbers of takes have been met. The Navy shall then contact NMFS within 24 hours.
If marine mammal(s) are present within or approaching a shutdown zone prior to pile driving, the start of these activities will be delayed until the animal(s) have left the zone voluntarily and have been visually confirmed beyond the shutdown zone, or 15 minutes has elapsed without re-detection of the animal.
If animal is observed within or entering the Level B zone during pile driving, a take would be recorded, behaviors documented. However, that pile segment would be completed without cessation, unless the animal approaches or enters the shutdown Zone, at which point all pile driving activities will be halted. The MMOs shall immediately radio to alert the monitoring coordinator/construction contractor. This action will require an immediate “all-stop” on pile operations. Once a shutdown has been initiated, pile driving will be delayed until the animal has voluntarily left the Shutdown Zone and has been visually confirmed beyond the Shutdown Zone, or 15 minutes have passed without re-detection of the animal (
All marine mammals observed within the disturbance zones during pile driving activities will be recorded by MMOs. These animals will be documented as Level A or Level B takes as appropriate. Additionally, all shutdowns shall be recorded. For vibratory driving activities, this data will be extrapolated across the full extent of the Level B ensonified zone (
A draft marine mammal monitoring report would be submitted to NMFS within 90 days after the completion of pile driving and removal activities. It will include an overall description of work completed, a narrative regarding marine mammal sightings, and associated marine mammal observation data sheets. Specifically, the report must include information as described in the Marine Mammal Monitoring Report (Appendix D of the application).
If no comments are received from NMFS within 30 days, the draft final report will constitute the final report. If comments are received, a final report addressing NMFS comments must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of comments.
In the unanticipated event that: (1) The specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the IHA (if issued), such as an injury, serious injury or mortality; (2) an injured or dead animal is discovered and cause of death is known; or (3) an injured or dead animal is discovered and cause of death is not related to the authorized activities, the Navy will follow the protocols described in the Section 3 of Marine Mammal Monitoring Report (Appendix D of the application).
NMFS has defined negligible impact as “an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival” (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (
Pile driving and extraction associated with the Navy SPE project as outlined previously have the potential to injure, disturb or displace marine mammals. Specifically, the specified activities may result in Level B harassment (behavioral disturbance) for five marine mammal species authorized for take from underwater sound generated during pile driving operations. Level A harassment in the form of PTS may also occur to limited numbers of one species. Level A harassment was conservatively authorized for harbor seals since seals can occur in high numbers near the project area, can be difficult to spot, and MMO's ability to observe the entire 217 m injury zone may be slightly impaired because of construction barges and vessels. Potential takes could occur if marine mammals are present in the Level A or Level B ensonified zones when pile driving and removal occurs.
No serious injury or mortality is anticipated given the nature of the activities and measures designed to minimize the possibility of injury to marine mammals. The potential for injury is minimized through the construction method and the implementation of the planned mitigation measures. Specifically, vibratory driving will be the primary method of installation. This driving method decreases the potential for injury due to relatively low source levels and lack of potentially injurious source characteristics. Only piles that cannot be driven to their desired depths using the vibratory hammer will be impact driven for the remainder of their required driving depth. Noise attenuating devices (
The Navy's planned activities are highly localized. Only a relatively small portion of Hood Canal may be affected. The project is not expected to have significant adverse effects on marine mammal habitat. No important feeding and/or reproductive areas for marine mammals are known to be near the project area. Impacts to salmonid and forage fish populations, including ESA-listed species, will be minimized by adhering to the designated in-water work period. Project-related activities may cause some fish to leave the area of disturbance, thus temporarily impacting marine mammals' foraging opportunities in a limited portion of the foraging range, but because of the relatively small area of the habitat range utilized by each species that may be affected, the impacts to marine mammal habitat are not expected to cause significant or long-term negative consequences.
Exposures to elevated sound levels produced during pile driving activities may cause behavioral responses by an animal, but they are expected to be mild and temporary. Effects on individuals that are taken by Level B harassment, on the basis of reports in the literature as well as monitoring from other similar activities, will likely be limited to reactions such as increased swimming speeds, increased surfacing time, or decreased foraging (if such activity were occurring) (
In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily support our preliminary determination that the impacts resulting from this activity are not expected to adversely affect the species or stocks through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
• No mortality or serious injury is anticipated or authorized;
• The area of potential impacts is highly localized;
• No adverse impacts to marine mammal habitat;
• The absence of any significant habitat within the project area, including rookeries, or known areas or features of special significance for foraging or reproduction;
• Anticipated incidences of Level A harassment would be in the form of a small degree of PTS to a limited number of animals;
• Anticipated incidents of Level B harassment consist of, at worst, temporary modifications in behavior;
• The anticipated efficacy of the required mitigation measures in reducing the effects of the specified activity.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the total marine mammal take from the proposed activity will have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal species or stocks.
As noted above, only small numbers of incidental take may be authorized under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for specified activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA does not define small numbers and so, in practice, where estimated numbers are available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to the most appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or stock in our determination of whether an authorization is limited to small numbers of marine mammals. Additionally, other qualitative factors may be considered in the analysis, such as the temporal or spatial scale of the activities.
Table 9 depicts the number of animals that could be exposed to Level A and Level B harassment from work associated with the SPE project. With the exception of harbor seals, the analysis provided indicates that authorized takes account for no more than 24.3 percent of the populations of the stocks that could be affected. These are small numbers of marine mammals relative to the sizes of the affected species and population stocks under consideration.
For the affected stock of harbor seals, no valid abundance estimate is available. The most recent abundance estimates for harbor seals in Washington inland waters are from 1999, and it is generally believed that harbor seal populations have increased significantly during the intervening years (
Based on the analysis contained herein of the proposed activity (including the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures) and the anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS preliminarily finds that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the population size of the affected species or stocks.
There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine mammal stocks or species implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 U.S.C. 1531
No incidental take of ESA-listed species is proposed for authorization or expected to result from this activity. Therefore, NMFS has determined that formal consultation under section 7 of the ESA is not required for this action.
As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to the Navy for conducting vibratory and impact pile driving associated with the proposed Service Pier Extension (SPE) at Naval Base Kitsap Bangor, Washington from October 1, 2018, to September 30, 2019, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. This section contains a draft of the IHA itself. The wording contained in this section is proposed for inclusion in the IHA (if issued).
1. This Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) is valid from October 1, 2018 through September 30, 2019. This IHA is valid only for pile driving and extraction activities associated with the Naval Base Kitsap Bangor SPE project.
2. General Conditions.
(a) A copy of this IHA must be in the possession of the Navy, its designees, and work crew personnel operating under the authority of this IHA.
(b) The species authorized for taking are the killer whale (
(c) The taking, by Level A and Level B harassment, is limited to the species listed in condition 2(b). See Table 11 for numbers of Level A and Level B take authorized.
(d) The take of any other species not listed in condition 2(b) of marine mammal is prohibited and may result in the modification, suspension, or revocation of this IHA.
(e) The Navy shall conduct briefings between construction supervisors and crews, marine mammal monitoring team, acoustical monitoring team prior to the start of all pile driving activities, and when new personnel join the work, in order to explain responsibilities, communication procedures, marine mammal monitoring protocol, and operational procedures.
3. Mitigation Measures.
The holder of this Authorization is required to implement the following mitigation measures:
(a) Time Restrictions—For all in-water pile driving activities, the Navy shall operate only during daylight hours.
(b) Use of Bubble Curtain.
(i) The Navy shall employ a bubble curtain (or other sound attenuation device with proven typical performance of at least 8 dB effective attenuation) during impact pile driving of steel piles in water depths greater than 2 feet. In addition, the Navy shall implement the following performance standards.
(ii) The bubble curtain must distribute air bubbles around 100 percent of the piling perimeter for the full depth of the water column.
(iii) The lowest bubble ring shall be in contact with the mudline for the full circumference of the ring, and the weights attached to the bottom ring shall ensure 100 percent mudline contact. No parts of the ring or other objects shall prevent full mudline contact.
(iv) The Navy shall require that construction contractors train personnel in the proper balancing of air flow to the bubblers, and shall require that construction contractors submit an inspection/performance report for approval by the Navy within 72 hours following the performance test. Corrections to the attenuation device to meet the performance standards shall occur prior to impact driving.
(c) Use of Soft-Start.
(i) The project shall utilize soft start techniques for impact pile driving.
(ii) The Navy shall conduct an initial set of three strikes from the impact hammer at 40 percent energy, followed by a 1-minute waiting period, then two subsequent three strike sets.
(iii) Soft start shall be required for any impact driving, including at the beginning of the day, and at any time following a cessation of impact pile driving of 30 minutes or longer.
(d) Establishment of Shutdown Zones.
(i) The shutdown zones pertaining specific species during impact driving and vibratory driving are shown on Tables 10, 1, and 12.
(ii) If a marine mammal comes within or approaches the shutdown zone, pile driving operations shall cease.
(iii) Pile driving and removal operations shall restart once the marine mammal is visibly seen leaving the zone or after 15 minutes have passed with no sightings.
(iii) For in-water heavy machinery work other than pile driving (using,
(iv) Shutdown shall occur if a species for which authorization has not been granted or for which the authorized numbers of takes have been met approaches or is observed within the pertinent take zone. The Navy shall then contact NMFS within 24 hours.
(d) Establishment of Level A and B Harassment Zones.
(i) The Level A and Level B zones pertaining to specific species during impact driving and vibratory driving are shown on Tables 12, 13, and 14.
(e) Pile driving activities shall not be conducted when weather/observer conditions do not allow for adequate sighting of marine mammals within the disturbance zone (
(i) In the event of conditions that prevent the visual detection of marine mammals, impact pile driving already underway shall be curtailed, but vibratory driving may continue if driving has already been initiated on a given pile.
4. Monitoring.
The holder of this Authorization is required to conduct visual marine mammal monitoring during pile driving activities.
(a) Visual Marine Mammal Observation—The Navy shall collect sighting data and behavioral responses to pile driving for marine mammal species observed in the region of activity during the period of activity. Visual monitoring shall include the following:
(i) Marine Mammal Observers (MMOs) shall be positioned at the best practicable vantage points, taking into consideration security, safety, and space limitations. The MMOs shall be stationed in a location that shall provide adequate visual coverage for the shutdown zones.
(ii) During pile driving, one MMO shall be stationed in a vessel, and at least four additional MMOs shall be stationed on the pier, along the shore, or on the pile driving barge to maximize observation coverage
(iii) Monitoring shall be conducted by trained observers, who shall have no other assigned tasks during monitoring periods. Trained observers shall be placed at the best vantage point(s) practicable to monitor for marine mammals and implement shutdown or delay procedures when applicable through communication with the equipment operator. The Navy shall adhere to the following additional observer qualifications:
(1) Independent observers (
(2) At least one observer must have prior experience working as an observer.
(3) Other observers may substitute education (degree in biological science or related field) or training for experience.
(iv) Where a team of three or more observers are required, one observer shall be designated as lead observer or monitoring coordinator. The lead observer must have prior experience working as an observer.
(v) The Navy shall submit observer CVs for approval by NMFS.
(vi) Monitoring shall take place from 15 minutes prior to initiation of pile driving activity through 30 minutes post-completion of pile driving activity.
(b) Hydroacoustic Monitoring.
(i) If approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, baseline sound measurements of steel pile driving shall occur prior to the implementation of noise attenuation. Impact pile driving without noise attenuation shall be limited to the number of piles necessary to obtain an adequate sample size.
(ii) If the Navy elects to conduct in-situ acoustic monitoring to establish actual distances to the thresholds for a pile type and installation method, the radii of the pertaining zones may be adjusted according to collected data.
(iii) Any proposed acoustical monitoring plan and any proposed revisions to zone radii must be pre-approved by NMFS.
(iv) A final acoustic monitoring report shall be submitted to NMFS within 30 days of completing the monitoring.
5. Reporting.
(a) A draft marine mammal monitoring report shall be submitted to NMFS within 90 days after the completion of pile driving and removal activities or a minimum of 60 days prior to any subsequent IHAs. A final report shall be prepared and submitted to the NMFS within 30 days following receipt of comments on the draft report from the NMFS. A If no comments are received from NMFS within 30 days, the draft final report shall constitute the final report. If comments are received, a final report addressing NMFS comments must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of comments.
(i) The report shall include an overall description of work completed, a narrative regarding marine mammal sightings, and associated marine mammal observation data sheets.
(ii) The report shall include all items identified in information described in Section 4 of the Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan (Appendix D of the application.)
(b) Reporting injured or dead marine mammals:
(i) In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by this IHA, such as serious injury, or mortality, the Navy shall immediately cease the specified activities and report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the West Coast Regional Stranding Coordinator, NMFS. The report must include the following information:
(1) Time and date of the incident;
(2) Description of the incident;
(3) Environmental conditions (
(4) Description of all marine mammal observations and active sound source use in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
(5) Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
(6) Fate of the animal(s); and
(7) Photographs or video footage of the animal(s). Activities shall not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS shall work with the Navy to determine what measures are necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. The Navy may not resume their activities until notified by NMFS.
(ii) In the event that the Navy discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead observer determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (
(iii) In the event that the Navy discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead observer determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA (
6. This Authorization may be modified, suspended or withdrawn if the holder fails to abide by the conditions prescribed herein, or if NMFS determines the authorized taking is having more than a negligible impact on the species or stock of affected marine mammals.
We request comment on our analyses, the draft authorization, and any other aspect of this Notice of Proposed IHA for the proposed Service Pier Extension project. Please include with your comments any supporting data or literature citations to help inform our final decision on the request for MMPA authorization.
On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may issue a one-year renewal IHA without additional notice when (1) another year of identical or nearly identical activities as described in the Specified Activities section is planned, or (2) the activities would not be completed by the time the IHA expires and renewal would allow completion of the activities beyond that described in the Dates and Duration section, provided all of the following conditions are met:
• A request for renewal is received no later than 60 days prior to expiration of the current IHA; and
• The request for renewal must include the following:
(1) An explanation that the activities to be conducted beyond the initial dates either are identical to the previously analyzed activities or include changes so minor (
(2) A preliminary monitoring report showing the results of the required monitoring to date and an explanation showing that the monitoring results do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not previously analyzed or authorized.
• Upon review of the request for renewal, the status of the affected species or stocks, and any other pertinent information, NMFS determines that there are no more than minor changes in the activities, the mitigation and monitoring measures remain the same and appropriate, and the original findings remain valid.
Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS).
Notice of Information Collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, CNCS is seeking approval for a new information collection.
Written comments must be submitted to the individual and office listed in the
You may submit comments, identified by the title of the information collection activity, by any of the following methods:
(1) By mail sent to: Corporation for National and Community Service, Attention Adrienne DiTommaso, 250 E Street SW, Washington, DC, 20525.
(2) By hand delivery or by courier to the CNCS mailroom at the mail address given in paragraph (1) above, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except federal holidays.
(3) Electronically through
Comments submitted in response to this notice may be made available to the public through regulations.gov. For this reason, please do not include in your comments information of a confidential nature, such as sensitive personal information or proprietary information. If you send an email comment, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the internet. Please note that responses to this public comment request containing any routine notice about the confidentiality of the communication will be treated as public comment that may be made available to the public notwithstanding the inclusion of the routine notice.
Adrienne DiTommaso, 202-606-3611, or by email at
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the 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 collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information. All written comments will be available for public inspection on
Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense.
Notice of intent.
The Department of the Air Force hereby gives notice of its intent to grant an exclusive patent license agreement to Joint Owner Florida State University Research Foundation, a non-profit, organized and in good standing with the State of Florida, having a place of business at 2000 Levy Avenue Building A., Suite 351, Tallahassee, FL 32310.
Written objections must be filed no later than fifteen (15) calendar days after the date of publication of this Notice.
Submit written objections to the Air Force Materiel Command Law Office, AFMCLO/JAZ, 2240 B Street, Room 260, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-7109; Facsimile: (937) 255-3733; or Email:
35 U.S.C. 209; 37 CFR 404.
Jeff Moore, Phone 937-904-5771, Air Force
Pursuant to the Bayh-Dole Act and implementing regulations, The Department of the Air Force intends to grant the exclusive patent license agreement for the invention described in:
Office of the Secretary (OS), 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 11, 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 Sedika Franklin, 202-453-5630.
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.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric reliability filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that on June 5, 2018, staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) will hold the fifth biannual Electric Quarterly Report (EQR) Users Group meeting. The meeting will take place from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. (EST) in the Commission Meeting Room at 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. All interested persons are invited to attend. For those unable to attend in person, access to the meeting will be available via webcast.
This meeting provides a forum for dialogue between Commission staff and EQR users to discuss potential improvements to the EQR program and the EQR filing process. Recent meetings have focused on issues pertaining primarily to EQR filers. However, in the upcoming meeting, staff will also include sessions for those accessing and using EQR data. Prior to the meeting, staff would like input on discussion topics. Individuals may suggest agenda topics for consideration by April 16, 2018, by emailing
Please note that matters pending before the Commission and subject to ex parte limitations cannot be discussed at this meeting. An agenda of the meeting will be provided in a subsequent notice.
