| Page Range | 51973-52172 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 82 FR 52074 - Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
| 82 FR 52045 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 82 FR 51979 - Airworthiness Directives; Engine Alliance Turbofan Engines | |
| 82 FR 52089 - The State Department's List of Entities and Subentities Associated With Cuba (Cuba Restricted List) | |
| 82 FR 51983 - Amendments To Implement United States Policy Toward Cuba | |
| 82 FR 51998 - Cuban Assets Control Regulations | |
| 82 FR 51977 - Truth in Lending (Regulation Z) | |
| 82 FR 51973 - Appraisals for Higher-Priced Mortgage Loans Exemption Threshold | |
| 82 FR 52073 - Notice of Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 52091 - National Express LLC-Acquisition of Control-Queen City Transportation, LLC | |
| 82 FR 52044 - Notice of Termination of the Receivership of 10511, Highland Community Bank, Chicago, IL | |
| 82 FR 52044 - Clean Water Act; Contractor Access to Confidential Business Information | |
| 82 FR 52038 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 52041 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 52043 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability | |
| 82 FR 52073 - Notice of Permits Issued Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 | |
| 82 FR 52037 - Colorcon, Inc.; Filing of Color Additive Petition | |
| 82 FR 52051 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 52045 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review | |
| 82 FR 52047 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review | |
| 82 FR 52049 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review | |
| 82 FR 52056 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Labeling Natural Rubber Latex Condoms | |
| 82 FR 51981 - IFR Altitudes; Miscellaneous Amendments | |
| 82 FR 52094 - Notice of Intent To Rule on Change in Use of Aeronautical Property at Laurinburg-Maxton Airport, Maxton, NC | |
| 82 FR 52074 - New Postal Products | |
| 82 FR 51975 - Consumer Leasing (Regulation M) | |
| 82 FR 52055 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Infant Formula Recall Regulations | |
| 82 FR 52053 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Health and Diet Survey, as Used by the Food and Drug Administration | |
| 82 FR 52060 - Blood Products Advisory Committee Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 52046 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations | |
| 82 FR 52011 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area; American Fisheries Act; Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization Program | |
| 82 FR 52065 - National Cancer Institute; Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 52064 - National Toxicology Program Board of Scientific Counselors; Announcement of Meeting; Request for Comments | |
| 82 FR 52066 - Draft Report on Carcinogens Monograph on Antimony Trioxide; Availability of Document; Request for Comments; Notice of Peer-Review Meeting | |
| 82 FR 52063 - Submission for OMB Review; 30-Day Comment Request; Generic Clearance To Support the Safe To Sleep® Campaign (Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development) | |
| 82 FR 52067 - Submission for OMB Review; 30-Day Comment Request; Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery (Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development) | |
| 82 FR 52042 - Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Lower Bois d'Arc Creek Reservoir Project, Fannin County, TX | |
| 82 FR 52041 - Availability of Norfolk Harbor Navigation Improvements Draft General Reevaluation Report/Environmental Assessment | |
| 82 FR 52101 - Reports, Forms, and Record Keeping Requirements Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review | |
| 82 FR 52069 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Vessel Entrance or Clearance Statement | |
| 82 FR 52068 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Passenger List/Crew List | |
| 82 FR 52049 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations-Assessments To Inform Program Refinement for HIV, Other STD, and Pregnancy Prevention Among Middle and High-School Aged Youth | |
| 82 FR 52088 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Request and Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 52094 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received | |
| 82 FR 52071 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection; Arson and Explosives Training Registration Request for Non-ATF Employees; ATF F 6310.1 | |
| 82 FR 52072 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection; Police Check Inquiry-ATF F 8620.42 | |
| 82 FR 52070 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection; Application and Permit for Permanent Exportation of Firearms (National Firearms Act); ATF F 9 (5320.9) | |
| 82 FR 52040 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; West Coast Region Groundfish Trawl Fishery Monitoring and Catch Accounting Program | |
| 82 FR 52024 - Energy Labeling Rule | |
| 82 FR 52072 - NASA Advisory Council; Human Exploration and Operations Committee; Meeting | |
| 82 FR 52051 - Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 52005 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Hutchinson River, Mount Vernon, NY | |
| 82 FR 52005 - Safety Zone; Atlantic Ocean, Rehoboth Beach, DE | |
| 82 FR 52004 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Hackensack River, Jersey City, NJ | |
| 82 FR 52007 - Safety Zone; Port of Ponce Turning Basin, Bahía de Ponce, Ponce, PR | |
| 82 FR 52073 - The Announcement of the Membership of the NEA Senior Executive Service (SES) Performance Review Board | |
| 82 FR 52061 - National Eye Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 82 FR 52061 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 82 FR 52075 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 2 and Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, To Adopt the Midpoint Extended Life Order | |
| 82 FR 52082 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 1080(p)(2) To Enhance Anti-Internalization Functionality | |
| 82 FR 52079 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Related to The Options Clearing Corporation's Collateral Risk Management Policy | |
| 82 FR 52084 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Exchange's Pricing Schedule at Section IV, Entitled “Other Transaction Fees” | |
| 82 FR 52052 - Evaluating Drug Effects on the Ability To Operate a Motor Vehicle; Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
| 82 FR 52095 - Fiscal Year 2017 Positive Train Control Grant Program Project Selections | |
| 82 FR 52062 - Proposed Collection; 60-Day Comment Request; CareerTrac | |
| 82 FR 52087 - Presidential Declaration Amendment of a Major Disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of South Carolina | |