Due to the nature of the discussion, those interested in participating are encouraged to attend in person. All interested persons (whether attending in person or via webcast) are asked to register online at
Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please send an email to
For more information about the EQR Users Group meeting, please contact Jeff Sanders of the Commission's Office of Enforcement at (202) 502-6455, or send an email to
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
As required by the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), as amended by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act in June 2016, EPA is developing, pursuant to TSCA section 4(h)(2)(A), a Strategic Plan to promote the development and implementation of alternative test methods and strategies to reduce, refine or replace vertebrate animal testing. The draft Strategic Plan will be available for comment until April 26, 2018 and information obtained will be considered in the Agency's development of the final Strategic Plan which is required to be completed and published in June of 2018.
EPA is also holding a public meeting to obtain input on the Agency's draft Strategic Plan. Information obtained during this meeting will be considered in the Agency's development of the final Strategic Plan due in June of 2018.
The public meeting will be held on April 10, 2018 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Members of the public must register to make oral comments at the public meeting on or before April 3, 2018. Online requests to participate in the meeting must be received on or before April 3, 2018. On-site registration will be permitted, but seating and speaking priority will be given to those who pre-register by the deadline.
To request accommodation of a disability, please contact the meetings logistics person listed under
EPA will accept written comments and materials submitted to the docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0559. The docket will remain open to receive comments and materials until April 26, 2018. When submitting comments to the docket, please be as specific as possible, and please include any supporting data or other information.
The meeting will be held in the Ronald Reagan Building 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. The meeting will also be available by remote access for registered participants. For further information, see Unit I under
To participate in the meeting on April 10, 2018, you may register online (preferred) or in person at the meeting. To register online, go to
Written comments, identified by the docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0559 can be submitted by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets in general is available at
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are required to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Basic Chemical Manufacturers (NAICS code 3251);
• Resin, Synthetic Rubber, and Artificial Synthetic Fibers and Filament Manufacturers (NAICS code 3252);
• Pesticide, Fertilizer, and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturers (NAICS code 3255);
• Paint, Coating, and Adhesive Manufacturers (NAICS code 3255);
• Other Chemical Product and Preparation Manufacturers (NAICS code 3259); and Petroleum Refineries (NAICS code 32411).
• Animal Welfare Groups
• Environmental non-governmental organizations
• Toxicity testing laboratories (contract labs)
• Academic/non-profit groups involved in developing and using alternative toxicity test methods
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0559, is available at
Meeting materials for the April 10, 2018 public meeting will be made available in the docket. (
On June 22, 2016, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, which amended the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the nation's primary chemicals management law, was signed into law. Along with new requirements and deadlines for actions related to the regulation of new and existing chemicals in the U.S., the new law includes changes to TSCA section 4 (
TSCA section 4 (h)(2)(A) states that EPA must “. . .
The Strategic Plan must be completed by June 22, 2018. OPPT hosted a public meeting on November 2, 2017 in which a conceptual approach to this Plan was presented. The meeting materials and public comments received through January 10, 2018, when the comment period associated with the November 2, 2017 meeting closed, are available in the docket. (
The meeting will be accessible remotely for registered participants. Registered participants will receive information on how to connect to the meeting prior to its start.
Members of the public may register to attend the public meeting and may also register to provide oral comments, in person or remotely, on the day of the meeting, using one of the registration methods described under
To attend the meeting in person or to receive remote access, you must register online no later than April 3, 2018, using one of the methods described under
Members of the public may register to attend as observers or to speak if planning to offer oral comments during the scheduled public comment period. To register for the meeting online, you must provide your full name, organization or affiliation, and contact information.
EPA is publishing a draft strategic plan, and taking comments until April 26, 2018, to promote the use and development of alternative test methods and strategies to reduce, refine or
EPA is also holding a public meeting to obtain input on the Agency's draft Strategic Plan. Information obtained during this meeting will be considered in the Agency's development of the final Strategic Plan due in June of 2018.
15 U.S.C. 2601
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), this document announces that EPA is planning to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The ICR, entitled: “Guidance on Expanded Access to TSCA Confidential Business Information” and identified by EPA ICR No. 2570.01 and OMB Control No. 2070—[new], represents a new request. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection that is summarized in this document. The ICR and accompanying material are available in the docket for public review and comment.
Comments must be received on or before May 11, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0652, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
Pursuant to PRA section 3506(c)(2)(A) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it 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 estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
The ICR, which is available in the docket along with other related materials, provides a detailed explanation of the collection activities and the burden estimate that is only briefly summarized here:
The ICR package is being submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.10.
EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.10. EPA will issue another
44 U.S.C. 3501
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments should be submitted on or before April 12, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email
For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the web page
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice of a Modified System of Records.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission or Agency) has modified an existing system of records, FCC/OMD-16, Personnel Security Files, subject to the
This action will become applicable on March 12, 2018. The routine uses in this action will become applicable on April 11, 2018 unless comments are received that require a contrary determination.
Send comments to Leslie F. Smith, Privacy Manager, Information Technology (IT), Room 1-C216, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554, or to
Leslie F. Smith, (202) 418-0217, or
This notice serves to update and modify FCC/OMD-16, Personnel Security Files, to add insider threats to the list of purposes and to make other miscellaneous but necessary updates and changes since its previous publication. The substantive changes and modifications to the previously published version of the FCC/OMD-16 system of records include:
1. (a) Expansion of the system's purposes to add insider threats to the list of safety and security criteria that the Security Operations Center will use to evaluate and assign employees, contractors, and interns an appropriate security level and to guard against the potential risks posed by insider threats.
(b) Deletion of the President's Program to Eliminate Waste, Fraud, and Abuse—there is no current information that this program is still in existence.
2. Expansion of the categories of individuals to include security personnel (contractors) to the list of
3. Expansion of the categories of records to add Taxpayer Identification Numbers (TINs), Personal Identity Verification (PIV) data, facial photographs and other biometric data, and office and personal email addresses of FCC employees; personal telephone and email address(es) of relatives who are Federal employees; financial information (in addition to tax data and credit reports) for employee background investigations; insider threat activity data concerning FCC employees; office and home email addresses of witness(es), injured parties, and others as part of an investigation of violence, threats (including insider threats), harassment, and intimidation to the PII that this system will collect, maintain, and use.
4. Replacing two routine uses: (1) Litigation by the Department of Justice and (2) A Court or Adjudicative Body, with (1) Adjudication and Litigation.
5. Updating language and/or renumbering two routine uses: (2) Law Enforcement and Investigation; (3) Congressional Inquiries; (4) Government-wide Program Management and Oversight; (5) Contract Services, Grants, or Cooperative Agreements; (11) Labor Relations; and (13) National Security and Intelligence Matters.
6. Adding eight new routine uses: (6) Non-FCC Individuals and Organizations to obtain information pertinent to an investigation from these individuals; (7) Complainants and Victims to provide the complainants and victims with information concerning an investigation involving them; (8) Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to OPM
7. Adding a new section: Reporting to a Consumer Reporting Agency to address valid and overdue debts owed by individuals to the FCC under the
The system of records is also updated to reflect various administrative changes related to the system managers and system addresses; policy and practices for storage, retrieval, and retention and disposal of the records; administrative, technical, and physical safeguards; and updated notification, records access, and contesting records procedures.
FCC/OMD-16, Personnel Security Files.
Most personnel identity verification records are not classified. However, in some cases, records of certain individuals, or portions of some records may have national defense/foreign policy classifications.
Security Operations Center, Assistant Managing Director—Administrative Offices (AMD-AO), Office of Managing Director (OMD), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.
Security Operations Center (SOC), Office of the Managing Director (OMD), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.
Depending upon the purpose(s) for the investigation, the U.S. government is authorized to ask for this information under 5 U.S.C. 1303, 1304, 3301, 7902, 9101; 42 U.S.C. 2165 and 2201; 50 U.S.C. 781 to 887; 5 CFR parts 5, 732, and 736;
The FCC's Security Operations Center (SOC) staff uses this information to document and support decisions that include, but are not limited to:
1. Determining compliance with Federal regulations and/or making a determination about an individual's suitability, eligibility, and fitness for Federal employment, access to classified information or restricted areas, position sensitivity, security clearances, evaluations of qualifications, and loyalty to the United States, and to document such determinations;
2. Evaluating an applicant's qualifications and suitability to perform contractual services for the U.S. Government and documenting such determinations;
3. Evaluating the eligibility and suitability of students, interns, or volunteers to the extent that their duties require access to FCC and other Federal facilities, information, systems, or applications, and documenting such determinations;
4. Taking action on, or responding to a complaint about a threat, harassment, intimidation, violence, or other inappropriate behavior involving one or more FCC employees and/or contract employees, and counseling employees; and
5. Documenting security violations, including but not limited to insider threats, and the resulting management actions that would be taken.
The individuals in this system include but are not limited to:
1. Current and former Federal Communications Commission (FCC employees; including Commission retirees and those who resigned from the Commission, other Federal employees; applicants for employment in the Federal Government or contracts; FCC contractors, experts, instructors, consultants, grantees, and all other individuals who may require regular, on-going access to the FCC's buildings and facilities, information technology (IT) systems, or information classified in the interest of national security; and individuals formerly in any of these positions;
2. Individuals who are authorized to perform, provide, or to use services in FCC facilities (either on an ongoing or occasional basis), including, but not limited to FCC credit union employees, security personnel, custodial staff, maintenance workers, food service workers, contractors, and employee assistance program staff;
3. Individuals who are neither applicants nor employees of the Federal Government, but who are or were involved in Federal programs under co-operative agreements or other arrangements (both paid and unpaid), including, but not limited to students and interns; and
4. Individuals who have been accused of security violations, including potential insider threat activity.
The categories of records in this system include, but are not limited to:
1. The information, as applicable, that is needed to identify an individual, including but not limited to the individual's last, first, and middle names, and former name(s), Social Security Number (SSN)/Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN), Personal Identity Verification (PIV) data, date of birth, birthplace, facial photograph(s) and/or other biometric data, home address, home telephone number(s), residential history, office and personal email address(es), organizational (bureau/office) unit, and position title;
2. Background information that includes but is not limited to the individual's citizenship, types and dates of investigations, agency conducting investigation, investigation dates, security clearance(s)
3. Names of relatives, birth date(s), home address(es), personal telephone number, email address(es), citizenship, and relatives who work for the Federal government;
4. Contact with foreign officials and foreign travel registries, as applicable;
5. Reports that include, but are not limited to information that determines the individual's qualifications for a position, including but not limited to the employee/applicant's employment/work history, summary report of investigation(s), results of suitability decision(s), employment references, and contact information, and educational/training institutions attended, degrees and certifications earned, and educational and training references;
6. Background information that includes but is not limited to what is required to investigate an individual's character, conduct, and behavior in the community where he or she lives or lived; criminal history, including but not limited to arrests and convictions for violations against the law; mental health history; drug use history; financial information that includes but is not limited to income tax return information, credit reports, and related financial information; reports that include but are not limited to information obtained from interviews with present and former supervisors, co-workers, associates, educators, and other related personal references and contact information;
7. Reports that include, but are not limited to inquiries with law enforcement agencies, employers, and reports of action after the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) or FBI Section 8(d) Full Field Investigation; Notices of Security Investigation and other information developed from “Certificates of Clearance,”
8. Information needed to investigate allegations of FCC employee's misconduct, including but not limited to identifying any insider threats and related activities;
9. Information needed to investigate miscellaneous complaints not covered by the FCC's formal or informal grievance procedure;
10. Information including, but is not limited to what is needed to investigate violence, threats, harassment, intimidation, insider threat activity, or other inappropriate behavior causing an FCC employee, contractor, or visitor to fear for his/her personal safety in the FCC workplace: Case number, victim's name, office telephone number, room number, office email address, organizational unit, duty station, position, supervisor, supervisor's telephone number, location of incident, activity at time of incident, circumstances surrounding the incident, perpetrator, name(s) and telephone number(s) and email address(es) of witness(es), injured party(s), medical treatment(s), medical report, property damages, report(s) to police and/or Federal Protective Services, and related miscellaneous information; and
11. Information obtained from sources that include but are not limited to SF-85, SF-85P, SF-86, and SF-87 forms, summary reports from OPM or another Federal agency conducting background investigations, and results of adjudications, and security violations.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, all or a portion of the records or information contained in this system may be disclosed to authorized entities, as is determined to be relevant and necessary, outside the FCC as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows. In each of these cases, the FCC will determine whether disclosure of the records is compatible with the purpose(s) for which the records were collected.
1. Adjudication and Litigation—To disclose information to the Department of Justice (DOJ), or other administrative body before which the FCC is authorized to appear, when: (a) The FCC or any component thereof; (b) any employee of the FCC in his or her official capacity; (c) any employee of the FCC in his or her individual capacity where DOJ or the FCC has agreed to represent the employee; or (d) the United States is a party to litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and the use of such records by DOJ or the FCC is deemed by the FCC to be relevant and necessary to the litigation.
2. Law Enforcement and Investigation—To disclose pertinent information to the appropriate Federal, State, or local agency responsible for investigating, prosecuting, enforcing, or implementing a statute, rule, regulation, or order, where the FCC becomes aware of an indication of a violation or potential violation of civil or criminal law or regulation;
3. Congressional Inquiries—To provide information to a Congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from that Congressional office made at the request of that individual;
4. Government-wide Program Management and Oversight—To the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) for use in its records management inspections; to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) for oversight purposes; to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to obtain that department's advice regarding disclosure obligations under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA); or to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to obtain that office's advice regarding obligations under the Privacy Act;
5. Contract Services, Grants, or Cooperative Agreements—To FCC contractors, grantees, or volunteers who have been engaged to assist the FCC in the performance of a contract service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other activity related to this system of records and who need to have access to the records in order to perform their activity. Recipients shall be required to comply with the requirements of the
6. Non-FCC Individuals and Organizations—To individuals, including former FCC employees, and organizations in the course of an investigation to the extent necessary to obtain information pertinent to the investigation.
7. Complainants and Victims—To individual complainants and/or victims to the extent necessary to provide such individuals with information and explanations concerning the progress and/or results of the investigation or case arising from the matter of which they complained and/or of which they were a victim.
8. Office of Personnel Management (OPM)—To OPM management, Merit Systems Protection Board, Equal Opportunity Employment Commission, Federal Labor Relations Authority, and the Office of Special Counsel for the purpose of properly administering Federal personnel systems or other agencies' systems in accordance with applicable laws, Executive Orders, and regulations.
9. Employment, Clearances, Licensing, Contract, Grant, or other Benefits Decisions by the FCC—To a Federal, State, local, foreign, tribal, or other public agency or authority maintaining civil, criminal, or other relevant enforcement records, or other pertinent records, or to another public authority or professional organization, if necessary to obtain information relevant to an investigation concerning the hiring or retention of an employee or other personnel action, the issuance or retention of a security clearance, the classifying of jobs, the letting of a contract, or the issuance or retention 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 decisions on the matter.
10. Employment, Clearances, Licensing, Contract, Grant, or other Benefits Decisions by Other than the FCC—To a Federal, State, local, foreign, tribal, or other public agency or authority of the fact that this system of records contains information relevant to the hiring or retention of an employee, the issuance or retention of a security clearance, the conducting of a suitability or security investigation of an individual, the classifying of jobs, the letting of a contract, or the issuance or retention of a license, grant, or other benefit by the requesting agency, to the extent that the information is relevant and necessary to the agency's decision on the matter. The other agency or licensing organization may then make a request supported by the written consent of the individual for the entire records if it so chooses. No disclosure will be made unless the information has been determined to be sufficiently reliable to support a referral to another office within the agency or to another Federal agency for criminal, civil, administrative, personnel, or regulatory action.
11. Labor Relations—To officials of labor organizations recognized under 5 U.S.C. Chapter 71 upon receipt of a formal request and in accord with the conditions of 5 U.S.C. 7114 when relevant and necessary to their duties of exclusive representation concerning personnel policies, practices, and matters affecting working conditions.
12. Security Officials and Investigators—To Security Officials and investigators of Federal Government agencies or departments for liaison or training purposes where appropriate during meetings, conferences, or training courses involving access to classified materials.
13. National Security and Intelligence Matters—To Federal, State, local agencies, or other appropriate entities or individuals, or through established liaison channels to selected foreign government in order to enable an intelligence agency to carry out its responsibilities under the National Security Act of 1947, as amended, the CIA Act of 1949, as amended, Executive Order 12333 or any successor order, applicable to national security directives, or classified implementing procedures approved by the Attorney General and promulgated pursuant to such statutes, orders, or directives.
14. Breach Notification—To appropriate agencies, entities, and person 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 Commission efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
15. Assistance to Federal Agencies and Entities—To another Federal agency or Federal entity, when the Commission determines that information from this system is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in: (a) Responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (b) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, program, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
In addition to the routine uses listed above, the Commission may share information from this system of records with a consumer reporting agency regarding an individual who has not paid a valid and overdue debt owed to the Commission, following the procedures set out in the
Information in this system is maintained as follows:
1. Electronic data, records, and files are maintained in a stand-alone computer database hosted on FCC's computer network; and
2. The paper documents, records, and files are stored in file folders in security containers in “non-public” rooms of the SOC office suite. These containers are locked when not in use and/or at the end of the day.
Records are retrieved by an individual's name or Social Security Number (SSN).
The records in this information system are retained and disposed of in accordance with General Records Schedule (GRS) 18, item 22a, approved by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). Both electronic and paper records are retained during employment or while an individual is actively involved in Federal programs. As appropriate, records are returned to investigating agencies after employment terminates; otherwise, the records are destroyed upon notification of death or not later than five years after the employee's retirement or separation from the FCC, or the employee's transfer to another Federal agency or department, whichever is applicable. Investigative files and the computer database, which show the completion of an investigation, are retained for 15 years, except for investigations involving potential actionable issue(s), which will be maintained for 25 years plus the current year from the date of the most recent investigative activity.
In accordance with NARA guidelines, the FCC destroys paper records by
1. The electronic records, data, and files are maintained in the FCC computer network databases, which are protected by the FCC's IT privacy safeguards, a comprehensive and dynamic set of IT safety and security protocols and features that are designed to meet all Federal IT privacy standards, including those required by the National Institute of Standard and Technology (NIST) and the
2. The paper documents and files are stored in approved security containers, which are locked when not in use and/or at the end of the business day. The security containers are located in a secure “non-public” part of the Security Operations Center (SOC) office suite. All SOC access points are monitored and controlled. Admittance to the SOC office suite is limited to approved SOC and administrative personnel. Access to the IT offices is via a key and card-coded door.
3. Some paper records (limited in number and scope) are also kept in the FCC's regional offices and laboratory facilities. These records are stored in locked metal file cabinets in locked rooms, which comply with Federal security requirements.
4. Only SOC staff and authorized contractors (including the contractors who maintain the FCC's computer network) may have access to the electronic data and the paper document records and files. As a further measure, access to these electronic records is restricted to the SOC staff and contractors who have a specific role in the Personal Identity Verification (PIV) process that requires their access to background investigation information and related SOC functions. The SOC maintains an audit trail to monitor access.
5. Furthermore, as part of these privacy and security requirements, SOC staff and contractors must complete training specific to their roles to ensure that they are knowledgeable about how to protect PII.
Under the authority granted to heads of agencies by 5 U.S.C. 552a(k), the FCC has determined (47 CFR Section 0.561) that this system of records is exempt from disclosing its notification procedure for this system of records.
Under the authority granted to heads of agencies by 5 U.S.C. 552a(k), the FCC has determined (47 CFR Section 0.561) that this system of records is exempt from disclosing its record access procedures for this system of records.
Under the authority granted to heads of agencies by 5 U.S.C. 552a(k), the FCC has determined (47 CFR Section 0.561) that this system of records is exempt from disclosing its contesting record procedure for this system of records.
Under the authority granted to heads of agencies by 5 U.S.C. 552a (k), the FCC has determined (47 CFR Section 0.561) that this system of records is exempt from disclosing its record sources for this system of records.
This system of records is exempt from sections (c)(3), (d), (e)(4)(G), (H), and (I), and (f) of the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, and from 47 CFR Sections 0.554-0.557 of the Commission's rules. These provisions concern the notification, record access, and contesting procedures described above, and also the publication of record sources. The system is exempt from these provisions because it contains the following types of information:
1. Investigative material compiled for law enforcement purposes as defined in Section (k)(2) of the Privacy Act;
2. Properly classified information, obtained from another Federal agency during the course of a personnel investigation, which pertains to national defense and foreign policy, as stated in Section (k)(1) of the Privacy Act; and
3. Investigative material compiled solely for the purpose of determining suitability, eligibility, or qualifications for Federal civilian employment, as described in Section (k)(5) of the Privacy Act, as amended. (Information will be withheld to the extent it identifies witnesses promised confidentiality as a condition of providing information during the course of the background investigation.)
The FCC last gave full notice of this system of records, FCC/OMD-16, Personnel Security Files, by publication in the
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC 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 May 11, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of
Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
In CC Docket No. 96-187, the Commission adopted measures to streamline tariff filing requirements for local exchange carriers (LECs) pursuant to the Telecommunications Act of 1996. In order to achieve a streamlined and deregulatory environment for LEC tariff filings, LECs are required to file tariffs electronically. Other carriers are permitted to file their tariffs electronically. There are six information collection requirements under this OMB control number: (1) Electronic filing requirement; (2) requirement that carriers desiring tariffs proposing rate decreases to be effective in seven days file separate transmittals; (3) requirement that carriers identify transmittals filed pursuant to the streamlined provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996; (4) requirement that price cap LECs file their Tariff Review Plans (TRPs) prior to filing their annual access tariffs; (5) petitions and replies; and (6) standard protective orders.
The information collected under the electronic filing program will facilitate access to tariffs and associated documents by the public, especially by interested persons who do not have ready access to the Commission's public reference room, and state and federal regulators. Ready electronic access to carrier tariffs should also facilitate the compilation of aggregate data for industry analysis purposes without imposing new reporting requirements on carriers. All of the requirements will be used to ensure that LECs comply with their obligations under the Communications Act of 1934, as amended and that the Commission will be able to ensure compliance within the streamlined timeframes established by the 1996 Act.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
This document commences a hearing to determine whether the applications filed by Birach Broadcasting Corporation (Birach) to renew its licenses for AM radio stations WBVA, Bayside, Virginia and WVAB, Virginia Beach, Virginia, should be granted. The applications have been designated for hearing based on the stations' extended periods of silence since April 1, 2008, when Birach became the licensee of the stations.
Persons desiring to participate as parties in the hearing shall file a petition for leave to intervene not later than April 11, 2018.
File documents with the Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554, with a copy mailed to each party to the proceeding. Each document that is filed in this proceeding must display on the front page the docket number of this hearing, “MB Docket No. 18-11.”
Albert Shuldiner, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2700.
This is a summary of the Hearing Designation Order (Order), MB Docket No. 18-11, FCC 18-2, adopted January 19, 2018, and released January 22, 2018. The full text of the Order is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center at Portals II, CY-A257, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554. The full text is also available online at
1. The Order commences a hearing proceeding before the Commission to determine whether the applications filed by Birach Broadcasting Corporation (Birach) to renew the licenses for AM radio stations WBVA, Bayside, Virginia (WBVA Renewal Application), and WVAB(AM), Virginia Beach, Virginia (WVAB Renewal Application) should be granted pursuant to section 309(k)(1) of the
2. A broadcast licensee's authorization to use radio spectrum in the public interest carries with it the obligation that the station serve its community, providing programming responsive to local needs and interests. Broadcast licensees also are required to operate in compliance with the Act and the Commission's rules (Rules). These requirements include the obligation to transmit potentially lifesaving national level Emergency Alert System (EAS) messages in times of emergency and to engage in periodic tests to ensure that their stations are equipped to do so.
3. The basic duty of broadcast licensees to serve their communities is reflected in the license renewal provisions of the Act. In 1996, Congress revised the Commission's license renewal process and the renewal standards for broadcast stations by adopting Section 309(k) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 309(k). Section 309(k)(1) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 309(k)(1), provides that the Commission shall grant a license renewal application if it finds, with respect to the applying station, that during the preceding license term: (a) The station has served the public interest, convenience, and necessity; (b) there have been no serious violations by the licensee of the Act or the Rules; and (c) there have been no other violations by the licensee of the Act or the Rules which, taken together, would constitute a pattern of abuse. Section 309(k)(2) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 309(k)(2), provides that if a station fails to meet the foregoing standard, the Commission may deny the renewal application pursuant to section 309(k)(3), 47 U.S.C. 309(k)(3), or grant the application on appropriate terms and conditions, including a short-term renewal. Section 309(k)(3) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 309(k)(3), provides that if the Commission determines, after notice and opportunity for hearing, that the licensee has failed to meet the standard of section 309(k)(1), 47 U.S.C. 309(k)(1), and that no mitigating factors justify the imposition of lesser sanctions, the Commission shall issue an order denying the license renewal application for the station.
4. The assignment of the licenses of WBVA and WVAB from an estate in bankruptcy to Birach was consummated on April 1, 2008. WBVA's operational history since that date is as follows: (a) Silent for 1225 days during the remaining license term from April 1, 2008 to October 1, 2011 (with 151 of those days unauthorized) and for 2186 days from October 2, 2011 to November 30, 2017 (with 141 of those days unauthorized); and (b) operating at 30 watts of power pursuant to special temporary authority (STA) for 54 days during the remaining license term in 2009-2011 (22 days in 2009, 10 days in 2010, and 22 days in 2011) and for 66 days from the end of the license term until November 30, 2017 (14 days in 2012, 6 days in 2013, 4 days in 2014, 8 days in 2015, 8 days in 2016, and 26 days in 2017).
5. WBVA is a Class C AM station licensed to operate with 1 kilowatt of power from a site in Virginia Beach, Virginia. Shortly before Birach purchased WBVA, the interim trustee in bankruptcy filed an application for STA to go silent, explaining that the station's tower had been vandalized and fallen, on or about March 15, 2008. During Birach's tenure as licensee of WBVA for the balance of the license term ending in 2011, the station was silent except for brief periods of operations from temporary sites with a power level of 30 watts. On May 18, 2011, Birach filed the WBVA Renewal Application.
6. Following the filing of the WBVA Renewal Application, WBVA continued its pattern of brief 30-watt operations followed by extended periods of silence. In 2013, Birach sought and received a construction permit for permanent full-power operation at a new transmitter site. However, that permit expired after three years. Birach stated that it was unable to obtain zoning approval to construct a tower at that site.
7. WBVA's temporary 30-watt operations were limited in the area served as well as the days of operation. Although those low-power operations provided city-grade coverage of the community of license (Bayside, Virginia), they covered approximately ten percent of the station's licensed service area, excluding areas covered by water.
8. WVAB's operational history from April 1, 2008 through November 30, 2017 is as follows: (a) Silent for 1231 days during the remaining license term from April 1, 2008 to October 1, 2011 (with 157 of those days unauthorized) and for 1943 days from October 2, 2011 to November 30, 2017 (with 153 of those days unauthorized); and (b) operating at 6 watts of power pursuant to STA for 48 days during the remaining license term in 2009-2011 (16 days in 2009, 10 days in 2010, and 22 days in 2011) and for 309 days from the end of the license term until November 30, 2017 (14 days in 2012, 6 days in 2013, 9 days in 2014, 12 days in 2015, 19 days in 2016, and 249 days in 2017).
9. WVAB is a Class C AM station licensed to operate with 5 kilowatts of power. Within the relevant time periods, WVAB has always been co-located with WBVA. WVAB's operational history has been similar to WBVA's during the time period under review, except WVAB has operated with only 6 watts of power during its STA operations. At the STA power level of 6 watts, WVAB serves only a small portion of its community of license (Virginia Beach, Virginia). A modification of a licensed AM station requires 50 percent coverage of the population and land area of the station's community of license with a city-grade signal. WVAB's STA service provides a predicted city-grade signal to only 6.3 percent of the Virginia Beach population and 1.7 percent of the Virginia Beach land area. As for overall signal coverage, WVAB's predicted coverage for its STA operation is less than two percent of its licensed coverage area.
10. Section 309(k)(3) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 309(k)(3), requires “notice and opportunity for a hearing as provided in subsection (e).” Section 309(e), 47 U.S.C. 309(e), requires a “full hearing in which the applicant and all other parties in interest shall be permitted to participate.” The Commission and courts have held that the hearing need not be a trial-type evidentiary hearing meeting the standards of sections 554 and 556 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 554, 556. The Commission has repeatedly observed that trial-type hearings impose significant burdens and delays, both on applicants and the agency. We have found no substantial issues of material fact or any credibility issues regarding these renewal applications. We thus believe cases such as this one can be appropriately resolved with a “paper” hearing.
11. We have identified no substantial and material questions of fact with respect to the WBVA Renewal Application and the WVAB Renewal Application, which present only a narrow range of issues for Commission consideration. Thus, many Subpart B rules are facially irrelevant to this proceeding. In these circumstances, we find that the use of summary procedures would expedite the resolution of this hearing while affording Birach the full hearing required by section 309, 47 U.S.C. 309, and not placing unnecessary burdens on the licensee. Accordingly, we find that the following rules are either inapplicable to or would serve no useful purpose in this proceeding: 47
12. Anyone seeking status as a party in interest in this proceeding must file a petition to intervene in accordance with 47 CFR 1.223(a). Anyone else seeking to participate in the hearing as a party may file a petition for leave to intervene in accordance with 47 CFR 1.223(b). Any filing in this docket must be served in accordance with 47 CFR 1.211 on all other parties, including each person or entity that has filed a petition to intervene or petition for leave to intervene, pending a ruling on each such petition. We expect that intervenor status will be granted only with respect to a specific Birach station unless a showing is made that the intervenor has standing to participate more broadly.
13. Birach shall have the right to seek reconsideration of any interlocutory action in this proceeding. Accordingly, we waive the 47 CFR 1.106(a) restriction limiting the filing of a petition for reconsideration by Birach of this hearing designation order.
14. Birach shall file in this docket, within 30 days of publication of notice of the Order in the
15. We will take official notice of all publicly-available Commission records for WBVA and WVAB as part of the record in this docket. Birach has the burden of proceeding with evidence and the burden of proof in this hearing. Within 60 days of publication of notice of the Order in the
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
Wednesday, March 14, 2018 at 2:00 p.m.
999 E Street NW, Washington, DC (Ninth Floor).
This meeting will be open to the public.
This meeting has been moved from Tuesday, March 13 at 10:00 a.m. to Wednesday, March 14 at 2:00 p.m.
REG 2011-02: Draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on internet Communication Disclaimers and Definition of “Public Communication.”
Management and Administrative Matters.
Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
Individuals who plan to attend and require special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact Dayna C. Brown, Secretary and Clerk, at (202) 694-1040, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting date.
83 FR 9316 (March 5, 2018).
Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 10:00 a.m.
The Following Item Was Also Discussed: Draft Advisory Opinion 2018-01—Libertarian Party of Utah.
Judith Ingram, Press Officer; Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
The Advisory Council on Government Auditing Standards will meet Tuesday, April 10, 2018, from 9:00 a.m. to 3:15 p.m., in the Staats Briefing Room (7C13) of the U.S. Government Accountability Office building, 441 G Street NW, Washington, DC.
The Advisory Council on Government Auditing Standards will hold a meeting to discuss updates and revisions to the Government Auditing Standards. The meeting is open to the public. Members of the public will be provided an opportunity to address the Council with a brief (five-minute) presentation in the afternoon on matters directly related to the proposed update and revision.
Any interested person who plans to attend the meeting as an observer must contact Cecil Davis, Engagement Operations Assistant, 202-512-9362. A form of picture identification must be presented to the GAO Security Desk on the day of the meeting to obtain access to the GAO building. You must enter the building at the G Street entrance. For further information, please contact Ms. Davis. The meeting agenda will be available upon request one week before the meeting.
Pub. L. 67-13, 42 Stat. 20 (June 10, 1921).
Notice.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention CDC is seeking nominations for membership on the BSC, NCIPC. The BSC, NCIPC consists of 18 experts in fields associated with surveillance, basic epidemiologic research, intervention research, and implementation, dissemination, and evaluation of promising and evidence-based strategies for the prevention of injury and violence. Nominations are being sought for individuals who have expertise and qualifications necessary to contribute to the accomplishments of the committee's objectives. Nominees will be selected based on expertise in the fields of knowledgeable in the pertinent disciplines involved in injury and violence prevention, including, but not limited to, epidemiologists, statisticians, trauma surgeons, rehabilitation medicine specialists, behavioral scientists, health economists, program evaluation specialists, political science, law, criminology and specialists in various aspects of injury management. Federal employees will not be considered for membership. Members may be invited to serve for four-year terms.
Nominations for membership on the NCIPC BSC must be received no later than June 1, 2018. Packages received after this time will not be considered for the current membership cycle.