| 82 FR 52099 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel ANDIAMO; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 82 FR 52097 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel DOS HOMBRES; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 82 FR 52098 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel LADY DEENA II; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 82 FR 52100 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel PUDDLE JUMPER; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 82 FR 52099 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel SAMADHI; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 82 FR 52098 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel VESTA; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 82 FR 52058 - Use of a Drug Master File for Shared System Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy Submissions; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
| 82 FR 52038 - Marine Mammals; Pinniped Removal Authority | |
| 82 FR 52070 - Florida; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of an Emergency Declaration | |
| 82 FR 51986 - Cranes and Derricks in Construction: Operator Certification Extension | |
| 82 FR 52009 - Effectuating Congressional Nullification of the Non-Subsistence Take of Wildlife, and Public Participation and Closure Procedures, on National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska Under the Congressional Review Act | |
| 82 FR 52045 - Federal Travel Regulation (FTR); Requirement To Report Agency Travel, Transportation, and Relocation Data and Costs | |
| 82 FR 52036 - Menu Labeling: Supplemental Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
| 82 FR 52104 - Civilian Acquisition Workforce Personnel Demonstration (AcqDemo) Project; Department of Defense (DoD) | |
| 82 FR 52022 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 52015 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes |
Industry and Security Bureau
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Engineers Corps
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Fish and Wildlife Service
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
National Endowment for the Arts
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Maritime Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Comptroller of the Currency
Foreign Assets Control Office
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.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board); Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau); and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Treasury (OCC).
Final rules, official interpretations and commentary.
The OCC, the Board, and the Bureau are finalizing amendments to the official interpretations for their regulations that implement section 129H of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA). Section 129H of TILA establishes special appraisal requirements for “higher-risk mortgages,” termed “higher-priced mortgage loans” or “HPMLs” in the agencies' regulations. The OCC, the Board, the Bureau, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) and the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) (collectively, the Agencies) issued joint final rules implementing these requirements, effective January 18, 2014. The Agencies' rules exempted, among other loan types, transactions of $25,000 or less, and required that this loan amount be adjusted annually based on any annual percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W). If there is no annual percentage increase in the CPI-W, the OCC, the Board, and the Bureau will not adjust this exemption threshold from the prior year. However, in years following a year in which the exemption threshold was not adjusted, the threshold is calculated by applying the annual percentage increase in the CPI-W to the dollar amount that would have resulted, after rounding, if the decreases and any subsequent increases in the CPI-W had been taken into account. Based on the CPI-W in effect as of June 1, 2017, the exemption threshold will increase from $25,500 to $26,000 effective January 1, 2018.
This final rule is effective January 1, 2018.
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank Act) amended the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) to add special appraisal requirements for “higher-risk mortgages.”
The OCC's, the Board's, and the Bureau's versions of the January 2013 Final Rule and December 2013 Supplemental Final Rule and corresponding official interpretations are substantively identical. The FDIC, NCUA, and FHFA adopted the Bureau's version of the regulations under the January 2013 Final Rule and December 2013 Supplemental Final Rule.
The OCC's, Board's, and Bureau's regulations,
On November 30, 2016, the OCC, the Board, and the Bureau published a final rule in the
Effective January 1, 2018, the exemption threshold amount is increased from $25,500 to $26,000. This is based on the CPI-W in effect on June 1, 2017, which was reported on May 12, 2017. The Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes consumer-based indices monthly, but does not report a CPI change on June 1; adjustments are reported in the middle of the prior month. The CPI-W is a subset of the CPI-U index (based on all urban consumers) and represents approximately 28 percent of the U.S. population. The CPI-W reported on May 12, 2017, reflects a 2.1 percent increase in the CPI-W from April 2016 to April 2017. Accordingly, the 2.1 percent increase in the CPI-W from April 2016 to April 2017 results in an exemption threshold amount of $26,000. The OCC, the Board, and the Bureau are revising the commentaries to their respective regulations to add new comments as follows:
• Comment 203(b)(2)-3.v to 12 CFR part 34, appendix C to subpart G (OCC);
• Comment 43(b)(2)-3.v to supplement I of 12 CFR part 226 (Board); and
• Comment 35(c)(2)(ii)-3.v to supplement I of 12 CFR part 1026 (Bureau).
These new comments state that, from January 1, 2018, through December 31, 2018, the threshold amount is $26,000. These revisions are effective January 1, 2018.
Under the Administrative Procedure Act, notice and opportunity for public comment are not required if an agency finds that notice and public comment are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) does not apply to a rulemaking where a general notice of proposed rulemaking is not required.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
The OCC analyzes proposed rules for the factors listed in Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, before promulgating a final rule for which a general notice of proposed rulemaking was published.
Appraisal, Appraiser, Banks, Banking, Consumer protection, Credit, Mortgages, National banks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations, Truth in lending.