All nominations should be emailed to
Dr. Gwendolyn Haile Cattledge, Designated Federal Official for the NCIPC BSC, telephone (770) 488-1430, Email:
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services policy stipulates that committee membership be balanced in terms of points of view represented, and the committee's function. Appointments shall be made without discrimination on the basis of age, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, HIV status, disability, and cultural, religious, or socioeconomic status. Nominees must be U.S. citizens, and cannot be full-time employees of the U.S. Government. Current participation on federal workgroups or prior experience serving on a federal advisory committee does not disqualify a candidate; however, HHS policy is to avoid excessive individual service on advisory committees and multiple committee memberships. Committee members are Special Government Employees, requiring the filing of financial disclosure reports at the beginning and annually during their
Nominees must be U.S. citizens, and cannot be full-time employees of the U.S. Government. Candidates should submit the following items:
Current curriculum vitae, including complete contact information (telephone numbers, mailing address, email address)
At least one letter of recommendation from person(s) not employed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (Candidates may submit letter(s) from current HHS employees if they wish, but at least one letter must be submitted by a person not employed by an HHS agency (
Nominations may be submitted by the candidate him- or herself, or by the person/organization recommending the candidate.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of Availability of the Final Revised Environmental Assessment and a Finding of No Significant Impact.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announces the availability of the Final Revised Environmental Assessment (EA) and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the CDC Lawrenceville Campus Proposed Improvements 2015-2025.
Stephen Klim, RA, Office of Safety, Security, and Asset Management, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS-K96, Atlanta, Georgia 30329, Telephone: (770)488-8009.
On February 16, 2016 CDC published a Notice of Availability for the Final Environmental Assessment (2016 Final EA) and FONSI for the HHS/CDC's Lawrenceville Campus Proposed Improvements 2015-2025 (81 FR 7800). The 2016 Final EA assessed the potential impacts associated with the undertaking of proposed improvements on the HHS/CDC's Lawrenceville Campus located at 602 Webb Gin House Road in Lawrenceville, Georgia. The proposed improvements include: (1) Building demolition; (2) new building construction, including an approximately 12,000 gross square feet (gsf) Science Support Building, a new Transshipping and Receiving Area at approximately 2,500 gsf and two new small Office Support Buildings at 8,000 gsf and 6,000 gsf; (3) expansion and relocation of parking on campus; and (4) the creation of an additional point of access to the campus.
Since the completion of the 2016 Final EA and FONSI, HHS/CDC proposed changes to the Proposed Action to include the installation of a photovoltaic system. HHS/CDC revised the EA in order to evaluate the potential environmental impacts association with the new photovoltaic system. On September 22, 2017 HHS/CDC published a NOA in the
CDC assessed the potential impacts of the proposed improvements on the natural and human environment and determined that the proposed action would not result in significant adverse impacts. Based on the results of the Final Revised EA, CDC has issued a FONSI indicating the proposed action will not have a significant impact on the environment. The Build Alternative will be undertaken in accordance with the best management practices (BMPs), minimization and mitigation measures as presented in the Final EA and FONSI. Copies of the FONSI and/or Final Revised EA are available by contacting Stephen Klim (please see
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received by May 11, 2018.
When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:
1.
2.
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' website address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
William Parham at (410) 786-4669.
This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry #240 entitled “Proprietary Names for New Animal Drugs.” This draft guidance provides recommendations to help new animal drug sponsors develop proprietary names for new animal drugs that do not contribute to medication errors, negatively impact safe use of the drug, or misbrand the drug. This draft guidance proposes a framework for evaluating proposed proprietary names before submitting them for review by the Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM or we). It also explains how new animal drug sponsors can request that CVM evaluate a proposed proprietary name.
Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by May 11, 2018 to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance.
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you
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
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to the Policy and Regulations Staff (HFV-6), Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Tom Modric, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-216), Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-402-5853,
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry #240 entitled “Proprietary Names for New Animal Drugs.” CVM evaluates proprietary names as a part of the new animal drug approval process. Selecting a proprietary name is a critical element in the design and development of drug product labeling because end users may rely, in part, on the proprietary name to identify which product, among thousands of available products, is intended for a given animal.
This level 1 draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on “Proprietary Names for New Animal Drugs.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 12866.
This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 514 have been approved under OMB control numbers 0910-0032 and 0910-0699; 21 CFR part 511 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0117.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at either
Health Resources and Service Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
Effective December 21, 2017, HRSA updated the HRSA-supported guidelines for infants, children, and adolescents for purposes of health insurance coverage for preventive services, as set out in the Bright Futures Periodicity Schedule. This notice serves as an announcement of the decision to update these guidelines as listed below. Please see
Bethany D. Miller, LCSW-C, M.Ed., HRSA/Maternal and Child Health Bureau by calling (301) 495-5156 or emailing
The Bright Futures program has been funded by HRSA since 1990. A primary focus of this program is for the funding recipient to maintain and update the
Section 2713 of the Public Health Service Act requires that non-grandfathered group health plans and health insurance issuers offering group or individual health insurance coverage provide coverage for certain preventive health services in four identified areas without cost sharing. Section 2713(a)(3) describes such services for infants, children, and adolescents as “evidence-informed preventive care and screenings provided for in the comprehensive guidelines supported by HRSA.” HHS, along with the Departments of Treasury and Labor, issued an Interim Final Rule (IFR) on July 19, 2010 (75 FR 41726-41760) that identified two specific charts as the comprehensive guidelines supported by HRSA for infants, children, and adolescents to be covered by insurance without cost sharing by non-grandfathered group health plans and health insurance issuers: (1) The Bright Futures Periodicity Schedule and (2) the Recommended Uniform Screening Panel (RUSP) of the Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders in Newborns and Children. The IFR provided that future changes to these comprehensive guidelines are considered to be issued for purposes of Section 2713 on the date of acceptance by the HRSA Administrator or, if applicable, adoption by the Secretary.
On December 21, 2017, the HRSA Administrator accepted the proposed 2017 updates to the Bright Futures Periodicity Schedule. Therefore, all non-grandfathered group health plans and health insurance issuers offering group or individual health insurance coverage must cover the services and screenings listed on the updated Bright Futures Periodicity Schedule for plan years (in the individual market, policy years) beginning on or after December 21, 2018.
The updated 2017 Bright Futures Periodicity schedule can be accessed at the following link:
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Special Emphasis Panel, March 2, 2018, 8:30 a.m. to March 2, 2018, 5:00 p.m., Hilton Washington/Rockville, 1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD, 20852 which was published in the
The meeting date has changed from March 2, 2018 from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. to March 13, 2018 from 10:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. The meeting is closed to the public.
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, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.
The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 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 of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, 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.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 to provide opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the National Institute of Nursing Research (NINR) will publish periodic summaries of propose projects to be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval.
Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 60 days of the date of this publication.
To obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, submit comments in writing, or request more information on the proposed project, contact: Diana Finegold, Division of Science Policy and Public Liaison, NINR, NIH, 31 Center Drive, Building 31, Suite B1B55, Bethesda, MD 20892, by phone at (301) 496-0209 or email your request, including your address to:
Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 requires: Written comments and/or suggestions from the public and affected agencies are invited to address one or more of the following points: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Ways to minimizes the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Improving agency programs requires ongoing assessment of service delivery, by which we mean systematic review of the operation of a program compared to a set of explicit or implicit standards, as a means of contributing to the continuous improvement of the program. The Agency will collect, analyze, and interpret information gathered through this generic clearance to identify strengths and weaknesses of current services and make improvements in service delivery based on feedback. The solicitation of feedback will target areas such as: Timeliness, appropriateness, accuracy of information, courtesy, efficiency of service delivery, and resolution of issues with service delivery. Responses will be assessed to plan and inform efforts to improve or maintain the quality of service offered to the public. If this information is not collected, vital feedback from customers and stakeholders on the Agency's services will be unavailable.
NINR will only submit a collection for approval under this generic clearance if it meets the following conditions:
• The collections are voluntary;
• The collections are low-burden for respondents (based on considerations of total burden hours, total number of respondents, or burden-hours per respondent) and are low-cost for both the respondents and the Federal Government;
• The collections are non-controversial and do not raise issues of concern to other Federal agencies;
• Any collection is targeted to the solicitation of opinions from respondents who have experience with the program or may have experience with the program in the near future;
• Personally identifiable information (PII) is collected only to the extent necessary and is not retained;
• Information gathered will be used only internally for general service improvement and program management purposes and is not intended for release outside of the agency;
• Information gathered will not be used for the purpose of substantially informing influential policy decisions; and
• Information gathered will yield qualitative information; the collections will not be designed or expected to yield statistically reliable results or used as though the results are generalizable to the population of study.
Feedback collected under this generic clearance will provide useful information, but it will not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such data uses require more rigorous designs that address: the target population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing potential non-response bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior to fielding the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results.
OMB approval is requested for an additional 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 500.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice.
To implement the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES, or the Convention), the Parties to the Convention meet periodically to review which species in international trade should be regulated and other aspects of the implementation of CITES. The 18th regular meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES (CoP18) is scheduled to be held in Sri Lanka from May 23, 2019, through June 3, 2019. With this notice, we invite the public to provide us with information and recommendations on resolutions, decisions, and agenda items that the United States might consider submitting for discussion at CoP18. In addition, with this notice we provide preliminary information on how to request approved observer status for nongovernmental organizations that wish to attend the meeting.
We will consider all information and comments we receive on or before May 11, 2018.
You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
•
•
For information pertaining to resolutions, decisions, and agenda items, contact Laura Noguchi, Chief, Wildlife Trade and Conservation Branch, Division of Management Authority, at 703-358-2095 (phone); or
The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES, or the Convention) is an international treaty designed to regulate international trade in certain animal and plant species that are now, or potentially may become, threatened with extinction. These species are included in the Appendices to CITES, which are available on the CITES Secretariat's website at
Currently there are 183 Parties to CITES—182 countries, including the United States, and one regional economic integration organization, the European Union. The Convention calls for regular meetings of the Conference of the Parties (Conference, or CoP) every 2-3 years, unless the Conference decides otherwise. At these meetings, the Parties review the implementation of CITES, make provisions enabling the CITES Secretariat in Switzerland to carry out its functions, consider amendments to the lists of species in Appendices I and II, consider reports presented by the Secretariat, and make recommendations for the improved effectiveness of CITES. Any Party to CITES may propose amendments to Appendices I and II, resolutions, decisions, and agenda items for consideration by all the Parties at the meeting.
This is our second in a series of
Although we have not yet received formal notice of the provisional agenda for CoP18, we invite your input on possible agenda items that the United States could recommend for inclusion, or on possible resolutions and decisions of the Conference of the Parties that the United States could submit for consideration. Copies of the agenda and the results of the most recent, or 17th, meeting of the Conference of the Parties (CoP17) in Johannesburg, South Africa, which took place from September 24, 2016, through October 5, 2016, as well as copies of all resolutions and decisions of the Conference of the Parties currently in effect, are available on the CITES Secretariat's website (
Article XI, paragraph 7 of CITES provides: “Any body or agency technically qualified in protection, conservation or management of wild fauna and flora, in the following categories, which has informed the Secretariat of its desire to be represented at meetings of the Conference by observers, shall be admitted unless at least one-third of the Parties present object:
(a) International agencies or bodies, either governmental or nongovernmental, and national governmental agencies and bodies; and
(b) national nongovernmental agencies or bodies which have been approved for this purpose by the State in which they are located.
Once admitted, these observers shall have the right to participate but not to vote.”
National agencies or organizations within the United States must obtain our approval to participate in CoP18, whereas international agencies or organizations must obtain approval directly from the CITES Secretariat. We will publish information in a future
As stated above, the next regular meeting of the Conference of the Parties (CoP18) is scheduled to be held in Sri Lanka from May 23, 2019, through June 3, 2019. The United States must submit any proposals to amend Appendix I or II, or any draft resolutions, decisions, or agenda items for discussion at CoP18, to the CITES Secretariat no later than 150 days (tentatively December 24, 2018) prior to the start of the meeting. In order to meet this deadline and to prepare for CoP18, we have developed a tentative U.S. schedule. Approximately 12 months prior to CoP18, we plan to publish our next CoP18-related
Through a series of additional notices and website postings in advance of CoP18, we will inform you about preliminary negotiating positions on resolutions, decisions, agenda items, and amendments to the Appendices proposed by other Parties for consideration at CoP18, and about how to obtain observer status from us. We will also publish an announcement of a public meeting tentatively to be held approximately 3 months prior to CoP18. That meeting will enable us to receive public input on our positions regarding CoP18 issues. The procedures for developing U.S. documents and negotiating positions for a meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES are outlined in 50 CFR 23.87. As noted in paragraph (c) of that section, we may modify or suspend the procedures outlined there if they would interfere with the timely or appropriate development of documents for submission to the CoP and of U.S. negotiating positions.
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. If you submit a hardcopy comment that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review; however, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
The primary author of this notice is Clifton A. Horton, Division of Management Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of initiation of reviews; request for information.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are initiating 5-year status reviews of eight species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. A 5-year review is an assessment of the best scientific and commercial data available at the time of the review. Therefore, we are requesting submission of information that has become available since the last reviews of these species.
To allow us adequate time to conduct these reviews, we must receive your comments or information on or before May 11, 2018. However, we will continue to accept new information about any listed species at any time.
For instructions on how to submit information and review information we receive on these species, see Request for New Information under
For species-specific information, see Request for New Information under
Under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
This notice announces our active review of eight species that are currently listed as endangered:
A 5-year review considers the best scientific and commercial data that have become available since the current listing determination or most recent status review of each species, such as:
A. Species biology, including but not limited to population trends, distribution, abundance, demographics, and genetics;
B. Habitat conditions, including but not limited to amount, distribution, and suitability;
C. Conservation measures that have been implemented to benefit the species;
D. Threat status and trends (see the five factors under the heading How Do We Determine Whether A Species Is Endangered or Threatened?); and
E. Other new information, data, or corrections, including but not limited to taxonomic or nomenclatural changes, identification of erroneous information contained in the List, and improved analytical methods.
We request any new information concerning the status of any of these eight species. Information submitted should be supported by documentation such as maps, bibliographic references, methods used to gather and analyze the data, and/or copies of any pertinent publications, reports, or letters by knowledgeable sources.
A.
B.
C.
Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA requires that we determine whether a species is endangered or threatened based on one or more of the following five factors:
A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
C. Disease or predation;
D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
To do any of the following, contact the person associated with the species you are interested in below:
A. To get more information on a species;
B. To submit information on a species; or
C. To review information we receive, which will be available for public inspection by appointment, during normal business hours, at the listed addresses.
• Coqui llanero: Jan Zegarra, by mail at the Caribbean Ecological Services Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Road 301, Km. 5.1, P.O. Box 491, Boquerón, PR 00622; by fax at 787-851-7440; by phone at 787-851-7297, ext. 220; or by email at
• Carolina heelsplitter: Morgan Wolf, by mail at the South Carolina Ecological Services Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 176 Croghan Spur Road, Suite 200, Charleston, SC 29412; by fax at 843-727-4218; by phone at 843-727-4707, ext. 219; or by email at
• Hell Creek Cave crayfish: Mitch Wine, by mail at Arkansas Ecological Services Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 110 South Amity Road, Suite 300, Conway, AR 72032; by fax at 501-513-4480; by phone at 870-269-3228; or by email at
•
• Cooley's meadowrue and Smooth coneflower: Dale Suiter, by mail at the Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 551 Pylon Drive, #F, Raleigh, NC 27606; by fax at 919-856-4556; by phone at 919-856-4520, ext. 18; or by email at
• Louisiana quillwort: Scott Wiggers, by mail at the Mississippi Ecological Services Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 6578 Dogwood View Parkway, Jackson, MS 39213; by fax at 601-965-4340; by phone at 228-475-0765; or by email at
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that the 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.
We publish this document under the authority of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for comments; notice of public meetings via webcast and teleconference.
The Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2006 requires the Secretary of the Interior to prepare digital versions of the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) maps. We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, have prepared proposed digital boundaries for the first batch of CBRS units included in the Hurricane Sandy Remapping Project. This first batch of the project includes a total of 148 CBRS units (112 existing units and 36 proposed new units) located in Delaware, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New Jersey. This notice announces the availability of the proposed boundaries for public review and comment, and also advises the public of upcoming public meetings that will be held via webcast and teleconference.
You may submit written comments by one of the following methods:
•
•
We request that you send comments by only one of the methods described above. We will post all information received on
Katie Niemi, Coastal Barriers Coordinator, (703) 358-2071 (telephone); or
The Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2006 (section 4 of Pub. L. 109-226; CBRRA) requires the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to prepare digital versions of the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) maps. We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have prepared proposed digital boundaries for the first batch of CBRS units included in the Hurricane Sandy Remapping Project. This first batch of the project includes a total of 148 CBRS units (112 existing units and 36 proposed new units) located in Delaware, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New Jersey. This notice announces the availability of the proposed boundaries for public review and comment, and also advises the public of upcoming public meetings that will be held via webcast and teleconference.