Advertising, Appraisal, Appraiser, Consumer protection, Credit, Federal Reserve System, Mortgages, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Truth in lending.
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 OCC amends 12 CFR part 34 as set forth below:
12 U.S.C. 1
3. * * *
v. From January 1, 2018, through December 31, 2018, the threshold amount is $26,000.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Board amends Regulation Z, 12 CFR part 226, as set forth below:
12 U.S.C. 3806; 15 U.S.C. 1604, 1637(c)(5), 1639(l), and 1639h; Pub. L. 111-24, section 2, 123 Stat. 1734; Pub. L. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376.
3. * * *
v. From January 1, 2018, through December 31, 2018, the threshold amount is $26,000.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Bureau amends Regulation Z, 12 CFR part 1026, as set forth below:
12 U.S.C. 2601, 2603-2605, 2607, 2609, 2617, 3353, 5511, 5512, 5532, 5581; 15 U.S.C. 1601
3. * * *
v. From January 1, 2018, through December 31, 2018, the threshold amount is $26,000.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board); and Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau).
Final rules, official interpretations and commentary.
The Board and the Bureau are finalizing amendments to the official interpretations and commentary for the agencies' regulations that implement the Consumer Leasing Act (CLA). The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) amended the CLA by requiring that the dollar threshold for exempt consumer leases be adjusted annually by the annual percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W). If there is no annual percentage increase in the CPI-W, the Board and the Bureau will not adjust this exemption threshold from the prior year. However, in years following a year in which the exemption threshold was not adjusted, the threshold is calculated by applying the annual percentage change in the CPI-W to the dollar amount that would have resulted, after rounding, if the decreases and any subsequent increases in the CPI-W had been taken into account. Based on the annual percentage increase in the CPI-W as of June 1, 2017, the exemption threshold will increase from $54,600 to $55,800 effective January 1, 2018. Because the Dodd-Frank Act also requires similar adjustments in the Truth in Lending Act's threshold for exempt consumer credit transactions, the Board and the Bureau are making similar amendments to each of their respective regulations implementing the Truth in Lending Act elsewhere in this issue of the
This final rule is effective January 1, 2018.
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank Act) increased the threshold in the Consumer Leasing Act (CLA) for exempt consumer leases, and the threshold in the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) for exempt consumer credit transactions,
Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act transferred rulemaking authority for a number of consumer financial protection laws from the Board to the Bureau, effective July 21, 2011. In connection with this transfer of rulemaking authority, the Bureau issued its own Regulation M implementing the CLA, 12 CFR 1013, substantially duplicating the Board's Regulation M.
The Board's and the Bureau's regulations,
On November 30, 2016, the Board and the Bureau published a final rule in the
Effective January 1, 2018, the exemption threshold amount is increased from $54,600 to $55,800. This is based on the CPI-W in effect on June 1, 2017, which was reported on May 12, 2017. The Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes consumer-based indices monthly, but does not report a CPI change on June 1; adjustments are reported in the middle of the prior month. The CPI-W is a subset of the CPI-U index (based on all urban consumers) and represents approximately 28 percent of the U.S. population. The CPI-W reported on May 12, 2017 reflects a 2.1 percent increase in the CPI-W from April 2016 to April 2017. Accordingly, the 2.1 percent increase in the CPI-W from April 2016 to April 2017 results in an exemption threshold amount of $55,800. The Board and the Bureau are revising the commentaries to their respective regulations to add new comment 2(e)-11.ix to state that, from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018, the threshold amount is $55,800. These revisions are effective January 1, 2018.
Under the Administrative Procedure Act, notice and opportunity for public comment are not required if the Board and the Bureau find that notice and public comment are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) does not apply to a rulemaking where a general notice of proposed rulemaking is not required.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
Advertising, Consumer leasing, Consumer protection, Federal Reserve System, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Advertising, Consumer leasing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Truth in lending.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Board amends Regulation M, 12 CFR part 213, as set forth below:
15 U.S.C. 1604 and 1667f; Pub. L. 111-203 section 1100E, 124 Stat. 1376.
11. * * *
ix. From January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018, the threshold amount is $55,800.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Bureau amends Regulation M, 12 CFR part 1013, as set forth below:
15 U.S.C. 1604 and 1667f; Pub. L. 111-203 section 1100E, 124 Stat. 1376.
11. * * *
ix. From January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018, the threshold amount is $55,800.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board); and Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau).
Final rules, official interpretations and commentary.
The Board and the Bureau are publishing final rules amending the official interpretations and commentary for the agencies' regulations that implement the Truth in Lending Act (TILA). The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) amended TILA by requiring that the dollar threshold for exempt consumer credit transactions be adjusted annually by the annual percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W). If there is no annual percentage increase in the CPI-W, the Board and the Bureau will not adjust this exemption threshold from the prior year. However, in years following a year in which the exemption threshold was not adjusted, the threshold is calculated by applying the annual percentage change in the CPI-W to the dollar amount that would have resulted, after rounding, if the decreases and any subsequent increases in the CPI-W had been taken into account. Based on the annual percentage increase in the CPI-W as of June 1, 2017, the exemption threshold will increase from $54,600 to $55,800 effective January 1, 2018. Because the Dodd-Frank Act also requires similar adjustments in the Consumer Leasing Act's threshold for exempt consumer leases, the Board and the Bureau are making similar amendments to each of their respective regulations implementing the Consumer Leasing Act elsewhere in this issue of the
This final rule is effective January 1, 2018.
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank Act) increased the threshold in the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) for exempt consumer credit transactions,
Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act transferred rulemaking authority for a number of consumer financial protection laws from the Board to the Bureau, effective July 21, 2011. In connection with this transfer of rulemaking authority, the Bureau issued its own Regulation Z implementing TILA, 12 CFR part 1026, substantially duplicating the Board's Regulation Z.
The Board's and the Bureau's regulations,
On November 30, 2016, the Board and the Bureau published a final rule in the
Effective January 1, 2018, the exemption threshold amount is increased from $54,600 to $55,800. This is based on the CPI-W in effect on June 1, 2017, which was reported on May 12, 2017. The Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes consumer-based indices monthly, but does not report a CPI change on June 1; adjustments are reported in the middle of the prior month. The CPI-W is a subset of the CPI-U index (based on all urban consumers) and represents approximately 28 percent of the U.S. population. The CPI-W reported on May 12, 2017 reflects a 2.1 percent increase in the CPI-W from April 2016 to April 2017. Accordingly, the 2.1 percent increase in the CPI-W from April 2016 to April 2017 results in an exemption threshold amount of $55,800. The Board and the Bureau are revising the commentaries to their respective regulations to add new comment 3(b)-3.ix to state that, from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018, the threshold amount is $55,800. These revisions are effective January 1, 2018.
Under the Administrative Procedure Act, notice and opportunity for public comment are not required if the Board and the Bureau find that notice and public comment are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) does not apply to a rulemaking where a general notice of proposed rulemaking is not required.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
Advertising, Consumer protection, Federal Reserve System, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Truth in lending.
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 Board amends Regulation Z, 12 CFR part 226, as set forth below:
12 U.S.C. 3806; 15 U.S.C. 1604, 1637(c)(5), 1639(l) and 1639h; Pub. L. 111-24, section 2, 123 Stat. 1734; Pub. L. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376.
3. * * *
ix. From January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018, the threshold amount is $55,800.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Bureau amends Regulation Z, 12 CFR part 1026, as set forth below:
12 U.S.C. 2601, 2603-2605, 2607, 2609, 2617, 3353, 5511, 5512, 5532, 5581; 15 U.S.C. 1601
3. * * *
ix. From January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018, the threshold amount is $55,800.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
We are superseding Emergency Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2017-21-51 for all Engine Alliance (EA) GP7200 series turbofan engines. AD 2017-21-51 was sent previously to all known U.S. owners and operators of GP7200 series turbofan engines. AD 2017-21-51 required visual inspections of all fan hubs for damage. This AD retains the same required actions as AD 2017-21-51 and clarifies the compliance requirements. This AD was prompted by the failure of a GP7200 fan hub. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective November 24, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of November 24, 2017.
We must receive any comments on this AD by December 26, 2017.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Engine Alliance, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT 06108, M/S 169-10; phone: 800-565-0140; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
David Bethka, Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7129; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
On October 12, 2017, we issued Emergency AD 2017-21-51, (“AD 2017-21-51”), which was immediately effective to owners and operators of EA GP7200 series turbofan engines. AD 2017-21-51 required visual inspections of the GP7200 series engine fan hubs for damage. AD 2017-21-51 resulted from an uncontained engine failure that occurred on an EA GP7270 turbofan engine. We issued AD 2017-21-51 to prevent an uncontained release of the fan hub, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.
Since we issued AD 2017-21-51, we determined a need to clarify the compliance requirements. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.
We reviewed EA Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) EAGP7-A72-383, Revision No. 1, dated October 12, 2017. The ASB describes procedures for visual inspections of all fan hubs for damage. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This AD requires visual inspections of all fan hubs for damage.
We consider this AD interim action. An investigation to determine the cause of the failure is on-going and we may consider additional rulemaking if final action is identified.
An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because no U.S. operators are affected. Therefore, we find good cause that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable. In addition, for the reason stated above, we find that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to provide your comments before it becomes effective. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We estimate that this AD affects no engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to engines, propellers, and associated appliances to the Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective November 24, 2017.
This AD supersedes Emergency AD 2017-21-51, Product Identifier 2017-NE-37-AD, issued on October 12, 2017.
This AD applies to all Engine Alliance (EA) GP7270, GP7272, and GP7277 model turbofan engines.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7230, Turbine Engine Compressor Section.
This AD was prompted by failure of a fan hub. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the fan hub. The unsafe condition, if not corrected, could result in uncontained release of the fan hub, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) Perform a visual inspection of the fan hub in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 1.B., 1.C., and 1.D., of EA Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) EAGP-A72-383, Revision No. 1, dated October 12, 2017, at the times specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through (iii) of this AD.
(i) For fan hubs with 3,500 cycles since new (CSN) or more on the effective date of this AD, inspect within 2 weeks after the effective date of this AD.
(ii) For fan hubs with 2,000 CSN or more, but less than 3,500 CSN, on the effective date of this AD, inspect within 5 weeks after the effective date of this AD.