Coastal barrier ecosystems are inherently dynamic systems located at the interface of land and sea. Coastal barriers and their associated aquatic habitat (wetlands and open water) provide important habitat for fish and wildlife, and serve as the mainland's first line of defense against the impacts of severe storms. With the passage of the CBRA in 1982 (16 U.S.C. 3501
The CBRA established the CBRS which originally comprised 186 geographic units encompassing approximately 453,000 acres of relatively undeveloped lands and associated aquatic habitat along the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts. The CBRS was expanded by the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990 (CBIA; Pub. L. 101-591) to include additional areas along the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts, as well as areas along the coasts of the Great Lakes, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico. The CBRS now comprises a total of 862 geographic units, encompassing approximately 3.5 million acres of land and associated aquatic habitat. These areas are depicted on a series of maps known as the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System maps.
Most new Federal expenditures and financial assistance that would have the effect of encouraging development are prohibited within the CBRS. Development can still occur within the CBRS, provided that private developers or other non-Federal parties bear the full cost. In his signing statement, President Reagan stated that the CBRA “simply adopts the sensible approach that risk associated with new private development in these sensitive areas should be borne by the private sector, not underwritten by the American taxpayer.”
The CBRS includes two types of units, System Units and Otherwise Protected Areas (OPAs). System Units contain areas that were relatively undeveloped and predominantly privately owned at the time of designation, though they may also contain areas held for conservation and/or recreation. Most new Federal expenditures and financial assistance, including Federal flood insurance, are prohibited within System Units. OPAs are predominantly comprised of conservation and/or recreation areas such as national wildlife refuges, state and national parks, and local and private conservation areas, though they may also contain private areas not held for conservation and/or recreation. OPAs are denoted with a “P” at the end of the unit number. The only Federal spending prohibition within OPAs is the prohibition related to Federal flood insurance.
The Secretary, through the Service, is responsible for administering the CBRA, which includes maintaining the official
When assessing potential removals from and additions to the CBRS, the Service considers a set of guiding principles and criteria which are further described in the Types of Boundary Changes section below. In cases where mapping errors are found, the Service supports changes to the maps and works with Congress and other interested parties to create comprehensively revised maps using modern digital technology.
Following Hurricane Sandy, which made landfall along the North Atlantic coast in October 2012, the Department of the Interior (Department) funded a project to modernize the maps of approximately 370 CBRS units in the nine states most affected by the storm: Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York (Long Island), Rhode Island, and Virginia (comprising approximately 44 percent of the total units and 16 percent of the total acreage within the CBRS). This project makes significant progress towards fulfilling a statutory requirement (section 4 of Pub. L. 109-226) to modernize the entire set of CBRS maps. The public review for this project will be conducted in two separate batches. The first batch includes Delaware, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New Jersey. The second batch will include Connecticut, Maryland, New York (Long Island), Rhode Island, and Virginia.
A list of all 148 CBRS units (112 existing units and 36 proposed new units) included in this first batch is attached to this notice as Appendix A. If adopted by Congress, the revised maps produced through this project would remove areas that were previously included within the CBRS in error and add new qualifying areas to the CBRS. This map modernization effort would also provide more accurate and accessible CBRS data for planning coastal infrastructure projects, habitat conservation efforts, and flood risk mitigation measures.
The boundaries of the CBRS were originally hand-drawn on paper maps. The existing CBRS maps for Delaware and New Jersey underwent a digital conversion process between 2013 and 2015 (79 FR 21787 (April 17, 2014) and 80 FR 25314 (May 4, 2015), respectively), which replaced the underlying base maps with aerial imagery and updated the boundaries to a digital format to make them compatible with modern Geographic Information Systems (GIS). The existing CBRS unit boundaries for Massachusetts were digitally converted as part of this project in accordance with the methodology described in a notice the Service published in the
The Service began conducting data mining and research for this project in January of 2015. The Service procured and assessed the quality and accuracy of the data necessary to: (1) Determine whether the existing CBRS unit boundaries appropriately follow the features they were intended to follow on-the-ground, (2) determine the level of development that was on-the-ground when the areas were originally included within the CBRS (
The Service reviewed historical background records of the CBRS units, reports to Congress, public laws, legislative history, testimony from Congressional hearings,
We also obtained and assessed both geospatial and non-geospatial data from a variety of Federal sources (
The proposed boundaries are based upon the best available information that the Service was able to obtain within the data mining and research timeframe for the project. There were many challenges associated with the data mining and research process. In some cases, data was unavailable, unattainable within a reasonable time frame, incomplete, outdated, and/or in conflict with other data of the same type from a different source. Dates of construction and both present and historical land ownership information were difficult to obtain and validate for certain areas (in particular, ownership information for undeveloped wetland areas). It was also difficult in some cases to determine structure type and use (
During the data mining and research phase of the project, the Service conducted outreach with certain landowners and/or managers of coastal barrier areas that are “otherwise protected” (as defined by the CBIA), meaning within the boundaries of an area established under Federal, State, or local law, or held by a qualified organization (defined under the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. 170(h)(3)), primarily for wildlife refuge, sanctuary, recreational, or natural resource conservation purposes. Such outreach was generally not conducted with the
Conservation/recreation area landowners and/or managers were contacted in cases where the following information was necessary to prepare the initial proposed boundaries: (1) The location of conservation and/or recreation area boundaries (primarily in cases where the CBRS unit boundary was intended to be coincident with that boundary and there was conflicting information about the parcel boundary location), (2) the acquisition date(s) of the conservation and/or recreation area, and/or (3) the CBRS unit type classification (
Given the large number of conservation and/or recreation area stakeholders within the project area and complexities associated with mapping numerous small parcels, we generally limited our initial outreach to those stakeholders that own and/or manage conservation and/or recreation areas that are greater than approximately 10 acres in size within the existing and/or proposed System Units. See the Types of Boundary Changes section below for additional information about the mapping of conservation/recreation areas within the CBRS.
The Service reached out to approximately 90 different stakeholders in Delaware, Massachusetts, and New Jersey, including but not limited to state natural resource management agencies, state parks and recreation agencies, private conservation organizations, and local governments. Some of these organizations, due to a variety of circumstances, were unable to provide input during the initial stakeholder outreach process. Additional outreach to these groups and a broader group of stakeholders (including the State of New Hampshire, which has no existing CBRS units and only one proposed new OPA) is being conducted as part of the public review process; see the Request for Comments section below for further information.
The Service calculates the acreage of the CBRS units to help assess the areal extent of the units and to quantify proposed changes. The total acreage of a CBRS unit is comprised of fastland (land above mean high tide) and associated aquatic habitat (wetlands and open water). For the purpose of calculating acreage for this project, the wetland/fastland acreage breakdown of the units was derived from the Service's National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) data. A shoreline was delineated (as described below) to be used in conjunction with the boundaries of the unit to calculate acreage, and only areas landward of this shoreline were included in the calculation. The associated aquatic habitat acreage numbers include open water landward of the coastal barrier, but not nearshore or offshore waters seaward of the shoreline. The offshore acreage of the units is not calculated because a fixed seaward boundary for the units is generally not drawn due to the highly dynamic nature of the littoral zone.
Although acreage for offshore areas is not calculated, the entire sand sharing system on the seaward side, including the beach and nearshore area, is included within the CBRS units. The sand sharing system of coastal barriers is normally defined by the 30-foot bathymetric contour. In the Great Lakes and in large coastal embayments (
The Service calculates the shoreline of the units to help assess the linear extent of the CBRS and to facilitate the calculation of the acreage of the units as described above. For the purposes of this project, the Service digitized a shoreline boundary to artificially close off the units along the seaward shoreline. This shoreline boundary generally follows the wet/dry sand line along the seaward side of the unit as interpreted from the base imagery. Additionally, the shoreline boundary spans any inlets and/or other dividing water bodies within each unit. In some cases, highly convoluted shorelines were generalized. Due to the complexities of shoreline delineations, acreage numbers (rather than shoreline miles) are the most reliable way to quantify proposed changes to the CBRS for individual units.
The Service applied objective mapping protocols in the preparation of proposed boundaries for the CBRS units included in this project. The Service also applied a set of guiding principles and criteria for assessing additions to and removals from the CBRS. In 1982 and 1985, the Department published guidance in the
The different types of changes proposed through this project include modifications to reflect geomorphic change; alignment with geomorphic, development, and cultural features; additions to and removals from the CBRS; and modifications to CBRS boundaries in channels. Additionally, CBRS unit type classifications (and reclassifications) were determined according to a standard protocol described below.
The CBRA requires that at least once every 5 years the Service review the maps of the CBRS and make modifications to the boundaries of the units to account for changes caused by natural forces such as accretion and erosion (16 U.S.C. 3503(c)). This type of change can be made by the Service administratively; however, it is also incorporated into ongoing CBRS mapping efforts like this project for efficiency and cost-saving purposes. The boundaries of System Units and OPAs have been modified where appropriate to account for natural changes that have occurred since the maps were last updated.
CBRS boundaries are often intended to follow geomorphic features such as a shoreline or the interface between wetlands and fastlands. This applies mostly to System Units, though there are many cases where OPA boundaries follow geomorphic features. The boundaries of System Units and OPAs have been modified where appropriate
CBRS boundaries are often intended to follow development features, such as the edge of a road, a bridge, or the “break-in-development” that existed on-the-ground when the area was included within the CBRS. The break-in-development is where development ended, immediately adjacent to the last structure in a cluster or row of structures, or at the property parcel boundary of the last structure. This applies mostly to System Units, though there are cases where OPA boundaries follow development features. The boundaries of System Units and OPAs have been modified where appropriate to align with development features.
CBRS boundaries are often intended to follow cultural features such as roads and political boundaries (
In carrying out this project, the Service found areas of undeveloped fastland and associated aquatic habitat that are not currently within the CBRS but are appropriate for inclusion (either as additions to existing units or as entirely new units). When assessing whether an area may be appropriate for addition to the CBRS, the Service considered the following guiding principles:
(1) Whether the area may reasonably be considered to be a coastal barrier feature, or related to a coastal barrier ecosystem (this generally includes areas that are inherently vulnerable to coastal hazards such as flooding, storm surge, wind, erosion, and sea level rise) and
(2) whether inclusion of the area within the CBRS is rationally related to the purposes of the CBRA (
(1) The level of development on-the-ground (
(2) in the case of certain additions to existing units, the location of geomorphic, cultural, and development features on-the-ground at the time the adjacent area was included within the CBRS (
Additionally, the Service accommodates requests from landowners for voluntary additions to the CBRS or reclassifications of conservation/recreation areas from OPA to System Unit status. Voluntary additions to the CBRS can be made by the Service administratively (16 U.S.C. 3503(d)); however they are also incorporated into ongoing CBRS mapping efforts like this project for efficiency and cost-saving purposes.
In carrying out this project, the Service found areas that were inappropriately included within the CBRS and constitute technical mapping errors. When assessing whether an area may be appropriate for removal from the CBRS, the Service considered the following guiding principles:
(1) Whether the area may reasonably be considered to be a coastal barrier feature, or related to a coastal barrier ecosystem (this generally includes areas that are inherently vulnerable to coastal hazards such as flooding, storm surge, wind, erosion, and sea level rise); and
(2) whether inclusion of the area within the CBRS is rationally related to the purposes of the CBRA (
(1) The level of development on-the-ground at the time the area was included within the CBRS (
(2) the location of geomorphic, cultural, and development features on-the-ground at the time the area was included within the CBRS (
In carrying out this project, the Service noted that the CBRS unit boundaries following channels in some cases include the entire channel and in other cases include none of the channel within the unit. The boundaries of System Units and OPAs have been modified where appropriate to include the entire extent of the channel within the unit. In cases where a System Unit and an OPA share a coincident boundary that follows a channel located between the two units, the entire channel is generally included within the System Unit. In cases where two System Units or two OPAs fall within a channel, the coincident boundary is placed at the center of the channel. A buffer (of about 20 feet) has generally been applied along developed shorelines (
In carrying out this project, the Service considered the qualifying coastal barrier feature and delineated the unit boundaries in accordance with
The unit type classification (
Areas that are held for conservation/recreation and are: (1) Interspersed with and/or adjacent to a larger area that is not held for conservation/recreation, and (2) were undeveloped according to the CBRA's statutory development criteria (16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(1)) at the time they were included within the CBRS (or are currently undeveloped in the case of proposed additions), may be included within System Units.
For conservation/recreation areas greater than 10 acres, the Service coordinated with the landowners (or managers) to seek their concurrence on inclusion of their area within the System Unit. If the owners do not concur with System Unit status, the Service classifies such areas as OPA to the extent practicable. However, minor conservation/recreation areas (
The Service's records indicate that some conservation/recreation areas were intentionally added to the CBRS as System Units in the past. The Service generally did not seek concurrence from conservation/recreation area owners (regardless of size) when there is evidence of such prior intent, including letters from the stakeholder in the Service's records indicating that the organization supported inclusion of the property within the System Unit in the past, or records of specific changes to the Department's recommended maps made by the Congressional committees that reviewed them prior to their enactment.
If an area is dedicated to conservation and/or recreation after its initial inclusion within a System Unit, it is generally not reclassified to an OPA.
The Service has prepared draft revised boundaries that propose modifications to the CBRS in Delaware, Massachusetts, and New Jersey, as well as the designation of a new unit in New Hampshire. This first batch of the Hurricane Sandy Remapping Project includes a total of 148 CBRS units (112 existing units and 36 proposed new units) which are listed in Appendix A. The breakdown of units by state is as follows: 8 existing units and 3 proposed new units in Delaware, 86 existing units and 23 proposed new units in Massachusetts, 1 proposed new unit in New Hampshire, and 18 existing units and 9 proposed new units in New Jersey. Three of the existing units have no proposed changes. Ten of the 36 proposed new units are comprised either partially or mostly of areas that are currently contained within the CBRS, but are proposed for reclassification from System Unit to OPA or vice-versa. Twenty-six of the 36 proposed new units are comprised entirely of areas that are not currently contained within the CBRS. Nine of the existing 112 units are proposed for reclassification from System Unit to OPA or vice-versa, and therefore their current unit numbers are retired, resulting in 139 total proposed units.
If adopted by Congress, the proposed boundaries would remove 557 acres from the CBRS (371 acres of fastland and 186 acres of associated aquatic habitat) and add approximately 136,268 acres to the CBRS (6,051 acres of fastland and 130,217 acres of associated aquatic habitat). The proposed boundaries would remove 271 structures from the CBRS and add 199 structures to the CBRS. A summary of metrics associated with the proposed changes for each state is below. More detailed information regarding the specific proposed changes to each unit is available in a set of unit summaries. See the Availability of Proposed CBRS Boundaries and Related Information section below for information on where to access the unit summaries.
The Service has prepared comprehensively revised proposed boundaries for 8 of the 10 existing CBRS units in Delaware. A final recommended map for the remaining two existing units (Units DE-07P and H01) was submitted to Congress in 2016 as part of the Service's Digital Mapping Pilot Project. One existing unit in Delaware has no proposed changes. The Service identified three proposed new units in Delaware, which are comprised entirely of areas that are not currently contained within the CBRS. There are 11 total proposed units in Delaware.
The proposed boundaries for Delaware would remove 113 acres from the CBRS (84 acres of fastland and 29 acres of associated aquatic habitat) and add approximately 31,216 acres to the CBRS (996 acres of fastland and 30,220 acres of associated aquatic habitat). The proposed boundaries would remove 41 structures from the CBRS and add approximately 10 structures to the CBRS.
The Service has prepared comprehensively revised proposed boundaries for all of the 86 existing CBRS units in Massachusetts. Two
The proposed boundaries for Massachusetts would remove 304 acres from the CBRS (162 acres of fastland and 142 acres of associated aquatic habitat) and add 32,881 acres to the CBRS (2,778 acres of fastland and 30,103 acres of associated aquatic habitat). The proposed boundaries would remove 168 structures from the CBRS and add 80 structures to the CBRS.
There are currently no existing CBRS units in New Hampshire. The Service identified one proposed new unit in New Hampshire. The proposed boundaries for this unit would add 679 acres to the CBRS (121 acres of fastland and 558 acres of associated aquatic habitat). The proposed boundaries would add five structures to the CBRS (these structures are all park-related).
The Service has prepared comprehensively revised proposed boundaries for 18 of the 24 existing CBRS units in New Jersey. The map for the remaining six New Jersey units (Units NJ-02/NJ-02P, NJ-03P, NJ-04, NJ-15P, and NJ-16P) was comprehensively reviewed and revised by the Service and adopted by Congress in 2016. The Service identified nine proposed new units in New Jersey. One of the nine proposed new units is comprised mostly of areas that are currently contained within the CBRS, but are proposed for reclassification from System Unit to OPA or vice-versa. Eight of the nine proposed new units are comprised entirely of areas that are not currently contained within the CBRS. Five of the existing 18 units are proposed for reclassification from System Unit to OPA or vice-versa, and therefore their current unit numbers are retired, resulting in 22 total proposed units.
The proposed boundaries for New Jersey would remove 140 acres from the CBRS (125 acres of fastland and 15 acres of associated aquatic habitat) and add 71,492 acres to the CBRS (2,156 acres of fastland and 69,336 acres of associated aquatic habitat). The proposed boundaries remove 62 structures from the CBRS and add 104 structures to the CBRS.