(iii) For fan hubs with less than 2,000 CSN on the effective date of this AD, inspect within 8 weeks after the effective date of this AD.
(2) If defects or damage to the fan hub are found outside the serviceable limits specified in Table 1 of EA ASB EAGP7-A72-383, Revision No. 1, dated October 12, 2017, remove the hub from service and replace with a part that passed the inspection specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, prior to further flight.
You may take credit for the inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD if you performed the inspection before the effective date of this AD, using EA ASB EAGP7-A72-383, dated October 7, 2017.
(1) The Manager, ECO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
For more information about this AD, contact David Bethka, Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7129; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Engine Alliance Alert Service Bulletin EAGP7-A72-383, Revision No. 1, dated October 12, 2017.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For Engine Alliance service information identified in this AD, contact Engine Alliance, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT 06108, M/S 169-10, phone: 800-565-0140; email:
(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This document adopts miscellaneous amendments to the required IFR (instrument flight rules) altitudes and changeover points for certain Federal airways, jet routes, or direct routes for which a minimum or maximum en route authorized IFR altitude is prescribed. This regulatory action is needed because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System. These changes are designed to provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace under instrument conditions in the affected areas.
Effective 0901 UTC, December 7, 2017.
Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AMCAFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125) telephone: (405) 954-4164.
This amendment to part 95 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 95) amends, suspends, or revokes IFR
The specified IFR altitudes, when used in conjunction with the prescribed changeover points for those routes, ensure navigation aid coverage that is adequate for safe flight operations and free of frequency interference. The reasons and circumstances that create the need for this amendment involve matters of flight safety and operational efficiency in the National Airspace System, are related to published aeronautical charts that are essential to the user, and provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace. In addition, those various reasons or circumstances require making this amendment effective before the next scheduled charting and publication date of the flight information to assure its timely availability to the user. The effective date of this amendment reflects those considerations. In view of the close and immediate relationship between these regulatory changes and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting this amendment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and that good cause exists for making the amendment effective in less than 30 days.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Airspace, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, part 95 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 95) is amended as follows effective at 0901 UTC, December 7, 2017.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44719, 44721.
Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.
Final rule.
This rule amends the licensing policy for Cuba and portions of three license exceptions available for exports and reexports to Cuba: License Exceptions Gift Parcels and Humanitarian Donations (“GFT”), Consumer Communications Devices (“CCD”), and Support for the Cuban People (“SCP”). The Bureau of Industry and Security is publishing this rule to implement portions of the National Security Presidential Memorandum on Strengthening the Policy of the United States Toward Cuba, dated June 16, 2017.
This rule is effective November 9, 2017.
Foreign Policy Division, Bureau of Industry and Security, Phone: (202) 482-4252.
On June 16, 2017, President Trump announced changes to U.S. policy toward Cuba that are intended to enhance compliance with United States law; hold the Cuban regime accountable for oppression and human rights abuses; further the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and the interests of the Cuban people; and lay the groundwork for empowering the Cuban people to develop greater economic and political liberty. The President's policy is stated in the National Security Presidential Memorandum on Strengthening the Policy of the United States Toward Cuba (“Cuba NSPM”), dated June 16, 2017. The Cuba NSPM also directs the Secretary of Commerce, as well as the Secretaries of State and the Treasury, to take certain actions to implement the President's Cuba policy.
The Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) is issuing this final rule to implement portions of the Cuba NSPM. The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) and the Department of State are simultaneously publishing related actions in the
In accordance with the statutory embargo of Cuba, license applications for the export or reexport to Cuba of items subject to the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR”) currently are subject to a general policy of denial unless the transactions are eligible for another review policy stated in § 746.2(b). License applications for certain export or reexport transactions are reviewed on a case-by-case basis or under a general policy of approval, depending upon the types of items, end uses, and end users involved, as described in the EAR.
On January 27, 2016, BIS created a case-by-case licensing policy in paragraph (b)(3)(i) of § 746.2 of the EAR for applications to export or reexport items to meet the needs of the Cuban people, including exports and reexports of such items to state-owned enterprises, agencies, and other organizations of the Cuban government that provide goods and services for the use and benefit of the Cuban people (81 FR 4580). Note 2 to paragraph (b)(3)(i) explains that BIS generally will deny applications to export or reexport items for use by state-owned enterprises, agencies, and other organizations that primarily generate revenue for the state, including those engaged in tourism and those engaged in the extraction or production of minerals or other raw materials. Note 2 to paragraph (b)(3)(i) also explains that BIS generally will deny applications for the export or reexport of items destined to the Cuban military, police, intelligence, or security services.
Pursuant to section 3(a) of the Cuba NSPM, this rule amends note 2 to paragraph (b)(3)(i) of § 746.2 of the EAR to clarify that BIS also generally will deny applications for the export or reexport of items for use by certain entities or subentities the State Department identifies on its List of Restricted Entities and Subentities associated with Cuba (“Cuba Restricted List”), unless such transactions are determined to be consistent with the Cuba NSPM. Section 3(a)(i) of the Cuba NSPM directs the Secretary of State to publish a list of entities and subentities that it has determined (1) are under the control of, or act for or on behalf of, the Cuban military, intelligence, or security services or personnel and (2) with which direct financial transactions would disproportionately benefit such services or personnel at the expense of the Cuban people or private enterprise in Cuba (Cuba Restricted List). Today the Department of State is publishing that list in the
Section 3(a)(ii) of the Cuba NSPM states that regulatory changes made pursuant to section 3(a) shall prohibit direct financial transactions with entities or subentities identified by the Department of State's Cuba Restricted List unless the transactions are determined by the Secretary of Commerce or the Secretary of the Treasury, in coordination with the Secretary of State, to be consistent with the policy in section 2 and the criteria specified in section 3(a)(iii)(A)-(I) of the Cuba NSPM. Consequently, license applications submitted to BIS that involve one or more parties on the Department of State's Cuba Restricted List generally will be denied unless the transactions are determined by BIS, in coordination with the Department of State, to be consistent with the aforementioned sections of the Cuba NSPM.
License exceptions authorize certain exports and reexports pursuant to specified terms and conditions. Only the license exceptions specified in § 746.2(a)(1) of the EAR are available for exports and reexports to Cuba. License Exceptions Gift Parcels and Humanitarian Donations (“GFT”), Consumer Communications Devices (“CCD”), and Support for the Cuban People (“SCP”) (§§ 740.12, 740.19, and 740.21 of the EAR, respectively) specify certain eligible and ineligible Cuban transaction parties. On October 17, 2016, BIS revised its list of ineligible Cuban government officials in §§ 740.12(a)(2)(v)(A), 740.19(c)(2)(i), and 740.21(d)(4)(ii) of the EAR to correspond to amendments OFAC made to its definition of prohibited officials of the Government of Cuba in § 515.337 of the Cuban Assets Control Regulations (“CACR”) (31 CFR part 515) (81 FR 71365).
In accordance with section 3(d) of the Cuba NSPM, today OFAC is amending its definition of prohibited officials of the Government of Cuba to include certain additional individuals. This rule amends the list of ineligible Cuban government officials in §§ 740.12(a)(2)(v)(A), 740.19(c)(2)(i), and 740.21(d)(4)(ii) of the EAR to conform with OFAC's amendment.
On January 16, 2015, BIS created License Exception Support for the Cuban People (SCP) in § 740.21 of the EAR to authorize the export and reexport of certain items to Cuba that are intended to improve the living conditions of the Cuban people; support independent economic activity and strengthen civil society in Cuba; and improve the free flow of information to, from, and among the Cuban people (80 FR 2286). On September 21, 2015, March 16, 2016, and October 17, 2016, BIS amended License Exception SCP to authorize additional categories of exports and reexports intended to further benefit the Cuban people (80 FR 56898, 81 FR 13972, and 81 FR 71365, respectively).
Consistent with section 2(d) of the Cuba NSPM, this rule revises § 740.21(b) to further support free enterprise in Cuba. Prior to this rule, the text in § 740.21(b)(1)-(3) identified certain types of items, such as tools and equipment, that were eligible for export or reexport to Cuba for (1) use by the private sector to construct or renovate privately-owned buildings, (2) private sector agricultural activities, or (3) use by private sector entrepreneurs. This rule simplifies and expands § 740.21(b) by creating a single provision authorizing the export and reexport to Cuba of items, without specifying types, for use by the Cuban private sector for private sector economic activities. To be eligible for this provision, the items may not be used to primarily generate revenue for the state or used to contribute to the operation of the state, including through the construction or renovation of state-owned buildings. Additionally, eligible items are limited to those that are designated as EAR99 or controlled only for anti-terrorism reasons on the Commerce Control List (“CCL”). Of note, medicines, medical devices, and agricultural commodities are not eligible for any provision of License Exception SCP due to limitations in the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992, as amended (22 U.S.C. 6001-6010) and the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000, as amended (22 U.S.C. 7201-7211).
Although the Export Administration Act of 1979 expired on August 20, 2001, the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002), as amended by Executive Order 13637 of March 8, 2013, 78 FR 16129 (March 13, 2013) and as extended by the Notice of August 15, 2017, 82 FR 39005 (August 16, 2017), has continued the Export Administration Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. BIS continues to carry out the provisions of the Export Administration Act of 1979, as
1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has been designated a “significant regulatory action,” although not economically significant, under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This rule is not subject to the requirements of E.O. 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017) because it is issued with respect to a foreign affairs function of the United States.
2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Jasmeet K. Seehra, Office of Management and Budget, by email at
3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined under Executive Order 13132.
4. The provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking and the opportunity for public participation, and a delay in effective date, are inapplicable because this regulation involves a military or foreign affairs function of the United States (
Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 15 CFR Chapter VII, Subchapter C is amended as follows:
50 U.S.C. 4601
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(v) * * * (A) No gift parcel may be sent to any of the following officials of the Cuban government: Ministers and Vice-Ministers; members of the Council of State; members of the Council of Ministers; members and employees of the National Assembly of People's Power; members of any provincial assembly; local sector chiefs of the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution; Director Generals and sub-Director Generals and higher of all Cuban ministries and state agencies; employees of the Ministry of the Interior (MININT); employees of the Ministry of Defense (MINFAR); secretaries and first secretaries of the Confederation of Labor of Cuba (CTC) and its component unions; chief editors, editors and deputy editors of Cuban state-run media organizations and programs, including newspapers, television, and radio; or members and employees of the Supreme Court (Tribuno Supremo Nacional).