The draft revised boundaries for Delaware, Massachusetts, and New Jersey, and the proposed new unit in New Hampshire, would make additions to the CBRS, including the creation of 36 new units that are consistent with a directive in section 4 of Public Law 109-226 concerning recommendations for expansion of the CBRS. The proposed boundaries are based upon the best data available to the Service at the time the areas were reviewed. Our assessment indicated that any new areas proposed for addition to the CBRS were relatively undeveloped at the time the proposed boundaries were created.
Section 2 of Public Law 106-514 requires that we consider the following criteria when assessing the development status of a potential addition to the CBRS: (1) Whether the density of development is less than one structure per 5 acres of land above mean high tide (which generally suggests eligibility for inclusion within the CBRS); and (2) whether there is existing infrastructure consisting of a road, with a reinforced road bed, to each lot or building site in the area; a wastewater disposal system sufficient to serve each lot or building site in the area; electric service for each lot or building site in the area; and a fresh water supply for each lot or building site in the area (which generally suggests ineligibility for inclusion within the CBRS).
If, upon review of the proposed boundaries, interested parties find that any areas proposed for addition to the CBRS are currently developed (according to the criteria codified by section 2 of Pub. L. 106-514), they may submit supporting documentation of such development to the Service during this public comment period. For any areas proposed for addition to the CBRS, we will consider the density of development and level of infrastructure on-the-ground as of the close of the comment period on the date listed in the
Section 4 of Public Law 109-226 requires the Secretary to provide an opportunity for the submission of public comments. We invite the public to review and comment on the proposed CBRS boundaries for the Delaware, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New Jersey units listed in Appendix A. The Service is specifically notifying the following stakeholders concerning the availability of the proposed boundaries: The Chair and Ranking Member of the House of Representatives Committee on Natural Resources; the Chair and Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works; the members of the Senate and House of Representatives for the affected areas; the Governors of Delaware, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New Jersey; organizations that own land held for conservation and/or recreation within the existing and proposed units (where such ownership information and mailing addresses were publicly available); and other appropriate Federal, State, and local officials, and nongovernmental organizations.
Interested parties may submit written comments and accompanying data as described in the
Following the close of the comment period, we will review all comments received on the proposed boundaries and make adjustments to the boundaries, as appropriate, based on information received through public comments, updated aerial imagery, CBRA criteria, and objective mapping protocols. We will then prepare final recommended boundaries to be submitted to Congress. The final recommended boundaries will become effective only if they are adopted by Congress through legislation.
In the past, the Service has produced static PDFs of draft maps depicting proposed changes to the CBRS. However, in an effort to reduce costs, increase efficiency, and provide a more user-friendly interface for the public to view the proposed changes, the Service has created an online “CBRS Projects Mapper” to display the proposed CBRS boundaries in lieu of static PDFs of the draft maps. The online mapper creates greater transparency in the public review process, allowing users to zoom in further and obtain more detailed information about the type of change that is proposed for a specific area (
The CBRS Projects Mapper and unit summaries (containing historical changes and proposed changes to the individual units) can be accessed from the Service's website at
Additionally, a stakeholder outreach toolkit (comprised of project fact sheets, flyers for the virtual public meetings, and other information about the project) will be made available to local officials upon request. Local officials may use this toolkit to increase awareness of the project and the virtual public meetings within the community. Local officials may contact the individual identified in the
Interested parties who are unable to access the proposed boundaries or other information online may contact the individual identified in the
We will hold the following public meetings via webcast and teleconference only. The purpose of the meetings is to give the public an overview of the Hurricane Sandy Remapping Project and to offer an opportunity for questions and answers regarding the proposed changes to the CBRS units listed in Appendix A.
These webcast meetings are open to the public. To ensure that enough call-in lines are available, we request that participants register by emailing
Below are the affected units for each state, including unit number, unit name, county, and the status of the unit (
This document was received for publication by the Office of the Federal Register on March 7, 2018.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
March 1, 2018.
Nathanael Comly (202-205-3174), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
Effective August 28, 2017, the Commission established a general schedule for the conduct of the final phase of its investigations on biodiesel,
The Commission's supplemental schedule is as follows: the deadline for filing supplemental party comments on Commerce's final determinations is March 14, 2018; the staff report in the final phase of these investigations will be placed in the nonpublic record on March 23, 2018; and a public version will be issued thereafter.
Supplemental party comments may address only Commerce's final antidumping duty determinations regarding of biodiesel from Argentina and Indonesia. These supplemental final comments may not contain new factual information and may not exceed five (5) pages in length.
For further information concerning these investigations see the Commission's notice cited above and the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207).
This investigation is being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.21 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
On the basis of the record
Pursuant to section 207.18 of the Commission's rules, the Commission also gives notice of the commencement of the final phase of its investigations. The Commission will issue a final phase notice of scheduling, which will be published in the
On January 17, 2018, American Cast Iron Pipe Company, Birmingham, Alabama; Berg Steel Pipe Corp., Panama City, Florida; Berg Spiral Pipe Corp., Mobile, Alabama; Dura-Bond Industries, Inc., Export, Pennsylvania; Skyline Steel, Newington, Virginia; and Stupp Corporation, Baton Rouge, Louisiana filed a petition with the Commission and Commerce, alleging that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of subsidized imports of LDWP from China, India, Korea, and Turkey and LTFV imports of LDWP from Canada, China, Greece, India, Korea, and Turkey. Accordingly, effective January 17, 2018, the Commission, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 733(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b(a) and 1673b(a)), instituted countervailing duty investigation Nos. 701-TA-593-596 and antidumping duty investigation Nos. 731-TA-1401-1406 (Preliminary).
Notice of the institution of the Commission's investigations and of a public conference to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the
The Commission made these determinations pursuant to sections 703(a) and 733(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b(a) and 1673b(a)). It completed and filed its determinations in these investigations on March 6, 2018. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4768 (March 2018), entitled
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at
The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of Fraen Corporation on March 6, 2018. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain LED lighting devices and components thereof. The complaint names as respondents: Chauvet & Sons, Inc. of Sunrise, FL; ADJ Products, LLC of Los Angeles, CA; Elation Lighting, Inc. of Los Angeles, CA; Golden Sea Professional Equipment Co. Ltd. of China; Artfox USA, Inc. of City of Industry, CA; Artfox Electronics Co., Ltd. of China; Guangzhou Chaiyi Light Co., Ltd. d/b/a Fine Art Lighting Co., Ltd. of China; Guangzhou Xuanyi Lighting Co., Ltd. d/b/a XY E-Shine of China; Guangzhou Flystar Lighting Technology Co., Ltd. of China; and Wuxi ChangSheng Special Lighting Apparatus Factory d/b/a Roccer of China. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a general exclusion order, a limited exclusion order, cease and desist orders and impose a bond upon respondents' alleged infringing articles during the 60-day Presidential review period pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j).
Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five (5) pages in length, inclusive of attachments, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.
Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to § 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3299) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
By order of the Commission.
Notice is hereby given that, on January 31, 2018, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the identities of the parties are: 908 Devices Inc., Boston, MA; AeroClave, LLC, Winter Park, FL; Alakai Defense Systems, Inc., Largo, FL; Alion Science and Technology, Burr Ridge, IL; Applied Research Associates (ARA), Albuquerque, NM; APTIM Federal Services, LLC, Alexandria, VA; Arete Associates, Northridge, CA; Avon, Protection Systems, Inc., Belcamp, MD; Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, OH; Bill Baugh Associates, LLC, Millersville, MD; Blue Force Consulting, Westminster, MD; Booz Allen Hamilton, McLean, VA; Brimrose Technology Corp. Sparks, MD; Broadway Analytical, LLC, Monmouth, IL; Bruker Detection Corporation, Billerica, MA; Celina Tent Incorporated, Celina, OH; ChemImage Sensor Systems, Pittsburgh, PA; Chemring Sensors and Electronic Systems, Inc. Charlotte, NC; CogniTech Corporation, Salt Lake City, UT; Corvid Technologies, Mooresville, NC; Creare, LLC, Hanover, NH; D. Wheatley Enterprises, Inc., Belcamp, MD; DCS Corporation, Alexandria, VA; Defense Architecture Systems (DAS), Oxon Hill, MD; Domenix Corporation dba Relevant Technology, Chantilly, VA; Dynamis, Inc., Fairfax, VA; DynPort Vaccine Company LLC, a CSRA Company, Frederick, MD; El Dorado Engineering Inc., West Jordan, UT; ENSCO, Inc., Falls Church, VA; EOIR Technologies, Inc., Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD; Excet, Inc., Springfield, VA; EZ-A Consulting, LLC, Bel Air, MD; Federal Fabrics-Fibers, Lowell, MA; Federal Resources Supply, Stevensville, MD; First Line Technology, Chantilly, VA; FLIR Detection, Inc., Stillwater, OK; FORSUGO Hi-Cell, Inc., Marrero, LA; Georgia Tech Applied Research Corporation, Atlanta, GA; GeoVax, Inc., Smyrna, GA; Guild Associates, Inc., Dublin, OH; Hamilton Sundstrand Corp, UTC Aerospace Systems (UTAS), Pomona, CA; HDT Expeditionary Systems, Inc., Fredericksburg, VA; Immediate Response Technologies DBA AirBoss Defense, Landover, MD; Innovative Emergency Management, Inc. (IEM), Morrisville, NC; Integrity Consulting Engineering and Security Solutions (ICESS), Purcellville, VA; Intelagard, Lafayette, CO; Intelligent Optical Systems, Inc., Torrance, CA; Intelligent System Support, Austin, TX; INTUITIVE, Huntsville, AL; IS4S (Integrated Systems for Solutions), Huntsville, AL; iSense, LLC, Mountain View, CA; ITL LLC DBA ITL Solutions, Hampton, VA; JGW Group, Reston, VA; Joint Research and Development (JRAD), Belcamp, MD; Kiple Acquisition Science Technology Logistics & Engineering, Inc. (KASTLE), Forest Hill, MD; Knowledge Based Systems (KBSI), College Station, TX; Lealaps Consulting, LLC, Arlington, VA; Leidos, Inc., Abingdon, MD; Management Services Group, Inc., dba Global Technical Systems, Virginia Beach, VA; Mapp Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., San Diego, CA; MaXentric Technologies, LLC, Fort Lee, NJ; MESH, Inc., Oxford, PA; Microcosm, Torrance, CA; MQM Solutions, Inc., Cleveland, OH; Murtech, Inc., Glen Burnie, MD; National Strategic Research Institute (NSRI), Omaha, NE; North Carolina A & T (NC A&T), Greensboro, NC; Offset Strategic Services, Fayetteville, TN; Patricio Enterprises, Inc., Stafford, VA; Pendar Technologies, LLC, Cambridge, MA; Production Products Mfg. & Sales Co., Inc., St Louis, MO; QuickFlex, Inc., San Antonio, TX; QuickSilver Analytics, Inc., Hampstead, NC; Rigaku Analytical Devices, Inc., Wilmington, MA; SAAB Defense and Security, East Syracuse, NY; SciTech Services, Inc., Havre de Grace, MD; Scott Technologies, Monroe, NC; Signature Science, LLC, Austin, TX; SigNet Technologies, Cary, NC; Smiths Detection Inc., Edgewood, MD; Southwest Research Institute (SWRI), San Antonio, TX; Spectral Sensor Solutions, LLC, Herndon, VA; Streamline Automation, Huntsville, AL; Synertex, LLC, Purcellville, VA; T2S, LLC, Belcamp, MD; Tennessee Apparel Corp., Tullahoma, CO; Terminal Horizon Operations and Resourcing (THOR), St Petersburg, FL; The Tauri Group, Inc., Alexandria, VA; TIAX LLC, Lexington, MA; Universal Stabilization Technologies, Inc., San Diego, CA; University of Florida, Gainesville, FL; URS Federal Services, Inc., an AECOM Company, Germantown, MD; UTS Systems LLC, Fort Walton Beach, FL; Vaporsens, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT; Veterans Corps of America (VCA), O'Fallon, IL; Vibratess, LLC., Charlottesville, VA.
The general area of the CWMD Consortium's planned activity is facilitating the provision of technologies related to research, development, acquisition, fielding and life-cycle support for the following (non-inclusive) capability areas: CBRNE counter-proliferation, nonproliferation, and defense equipment; Installation and force protection; Command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C4ISR) systems for WMD detection, localization, identification, and tracking and CBRNE response operations; Technologies that support the find, fix, finish, exploit, analyze, and disseminate (F3EAD) process; Preparing for and combatting improvised threats and the improvised explosive device network; WMD precursor, agent, and device defeat or neutralization; Ensuring nuclear deterrence; Manned and unmanned platforms capable of supporting CWMD operations; Technologies that enhance the effectiveness of forces that are tasked to conduct CWMD operations; and Other operations related to the CWMD mission.
Notice is hereby given that, on January 26, 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 AIM Photonics intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On June 16, 2016, AIM Photonics 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 25, 2017. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on January 18, 2018, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, CUBRC, Inc., Buffalo, NY; GeoVax, Inc., Smyrna, GA; KIYATEC, Inc., Greenville, SC; Manzanita Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Woodside, CA; Spherium Biomed SL, Barcelona, SPAIN, and Weinberg Medical Physics LLC, North Bethesda, MD; 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 MTEC intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On May 9, 2014, MTEC 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 February 15, 2018, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, Tohei Industrial Co., Ltd., Fukushima-ken, JAPAN; Skypine Electronics (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., Shenzhen City, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; PitsExpert Technology Co., Ltd., Taipei, TAIWAN; Jiangmen Simon Electronics Co., Ltd., Jiangmen, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; Cinram GmbH, Olyphant, PA; Societe Nouvelle Areacem (S.N.A.), Tourouvre, FRANCE; and Ziotech Corp., Chino, CA, 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 DVD CCA intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On April 11, 2001, DVD CCA 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 21, 2017. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on January 31, 2018, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, Advanced Design Consulting USA, Inc., Lansing, NY; Decision Sciences, Inc., Fort Walton Beach, FL; Enable Tech MFG, LLC, Houston, TX; Evigia Systems, Inc., Ann Arbor, MI; Excet, Inc., Springfield, VA; Grey Castle Group, LLC, Charlotte, NC; Gunwright Technologies LLC, Gilbert, AZ; Infoscitex Corporation, Waltham, MA; ManTech Advanced Systems International, Inc., Fairfax, VA; MILSPRAY, LLC, Lakewood, NJ; PolyCase Ammunition, LLC, Savannah, GA; Polymer Aging Concepts, Inc., Dahlonega, GA; R2C Support Services, Huntsville, AL; Schafer Aerospace, Inc., Albuquerque, NM; Technical Professional Services, Inc., Wayland, MI; The Regents of the University of California, Irvine, CA; and Transparent Armor Solutions, Inc., Santa Ana, CA, 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 NAC intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On May 2, 2000, NAC 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 24, 2017. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on February 8, 2018, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, 24 Learning Beijing Hua Fang Ji Ye Technology Co., Ltd., Beijing, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; ARCHIT v/Lise Gerd Pedersen, Valby, DENMARK; Azeemi Technologies, Riyadh, SAUDI ARABIA; Cirrus Link Solutions, L.L.C., Spring Hill, KS; Combitech AS, Lysaker, NORWAY; CSC, Waltham, MA; Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology (DUSD A&T), Arlington, VA; Equinox IT, Wellington, NEW ZEALAND; Front Metrics Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Pune, INDIA; Institute for Information Industry, Taipei, TAIWAN; Kaman Precision Products, Middletown, CT; Knowledgecom Corporation Sdn. Bhd., Petaling Jaya, MALAYSIA; McLeod Consultancy Pty. Ltd., Canberra, AUSTRALIA; NxGN Pty. Ltd., Johannesburg, SOUTH AFRICA; nxtControl GmbH, Leobersdorf, AUSTRIA; and Origin Energy, Sydney, AUSTRALIA, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
In addition, Prism Tech has changed its name to Ampro ADLINK Technology, Inc., Woburn, MA.
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 TOG intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On April 21, 1997, TOG 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 26, 2017. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on January 25, 2018, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, Codefresh, Inc., Palo Alto, 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 Node.js Foundation intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On August 17, 2015, Node.js Foundation 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 26, 2017. A notice was published in the
National Science Foundation.
Notification of extension of comment period.
The National Science Foundation published a notice on January 5, 2018, seeking inputs from the public on establishing space weather research priorities to address Action 5.5.1 in the National Space Weather Action Plan. The original comment date was to end on March 6, 2018.
Comments on this notice will now be accepted through April 6, 2018.