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(i)
(b) * * *
(1) Items for use by the Cuban private sector for private sector economic activities, except for items that would be used to:
(i) Primarily generate revenue for the state; or
(ii) Contribute to the operation of the state, including through the construction or renovation of state-owned buildings.
(2) Items sold directly to individuals in Cuba for their personal use or their immediate family's personal use, other than officials identified in paragraphs (d)(4)(ii) or (iii) of this section.
(d) * * *
(4) * * *
(ii) Ministers and Vice-Ministers; members of the Council of State; members of the Council of Ministers; members and employees of the National Assembly of People's Power; members of any provincial assembly; local sector chiefs of the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution; Director Generals and sub-Director Generals and higher of all Cuban ministries and state agencies; employees of the Ministry of the Interior (MININT); employees of the Ministry of Defense (MINFAR); secretaries and first secretaries of the Confederation of Labor of Cuba (CTC) and its component unions; chief editors, editors and deputy editors of Cuban state-run media organizations and programs, including newspapers, television, and radio; or members and employees of the Supreme Court (Tribuno Supremo Nacional); and
50 U.S.C. 4601
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) * * *
The policy of case-by-case review in this paragraph is intended to facilitate exports and reexports to meet the needs of the Cuban people. Accordingly, BIS generally will deny applications to export or reexport items for use by state-owned enterprises, agencies, and other organizations that primarily generate revenue for the state, including those engaged in tourism and those engaged in the extraction or production of minerals or other raw materials. Applications for export or reexport of items destined to the Cuban military, police, intelligence or security services also generally will be denied. Additionally, pursuant to section 3(a) of the National Security Presidential Memorandum on Strengthening the Policy of the United States Toward Cuba (NSPM), dated June 16, 2017, BIS generally will deny applications to export or reexport items for use by entities or subentities identified by the Department of State in the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Final rule.
OSHA is delaying its deadline for employers to ensure that crane operators are certified by one year until November 10, 2018. OSHA is also extending its employer duty to ensure that crane operators are competent to operate a crane safely for the same one-year period.
This final rule is effective on November 9, 2017.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. 2112(a)(2), the Agency designates Ann Rosenthal, Associate Solicitor of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, Office of the Solicitor, Room S-4004, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, to receive petitions for review of the final rule.
OSHA is publishing this final rule to further extend by one year the employer duty to ensure the competency of crane operators involved in construction work. Previously this duty was scheduled to terminate on November 10, 2017, but now continues until November 10, 2018. OSHA also is further delaying the deadline for crane operator certification for one year from November 10, 2017, to November 10, 2018. As explained in more detail in the following Regulatory Background section, the extension and delay are necessary to provide sufficient time for OSHA to complete a related rulemaking to address issues with its existing Cranes and Derricks in Construction standard (29 CFR part 1926, subpart CC, referred to as “the crane standard” hereafter) (75 FR 47905).
In establishing the effective date of this action, the Agency finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) of the Administrative Procedure Act that this rule be made effective on November 9, 2017, rather than delaying the effective date for 30 days after publication. The basis for this finding is that it is unnecessary to delay this effective date to provide an additional period of time for employers to comply with a new requirement because OSHA is extending the status quo. This final rule establishes no new burdens on the regulated community; rather, it further delays implementation of the crane operator certification requirements in the crane standard and further extends the employer duty in the crane standard to ensure the competency of crane operators, a duty that employers have been required to comply with since publication of the crane standard in 2010.
OSHA also concludes that delaying the effective date of this extension rulemaking beyond November 9, 2017, would be contrary to the public interest and would significantly disrupt the construction industry. If the extension does not go into effect on November 9, 2017, the crane operator certification requirements in the 2010 crane standard would go into effect and the employer duty in the crane standard to ensure crane operator competency would end. As the Agency notes below in Section II.A (Extension of operator certification deadline), there is evidence in the record that many crane operators in the construction industry do not have the certification required by the crane standard and would be out of compliance with the standard. This would not be offset through the employer duty to ensure crane operator competency because that duty would no longer exist. Therefore, OSHA concludes that it is in the public interest to avoid such disruption by having this extension go into effect by November 9, 2017. Finally, OSHA notes that by delaying the operator certification deadline, OSHA is temporarily relieving the regulated community of a compliance duty, which under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) is a separate basis for allowing a rule to become effective in less than 30 days.
By delaying the deadline for employers to ensure that crane operators are certified until November 10, 2018, and by extending the employer duty to ensure that crane operators are competent until that same date, this rule will avoid disrupting the construction industry and allow OSHA time to complete a related crane standard rulemaking that will address these and other issues.