Comments on the on space weather research priorities may be submitted in writing through April 6, 2018 to
Contact Michael Wiltberger at (703) 292-8519, or email to
On October 29, 2015, the White House OSTP released the National Space Weather Strategy (NSWS) and Space Weather Action Plan (SWAP). The NSWS identifies several key goals in specific areas of space weather research and operations to make the national critical infrastructure and technologies resilient to space weather events. The NSWS also calls for improving national space-weather services through advancing fundamental understanding of the underlying physical processes and their forecasting. The SWAP document, which accompanied NSWS, specifies actions to develop and continually improve predictive models through enhanced fundamental understanding of space weather and its drivers. In particular, the SWAP Action 5.5.1 directed NSF, NASA, DOC and DOD with documenting priorities for research and development (R&D) efforts to enhance the fundamental understanding of space weather and its drivers and to improve space weather forecasting capabilities.
Forecasting space weather depends on understanding the fundamental processes that give rise to hazardous events. Continued support for basic research in solar and space physics is essential to achieve the level of understanding required for accurate predictions. Particularly important is the study of processes that link the Sun-Earth system and that control the flow of energy within the coupled system.
Space weather science as a discipline is still in its nascent phase. There exist significant gaps in the fundamental understanding of many physical processes and coupling mechanisms underpinning various space weather phenomena. This poses a major limiting factor for improving space weather prediction, including some of the most important and immediate operational needs. It is, therefore, essential to continue untargeted investments in basic research into areas that in unforeseeable ways can lead to a better understanding of the physical processes that drive space weather.
High priority space weather research topics and linkages to the SWAP Benchmarks (Goal 1) were assessed by the 5.5.1 interagency working group. The SWAP benchmarks are a set of physical characteristics and conditions against which a space-weather event can be measured. They describe the nature and intensity of extreme space-weather events, providing a point of reference from which to improve understanding of space-weather effects. Addressing research that would advance our physical understanding of the phenomenology behind these benchmarks will ultimately improve our predictive capability necessary for operational advancements.
Successful execution of Action 5.5.1 requires definitions of research priorities in the context of benchmarks identified by NSWS Goal 1. An interagency working group developed the first set of priorities in fulfillment of this task. To ensure that an optimal list of priorities is generated, which could benefit all interested parties including Federal agencies, state and local governments, universities, policy groups, and the private sector, the broader community must weigh in. This RFI requests public comments to SWAP
This RFI seeks inputs from the research community on setting research priorities, which will then be used as guidance by various concerned agencies in planning for space weather related research programs. Examples of space weather research topics include ionospheric irregularities and structure, thermospheric neutral density and neutral wind response to external drivers, forecasting of GICs, radiation belt dynamics, SEP events, flare and CME initiation and propagation, forecasting of EUV and proxy F10.7, predictions of ICME amplitudes and directions, magnetosphere-ionosphere coupling during space weather events, etc.
The specific objective of this RFI is to seek information that will assist the Action 5.5.1 Working Group in determining a list of space weather research priorities.
Over the next 5 to 10 years it is imperative to:
Weeks of March 12, 19, 26, April 2, 9, 16, 2018.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and Closed.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of March 12, 2018.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of March 19, 2018.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of March 26, 2018.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of April 16, 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 you may email
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Regulatory guide; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing Revision 1 to Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.158, “Qualification of Safety-Related Vented Lead-Acid Storage Batteries for Nuclear Power Plants.” RG 1.158 endorses (with clarifying regulatory positions) the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Standard (Std.) 535-2013, “IEEE Standard for Qualification of Class 1E Vented Lead Acid Storage Batteries for Nuclear Power Generating Stations.” IEEE 535-2013 contains procedures for qualifying batteries with duty cycles of less than 8 hours and also for batteries with duty cycles longer than 8 hours.
Revision 1 to RG 1.158 is available on March 12, 2018.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0130 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Regulatory guides are not copyrighted, and NRC approval is not required to reproduce them.
Lilliana Ramadan, telephone: 301-415-2463, email:
The NRC is issuing a revision to an existing guide 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 agency's regulations, techniques that the NRC staff uses in evaluating specific issues or postulated events, and data that the NRC staff needs in its review of applications for permits and licenses.
Revision 1 of RG 1.158 was issued with a temporary identification of Draft Regulatory Guide, DG-1338. This revision provides updated guidance on the methods and type-test procedures for two different battery applications. One application is for batteries with duty cycles equal to or less than 8 hours and the other application is for batteries with duty cycles longer than 8 hours. The 2013 revision of IEEE Std. 535 provides a qualification process for both applications to ensure battery performance and provides a normative annex with example testing regimens. The NRC staff determined that RG 1.158 should be revised to endorse the 2013 version of IEEE Std. 535 to support new reactor license applications, design certifications, and applications for license amendments.
The NRC published a notice of the availability of DG-1338 in the
This RG is a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808). However, the Office of Management and Budget has not found it to be a major rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act.
Revision 1 to RG 1.158 endorses, with certain clarifications, the 2013 revision of IEEE Std. 535 which refines the methods and type-test procedures for two different battery applications. One application is for batteries with duty cycles equal to or less than 8 hours and the other application is for batteries with duty cycles longer than 8 hours. The 2013 revision of IEEE Std. 535 demonstrates and outlines the qualifying process for both applications to ensure battery performance. It also provides a comprehensive document for qualifying batteries with additional normative annexes.
Issuance of Revision 1 to RG 1.158 does not constitute backfitting as defined in 10 CFR 50.109 (the Backfit Rule) and is not otherwise inconsistent with the issue finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52, “Licenses, Certifications and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants.” The subject of this regulatory guide, as described above, is an NRC-defined process which does not fall within the purview of subjects covered by either the Backfit Rule or the issue finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License termination; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is providing public notice of the termination of Special Nuclear Materials (SNM) License No. SNM-2018. The NRC has terminated the license held by Rapiscan Laboratories, Inc. to possess and use SNM for research, development, and evaluation of Non-Intrusive Inspection Systems for the Transformational and Applied Research Directorate division of the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
The license termination for SNM-2018 was issued on October 20, 2017.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2011-0232 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Tyrone D. Naquin, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-7352; email:
The NRC has terminated License No. SNM-2018, held by Rapiscan Laboratories, Inc. (Rapiscan), for a site in Sunnyvale, California. Rapiscan was contracted by the DHS to conduct a research program for the development of new technologies that are capable of detecting SNM. The program includes utilizing SNM placed inside fully loaded cargo containers and other concealments during testing of proprietary equipment to determine if it can locate SNM sources placed inside containers when surrounded by the cargo. The materials used consisted of Low Enriched Uranium and High Enriched Uranium constructed for DHS. The SNM was encapsulated consistent with sealed source requirements or plated in 3 to 5 millimeters of nickel and was not dispersible or soluble. The sources used under this license were constructed by and owned by the Department of Energy, who retains ownership.
The initial application for this license was received on October 22, 2010 and license was issued on September 24, 2012. Rapiscan notified the Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards on February 17, 2017 that testing was completed. An application to terminate the license was received on May 12, 2017. Rapiscan's use of the licensed materials was for conducting only non-destructive experiments utilizing sealed SNM and therefore, consistent with part 51.22(c)(14)(v) of title 10 of the
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) accession numbers as indicated.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The ACRS Subcommittee on NuScale will hold a meeting on March 21, 2018, at 11545 Rockville Pike, Room T-2B1, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
The meeting will be open to public attendance The meetings will be open to public attendance with the exception of portions that may be closed to protect information that is proprietary pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4). The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
The Subcommittee will discuss the AREVA Topical Report ANP-10337, “PWR Fuel Assembly Structural Response to Externally Applied Dynamic Excitations.” The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with the NRC staff, Framatome staff and other interested persons regarding this matter. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the Full Committee.
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official (DFO), Michael Snodderly (Telephone 301-415-2241 or Email:
Detailed meeting agendas and meeting transcripts are available on the NRC website at
If attending this meeting, please enter through the One White Flint North building, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. After registering with Security, please contact Mr. Theron Brown (Telephone 301-415-6702 or 301-415-8066) to be escorted to the meeting room.
Office of Personnel Management.
30-Day notice and request for comments.
The Federal Employee Insurance Operations (FEIO), Healthcare & Insurance, Office of Personnel Management (OPM) offers the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a reinstatement with change of an expired information collection, Life Insurance Election, SF 2817.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until April 11, 2018.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of Personnel Management or sent via electronic mail to
A copy of this information collection, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting the Retirement Services Publications Team, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW, Room 3316-L, Washington, DC 20415, Attention: Cyrus S. Benson, or sent via electronic mail to
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35) as amended by the Clinger-Cohen Act (Pub. L. 104-106), OPM is soliciting comments for this collection. The information collection (OMB No. 3206-0230) was previously published in the
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Standard Form 2817 is used by federal employees and assignees (those who have acquired control of an employee/annuitant's coverage through an assignment or “transfer” of the ownership of the life insurance). Clearance of this form for use by active Federal employees is not required according to Paperwork Reduction Act. Therefore, only the use of this form by assignees,
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 350l
Rule 17f-2 (17 CFR 270.17f-2), entitled “Custody of Investments by Registered Management Investment Company,” was adopted in 1940 under section 17(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-17(f)) (the “Act”), and was last amended materially in 1947. Rule 17f-2 establishes safeguards for arrangements in which a registered management investment company (“fund”) is deemed to maintain custody of its own assets, such as when the fund maintains its assets in a facility that provides safekeeping but not custodial services.
Rule 17f-2's requirement that directors designate access persons is intended to ensure that directors evaluate the trustworthiness of insiders who handle fund assets. The requirements that access persons act jointly in handling fund assets, prepare a written notation of each transaction, and transmit the notation to another designated person are intended to reduce the risk of misappropriation of fund assets by access persons, and to ensure that adequate records are prepared, reviewed by a responsible third person, and available for examination by the Commission. The requirement that auditors verify fund assets without notice twice each year is intended to provide an additional deterrent to the misappropriation of fund assets and to detect any irregularities.
The Commission staff estimates that each fund makes 974 responses and spends an average of 252 hours annually in complying with the rule's requirements.
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. Complying with the collections of information required by rule 17f-2 is mandatory for those funds that maintain custody of their own assets. Responses will not be kept confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549; or send an email to:
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to a proposed rule change to clarify certain terms used in the Schedule of Fees, and to make certain other non-substantive changes to the 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 clarify certain terms used in the Schedule of Fees, and to make certain other non-substantive changes to the Schedule of Fees. These proposed changes are designed to make it easier to understand how the Exchange charges fees under the Schedule of Fees, and have no impact on the actual fees charged to members, which will remain unchanged. While the Exchange believes that its members understand the concepts being clarified in this proposed rule change, which have been included in the Schedule of Fees in some cases since the Exchange began aggregating volume from affiliated/appointed firms in 2016,
First, the Exchange proposes to adopt explicit definitions for the following terms: (1) Market Maker, (2) Affiliated Member, and (3) Appointed Member. As proposed, a “Market Maker” is a market maker as defined in Nasdaq MRX Rule 100(a)(30); an “Affiliated Member” is a Member that shares at least 75% common ownership with a particular Member as reflected on the Member's Form BD, Schedule A;
Second, the Exchange proposes to amend language under the Qualifying Tier Thresholds section of the Schedule of Fees to reference more explicitly how the Exchange aggregates volume executed by Affiliated Members and Appointed Members for purposes of various average daily volume (“ADV”) categories. Currently, this section contains bullets that describe “Total Affiliated Priority Customer ADV” and “Total Affiliated Member ADV,” and separate bullets that describe how the Exchange aggregates this volume with Appointed Members. The Exchange now proposes to incorporate the Appointed Member concept into the bullets that define these ADV categories by adding the words “and/or Appointed” to the ADV category descriptions, and including language that indicates that these categories include volume executed by Affiliated Members and/or Appointed Members, which will be aggregated with the Member's volume in the manner described in the Schedule of Fees. In connection with these changes, the Exchange proposes to indicate that these terms “mean” rather than “include” the ADV described in the bullets to reinforce that no other volume is included in these calculations. In addition, the Exchange proposes to remove language indicating that volume executed in the PIM, Facilitation, and QCC mechanisms is included in the ADV category based on Priority Customer volume, as the current language already indicates that all Priority Customer volume in all symbols and order types is included.
Third, the Exchange proposes non-substantive changes to the defined terms “Nasdaq MRX Appointed Market Maker,” “Nasdaq MRX Appointed Order Flow Provider,” and “Flash Order.” Nasdaq MRX Appointed Market Maker and Nasdaq MRX Appointed Order Flow Provider will now be
Fourth, the Exchange proposes to update references to the “Fee Schedule” with the correct title of that document, which is the “Schedule of Fees,” and to use all of the defined terms described in this filing where applicable throughout the Schedule of Fees. In addition, the Exchange proposes to add language that indicates that other terms not defined in the Schedule of Fees shall have the meaning ascribed to them under Nasdaq MRX Rules. The Exchange believes that the addition of this language will aid members in interpreting the Schedule of Fees, which currently uses certain terms that are defined in Nasdaq MRX Rules—
Finally, the Exchange proposes to eliminate an obsolete reference to footnote 3 under Section I, Table 2, which is currently marked “Reserved,” and to add the word “instead” to footnote 2 under Section I, Table 1 to reinforce that the taker fees described in that footnote would apply instead of the regular taker fees described in Table 1. With respect to the former change, footnote 1 under Section I, Table 2 contains language stating that fees,
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory to adopt explicit definitions of “Market Maker,” “Affiliated Member,” and “Appointed Member.” The term “Market Maker” is already used throughout the Schedule of Fees and will refer to related definitions already included in the Exchange's rules. And the terms “Affiliated Member” and “Appointed Member” are based on current language in the Qualifying Tier Thresholds section of the Schedule of Fees. Specifically, the “Affiliated Member” definition replaces language that indicates how the Exchange aggregates volume from affiliates that meet the specified common ownership requirements, and the term “Appointed Member” refers to two types of Members that can agree to have their volume aggregated in the manner described in the Schedule of Fees.
The Exchange believes that the proposes changes related to Total Affiliated and/or Appointed Priority Customer ADV and Total Affiliated and/or Appointed Member ADV are reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory as they reinforce the fact that volume executed by Appointed Members may be aggregated in the manner described in the Qualifying Tier Thresholds section of the Schedule of Fees. Although this is an existing concept described in the Schedule of Fees, the Exchange believes that including all of this information in the bullets that describe these ADV categories will make the Schedule of Fees easier for Members to follow. Furthermore, the other changes being proposed to these categories—including removing unnecessary references to volume executed in the PIM, Facilitation, and QCC mechanisms, and using the word “means”—are non-substantive changes designed to make these descriptions more transparent.
The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to the defined terms “Nasdaq MRX Appointed Market Maker,” “Nasdaq MRX Appointed Order Flow Provider,” and “Flash Order” are reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory. In addition to renaming Nasdaq MRX Appointed Market Maker and Nasdaq MRX Appointed Order Flow Provider to “Appointed Market Maker” and “Appointed Order Flow Provider,” respectively, these definitions will be updated with a proper citation so that members can identify where these terms are described in the Schedule of Fees. In addition, the proposed change to the definition of “Flash Order” is a non-substantive change to the capitalization of a word that is not defined in the Schedule of Fees.
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory to update references to the “Fee Schedule” with the correct title of that document, which is the “Schedule of Fees,” and to use all of the defined terms described in this filing where applicable throughout the Schedule of Fees as these changes are meant to ensure that defined terms are used consistently in the Schedule of Fees. Furthermore, the Exchange believes that it is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory add language that indicates that other terms not defined in the Schedule of Fees shall have the meaning ascribed to them under Nasdaq MRX Rules. Certain definitions contained in the Nasdaq MRX Rules are used in the Schedule of Fees, and the Exchange believes that adding this reference to the Schedule of Fees will alert members to this fact. With this change, the Exchange will also use the defined term “Member” throughout the Schedule of Fees to indicate that the Exchange is using the defined term contained in the Nasdaq MRX Rules.
Finally, the Exchange believes that it is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory to eliminate the reference to footnote 3 under Section I, Table 2, and to add the word “instead” to footnote 2 under Section I, Table 1. The former change removes an obsolete reference to a footnote that is now marked “Reserved.” The latter reinforces that the taker fees described in that footnote would apply instead of the regular taker fees described in Table
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any impact on competition as the proposed changes would merely clarify the Schedule of Fees by, among other things, adopting explicit definitions for certain common terms, and making other non-substantive changes. No changes to the actual fees charged to market participants are proposed, and members will continue to be charged the same fees as they are assessed under the Schedule of Fees today.
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 January 12, 2018, the Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (“FICC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) advance notice SR-FICC-2018-801 (“Advance Notice”) pursuant to Section 806(e)(1) of Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, entitled the Payment, Clearing, and Settlement Supervision Act of 2010 (“Clearing Supervision Act”)
Section 806(e)(1)(G) of the Clearing Supervision Act provides that FICC may implement the changes if it has not received an objection to the proposed changes within 60 days of the later of (i) the date that the Commission receives the Advance Notice or (ii) the date that any additional information requested by the Commission is received,
Pursuant to Section 806(e)(1)(H) of the Clearing Supervision Act, the Commission may extend the review period of an advance notice for an additional 60 days, if the changes proposed in the advance notice raise novel or complex issues, subject to the Commission providing the clearing agency with prompt written notice of the extension.
Here, as the Commission has not requested any additional information, the date that is 60 days after FICC filed the Advance Notice with the Commission is March 13, 2018. However, the Commission finds the Advance Notice complex because FICC proposes to make detailed, substantial, and numerous changes to the GSD margin calculation. Therefore, the Commission finds it appropriate to extend the review period of the Advance Notice for an additional 60 days under Section 806(e)(1)(H) of the Clearing Supervision Act.
Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 806(e)(1)(H) of the Clearing Supervision Act,
By the Commission.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold an Open Meeting on Wednesday, March 14, 2018, at 10:30 a.m.
The meeting will be held in Auditorium LL-002 at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
This meeting will begin at 10:30 a.m. (ET) and will be open to the public. Seating will be on a first-come, first-served basis. Visitors will be subject to security checks. The meeting will be webcast on the Commission's website at
The subject matters of the Open Meeting will be the Commission's consideration of:
• Whether to propose a rule under Regulation NMS to conduct a Transaction Fee Pilot in NMS stocks.
• Whether to propose amendments to Form N-PORT and Form N-1A related to disclosures of liquidity risk management for open end management investment companies.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.
For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed; please contact Brent J. Fields from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
Acting under the authority of and in accordance with section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, as amended by Executive Order 13268 of July 2, 2002, and Executive Order 13284 of January 23, 2003, I hereby determine that the person known as Ahmad Iman Ali, also known as Sheikh Ahmed Iman Ali, also known as Shaykh Ahmad Iman Ali, also known as Ahmed Iman Ali, also known as Abu Zinira, committed, or poses a significant risk of committing, acts of terrorism that threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.
Consistent with the determination in section 10 of Executive Order 13224 that prior notice to persons determined to be subject to the Order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States would render ineffectual the blocking and other measures authorized in the Order because of the ability to transfer funds instantaneously, I determine that no prior notice needs to be provided to any person subject to this determination who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, because to do so would render ineffectual the measures authorized in the Order.
This notice shall be published in the
Department of State.
Notice.
A determination has been made pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act and Export Administration Act (as carried out under Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001).
Consistent with section 654(c) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, notice is hereby given that the Secretary of State has made a determination pursuant to Section 73 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2797b) and Section 11B(b) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. app. 2410b(b)), as carried out under Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001, and has concluded that publication of the determination would be harmful to the national security of the United States.
Acting under the authority of and in accordance with section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, as amended by Executive Order
This notice shall be published in the
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that a certain object to be included in the exhibition “Cagnacci: Painting Beauty and Death,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, is of cultural significance. The object is imported pursuant to a loan agreement with the foreign owner or custodian. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit object at the Cincinnati Art Museum, Cincinnati, Ohio, from on or about March 23, 2018, until on or about July 22, 2018, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest.
Elliot Chiu in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice.
The FAA is considering a proposal to change approximately 78.902 acres of airport land from aeronautical use to non-aeronautical use of airport property located at Ft. Wayne International, Ft. Wayne, IN. The aforementioned land is not needed for aeronautical use.
Fort Wayne International Airport (FWA) proposes to release approximately 78.902 acres of land located on the northeast corner of existing airport property. The land is located to the east of Keller Road and the west of Ardmore Avenue. The land to be released is comprised of Tract 7, Tract 8, and Tract 9 as described in the survey. The land is owned by the Fort Wayne-Allen County Airport Authority (FWACAA). The property was originally purchased for the purpose of economic development and to enable the Authority to ensure airport compatible development. The Sponsor is proposing to release and ultimately sell or lease these parcels per local zoning regulations. The proposed future use of the land will be for compatible commercial or industrial developments. The sale of these parcels would allow the Sponsor to further financially support airfield improvement projects. Of the tracts proposed for release, none were acquired with FAA Funding.
Comments must be received on or before April 11, 2018.
Documents are available for review by appointment at the FAA Chicago Airports District Office, Rob Esquivel, Program Manager, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60018, Telephone: (847) 294-7340/Fax: (847) 294-7046 and Fort Wayne Allen County Airport Authority, 3801 W. Ferguson Rd., Ste. 209, Fort Wayne, IN 46809, Telephone: (260) 446-3428.
Rob Esquivel, Program Manager, Federal Aviation Administration, Chicago Airports District Office, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Ste. 312 Des Plaines, IL 60018, Telephone: (847) 294-7340/Fax: (847) 294-7046.
In accordance with section 47107(h) of Title 49, United States Code, this notice is required to be published in the
The land is owned by the Fort Wayne-Allen County Airport Authority (FWACAA). The property was originally purchased for the purpose of economic development and to enable the Authority to ensure airport compatible development. The Sponsor is proposing to release and ultimately sell or lease these parcels per local zoning regulations. The proposed future use of the land will be for compatible commercial or industrial developments.
The disposition of proceeds from the sale of the airport property will be in accordance with FAA's Policy and Procedures Concerning the Use of Airport Revenue, published in the
This notice announces that the FAA is considering the release of the subject airport property at the Fort Wayne International Airport, Fort Wayne, IN from federal land covenants, subject to a reservation for continuing right of flight as well as restrictions on the released property as required in FAA Order 5190.6B section 22.16. Approval does not constitute a commitment by the FAA to financially assist in the disposal of the subject airport property
Part of the Southwest Quarter and Southeast Quarter of Section 5, Township 29 North, Range 12 East of the Second Principal Meridian, Pleasant Township in Allen County, Indiana, more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at a 1″ pinched pipe marking the Northeast corner of said Southeast Quarter; thence North 89 degrees 58 minutes 31 seconds West (GPS Grid bearing and basis of bearings to follow), a distance of 689.63 feet (deed) along the North line of said Southeast Quarter to a DuraNail with a “Miller” identification ring set on the centerline of Indianapolis Road; thence continuing North 89 degrees 58 minutes 31 seconds West, a distance of 2864.85 feet along said North line and along the North line of said Southwest Quarter to a 5/8″ steel rebar with a “Miller Firm #0095” identification cap set; thence South 00 degrees 01 minutes 42 seconds West, a distance of 59.40 feet to a DuraNail with a “Miller” identification ring set at the POINT OF BEGINNING of the herein described tract; thence Southeasterly along a curve, concave to the Southwest, having a radius of 308.50 feet, a central angle of 44 degrees 07 minutes 33 seconds, and a chord of 231.76 feet bearing South 67 degrees 43 minutes 14 seconds East to a DuraNail with a “Miller” identification ring set; thence South 45 degrees 39 minutes 27 seconds East, a distance of 1008.91 feet to a DuraNail with a “Miller” identification ring set; thence South 45 degrees 39 minutes 27 seconds East, a distance of 491.92 feet to a DuraNail with a “Miller” identification ring set on a tangent curve, concave to the Northeast, having a radius of 1166.00 feet, a central angle of 12 degrees 15 minutes 31 seconds, and a chord of 249.00 feet bearing South 51 degrees 47 minutes 13 seconds East to a DuraNail with a “Miller” identification ring set; thence South 57 degrees 54 minutes 58 seconds East, a distance of 300.59 feet to a DuraNail with a “Miller” identification ring set; thence South 32 degrees 03 minutes 29 seconds West, a distance of 538.19 feet to a 5/8″ steel rebar with a “Miller Firm #0095” identification cap set; thence North 45 degrees 39 minutes 27 seconds West, a distance of 2730.62 feet to a DuraNail with a “Miller” identification ring set; thence South 89 degrees 47 minutes 01 seconds East, a distance of 500.40 feet to the Point of Beginning. Containing 25.000 Acres, more or less. Subject to easements of record.
Part of the Southwest Quarter and Southeast Quarter of Section 5, Township 29 North, Range 12 East of the Second Principal Meridian, Pleasant Township in Allen County, Indiana, more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at a 1″ pinched pipe marking the Northeast corner of said Southeast Quarter; thence North 89 degrees 58 minutes 31 seconds West (GPS Grid bearing and basis of bearings to follow), a distance of 689.63 feet (deed) along the North line of said Southeast Quarter to a DuraNail with a “Miller” identification ring set on the centerline of Indianapolis Road, said point also being the POINT OF BEGINNING of the herein described tract; thence South 32 degrees 03 minutes 32 seconds West, a distance of 1158.41 feet along said centerline to a DuraNail with a “Miller” identification ring set; thence North 62 degrees 10 minutes 45 seconds West, a distance of 62.09 feet to a DuraNail with a “Miller” identification ring set on a tangent curve, concave to the Northeast, having a radius of 216.00 feet, a central angle of 16 degrees 22 minutes 18 seconds, and a chord of 61.51 feet bearing North 53 degrees 59 minutes 35 seconds West to a DuraNail with a “Miller” identification ring set; thence North 45 degrees 48 minutes 26 seconds West, a distance of 610.87 feet to a DuraNail with a “Miller” identification ring set on a tangent curve, concave to the South, having a radius of 300.00 feet, a central angle of 89 degrees 47 minutes 27 seconds, and a chord of 423.49 feet bearing South 89 degrees 17 minutes 50 seconds West to a DuraNail with a “Miller” identification ring set; thence South 44 degrees 24 minutes 07 seconds West, a distance of 497.18 feet to a DuraNail with a “Miller” identification ring set; thence North 45 degrees 39 minutes 27 seconds West, a distance of 1008.91 feet to a DuraNail with a “Miller” identification ring set on a tangent curve, concave to the Southwest, having a radius of 308.50feet, a central angle of 44 degrees 07 minutes 33 seconds, and a chord of 231.76 feet bearing North 67 degrees 43 minutes 14 seconds West to a DuraNail with a “Miller” identification ring set; thence North 00 degrees 01 minutes 42 seconds East, a distance of 59.40 feet to a 5/8″ steel rebar with a “Miller Firm #0095” identification cap set on the North line of said Southwest Quarter; thence South 89 degrees 58 minutes 31 seconds East, a distance of 2864.85 feet along said North line and along the North line of said Southeast Quarter to the Point of Beginning. Containing 34.606 Acres, more or less. Subject to the right-of-way of Indianapolis Road and subject to easements of record.
Part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 5, Township 29 North, Range 12 East of the Second Principal Meridian, Pleasant Township in Allen County, Indiana, more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at a 1″ pinched pipe marking the Northeast corner of said Southeast Quarter; thence North 89 degrees 58 minutes 31 seconds West (GPS Grid bearing and basis of bearings to follow), a distance of 689.63 feet (deed) along the North line of said Southeast Quarter to a DuraNail with a “Miller” identification ring set on the centerline of Indianapolis Road; thence South 32 degrees 03 minutes 32 seconds West, a distance of 1158.41 feet along said centerline to a DuraNail with a “Miller” identification ring set, said point also being the POINT OF BEGINNING of the herein described tract; thence continuing South 32 degrees 03 minutes 32 seconds West, a distance of 701.53 feet along said centerline to a DuraNail with a “Miller” identification ring set; thence North 78 degrees 06 minutes 46 seconds West, a distance of 48.73 feet to a DuraNail with a “Miller” identification ring set; thence North 57 degrees 54 minutes 58 seconds West, a distance of 108.37 feet to a DuraNail with a “Miller” identification ring set; thence North 57 degrees 54 minutes 58 seconds West, a distance of 300.59 feet to a DuraNail with a “Miller” identification ring set on a tangent curve, concave to the Northeast, having a radius of 1166.00 feet, a central angle of 12 degrees 15 minutes 31 seconds, and a chord of 249.00 feet bearing North 51 degrees 47 minutes 13 seconds West to a DuraNail with a “Miller” identification ring set; thence North 45 degrees 39 minutes 27 seconds West, a distance of 491.92 feet to a DuraNail with a “Miller” identification ring set; thence North 44 degrees 24 minutes 07 seconds East, a distance of 497.18 feet to a DuraNail with a “Miller” identification ring set on a tangent curve, concave to the South, having a radius of 300.00 feet, a central angle of 89 degrees 47 minutes 27 seconds, and a chord of 423.49 feet bearing North 89 degrees 17 minutes 50 seconds East to a DuraNail with a “Miller” identification ring set; thence South 45 degrees 48 minutes 26 seconds East, a distance of 610.87 feet to a DuraNail with a “Miller” identification ring set on a tangent curve, concave to
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval of a new information collection. The
Written comments should be submitted by April 11, 2018.
Interested persons are invited to 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 attention of the Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to
Barbara Hall at (940) 594-5913, or by email at:
Customer Interactions can support the Federal Aviation Administration's mission by allowing the Agency to collect qualitative and quantitative data that can help inform scientific research; aviation assessments and monitoring efforts; validate models or tools; and enhance the quantity and quality of data collected across communities. Customer Interactions also create an avenue to incorporate local knowledge and needs, and can contribute to increased data sharing, open data, and government transparency. The Federal Aviation Administration may sponsor the collection of this type of information in connection with aviation projects. All such collections will follow Agency policies and regulations. If a new collection is not within the parameters of this generic Information Collection Request (ICR), the Agency will submit a separate information collection request to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval.
Collections under this generic ICR will be from volunteers who participate on their own initiative through an open and transparent process; the collections will be low-burden for participants; collections will be low-cost for both the participants and the Federal Government; and data will be available to support the endeavors of the Agency, states, tribal or local entities where data collection occurs.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of petition for exemption received.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before April 2, 2018.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2011-0327 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Michael Harrison, AIR-673, Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057-3356, phone 425-227-2141, email
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval of a new information collection. The
Written comments should be submitted by April 11, 2018.
Interested persons are invited to 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 attention of the Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to
Barbara Hall at (940) 594-5913, or by email at:
Feedback collected under this generic clearance will provide useful information, but it will not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such data uses require more rigorous designs that address: The target population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing potential non-response bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior to fielding the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of petition for exemption received.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before April 2, 2018.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2018-0095 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Deana Stedman, AIR-673, Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057-3356, phone 425-227-2148, email
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. The
Written comments should be submitted by April 11, 2018.
Interested persons are invited to 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 attention of the Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to
Barbara Hall by email at:
This regulation calls for pilots certificated by the FAA to send information regarding Driving Under the Influence (or similar charges) of alcohol or drugs to the FAA within 60 days from either an administrative action against their driver's license and/or criminal conviction. Part of the regulation also calls for the FAA to seek certificate action should an airman be involved in multiple, separate drug/alcohol related motor vehicle incidents within a three-year period. Information sent by the airmen is used to confirm or refute any violations of these regulations, as well as by the Civil Aerospace Medical Institute (CAMI) for medical qualification purposes. Collection by CAMI is covered under a separate OMB control number 2120-0034.
An airman is required to provide a letter via mail or facsimile, with the following information: Name, address, date of birth, pilot certificate number, the type of violation which resulted in the conviction or administrative action, and the state which holds the records or action.
(b) As appropriate, and consistent with applicable law, the Co-Chairs may invite representatives of other agencies and Federal entities to participate in the activities of the Council.
(c) As appropriate, the Co-Chairs may invite representatives of the judicial branch to attend and participate in meetings of the Council.
(d) The Council shall engage with Federal, State, local, and tribal officials, including correctional officials, to carry out its objectives. The Council shall also engage with key stakeholders, such as law enforcement, faith-based and community groups, businesses, associations, volunteers, and other stakeholders that play a role in preventing youths and adults from entering or reentering the criminal justice system.
(e) The Attorney General, in consultation with the Co-Chairs, shall designate an Executive Director, who shall be a full-time officer or employee of the Department of Justice, to coordinate the day-to-day functions of the Council.
(f) The Co-Chairs shall convene a meeting of the Council once per quarter.
(g) The Department of Justice shall provide such funding and administrative support for the Council, to the extent permitted by law and within existing appropriations, as may be necessary for the performance of its functions.
(h) To the extent permitted by law, including the Economy Act (31 U.S.C. 1535), and within existing appropriations, other agencies may detail staff to the Council, or otherwise provide administrative support, in order to advance the Council's functions.
(i) The heads of agencies shall provide, as appropriate and to the extent permitted by law, such assistance and information as the Council may request to implement this order.
(A) inmates' access to education, educational testing, pre-apprenticeships, apprenticeships, career and technical education training, and work programs;
(B) inmates' access to mentors and mentorship services during incarceration and as they transition back into the community;
(C) inmates' access to mental and behavioral health services;
(D) treatment of substance abuse and addiction for inmates;
(E) documented trauma history assessments, victim services, violent crime prevention, community-based trauma-informed programs, and domestic violence and sexual violence support services;
(F) family support for inmates;
(G) available partnerships with law enforcement, faith-based and other community organizations, businesses, associations, and other stakeholders, especially through indirect funding mechanisms; and
(H) incentives for the private sector, small businesses, and other nongovernmental entities to create job opportunities for individuals, before and after they enter the criminal justice system, using existing tax credit programs;
(b) The Council shall develop and present to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy:
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
| 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 |