In this preamble, OSHA cites to documents in Docket No. OSHA-2007-0066, the docket for this rulemaking. To simplify these document cites, they start with “ID” followed by the last four digits of their full docket identification number. For example, if a document's full docket identification number is ID-OSHA-2007-0066-1234, the cite used in this preamble would be ID-1234. The docket is available at
This final rule is not economically significant. OSHA is revising 29 CFR 1926.1427(k) (competency assessment and training) to delay the deadline for compliance with the operator-certification requirement in the crane standard for one year, and to extend the existing employer duty to ensure crane operator competency for the same period. OSHA's final economic analysis shows that delaying the date for operator certification and extending the employer's assessment of crane operator competency, rather than following the current crane standard, will result in a net cost savings for the affected industries. Delaying the compliance date for operator certification results in estimated cost savings that exceed the estimated new costs for employers to continue to assess crane operators to ensure their competent operation of the equipment in accordance with § 1926.1427(k). The detailed final economic analysis is in the “Agency Determinations” section of this preamble.
On August 9, 2010, OSHA published the final crane standard. OSHA developed the standard through a negotiated rulemaking process. The Agency established a Federal advisory committee, the Cranes and Derricks Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee (C-DAC), to develop a draft proposed rule. C-DAC met in 2003 and 2004 and developed a draft proposed rule (which included the provisions concerning crane operator certification at issue in this rulemaking) that it provided to OSHA.
The Agency initiated a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel in 2006 and published the proposed rule for cranes in construction on October 9, 2008 (73 FR 59713). It closely followed C-DAC's draft proposal (73 FR 59718). OSHA received public comment on the proposal, and conducted a public hearing. Among many other provisions, OSHA's 2010 final rule incorporated, with minor changes, the four-option certification scheme that C-DAC had recommended and the Agency had proposed. Accordingly, in § 1926.1427, OSHA requires employers to ensure that their crane operators complete at least one of the following:
Option 1. Certification by an independent testing organization accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting organization;
Option 2. Qualification by an employer's independently audited program;
Option 3. Qualification by the U.S. military; or
Option 4. Compliance with qualifying State or local licensing requirements (mandatory when applicable).
The third-party certification option in § 1926.1427(b)—Option 1—is the only certification option that is “portable,” meaning any employer who employs an operator may rely on that operator's certification as evidence of compliance with the crane standard's operator certification requirement. This certification option also is the only one available to all employers; it is the option OSHA, and the parties that participated in the rulemaking, believed would be the one most widely used. In this regard, OSHA is not aware of an audited employer qualification program among construction industry employers (Option 2), and the crane standard limits the U.S. military crane operator certification programs (Option 3) to Federal employees of the Department of Defense or the armed services. While State and local governments certify some crane operators (Option 4), the vast majority of operators who become certified do so through Option 1—by third-party testing organizations accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting organization.
Under Option 1, an independent testing organization tests crane operators to determine if they warrant certification. Before a testing organization can issue operator certifications, § 1926.1427(b)(1) of the crane standard provides that a nationally recognized accrediting organization must accredit the testing organizations. To accredit a testing organization, the accrediting agency must determine that the testing organization meets industry-recognized criteria for written testing materials, practical examinations, test administration, grading, facilities and equipment, and personnel. The testing organization must administer written and practical tests that:
• Assess the operator's knowledge and skills regarding subjects specified in the crane standard;
• provide different levels of certification based on equipment capacity and type;
• have procedures to retest applicants who fail; and
• have testing procedures for recertification.
Section 1926.1427(b)(2) of the crane standard also specifies that, for the purposes of compliance with the crane standard, an operator is deemed qualified to operate a particular piece of equipment only if the operator is certified for that type and capacity of equipment or for higher-capacity equipment of that type. It further provides that, if no testing organization offers certification examinations for a particular equipment type and/or capacity, the operator is deemed qualified to operate that equipment if the operator is certified for the type/
The crane standard published in 2010 replaced provisions in 29 CFR part 1926, subpart N—Cranes, Derricks, Hoists, Elevators, and Conveyors, of the construction safety standards. OSHA delayed the deadline for the operator certification requirement for four years, until November 10, 2014 (see § 1926.1427(k)(1)). During this four-year “phase-in” period, the crane standard imposed an employer duty to ensure that crane operators could safely operate equipment (see § 1926.1727(k), Phase-in). Thus, pursuant to § 1926.1427(k)(2)(i), OSHA required employers to “ensure that operators of equipment covered by this standard are competent to operate the equipment safely.” Under § 1926.1427(k)(2)(ii), employers must train and evaluate the operator when the operator “assigned to operate machinery does not have the required knowledge or ability to operate the equipment safely.”
After OSHA issued the crane standard, it continued to receive feedback from members of the regulated community and conducted stakeholder meetings on April 2 and 3, 2013, to give interested members of the public the opportunity to express their views. Participants included construction contractors, labor unions, crane manufacturers, crane rental companies, accredited testing organizations, one of the accrediting bodies, insurance companies, crane operator trainers, and military employers. Detailed notes of participants' comments are available at ID-0539. Various parties informed OSHA that, in their opinion, the operator certification option would not adequately ensure that crane operators could operate their equipment safely at a construction site. They said that a certified operator would need additional training, experience, and evaluation, beyond the training and evaluation required to obtain certification, to ensure that he or she could operate a crane safely.
OSHA also received information that two (of a total of four) accredited testing organizations have been issuing certifications only by “type” of crane, rather than offering different certifications by “type and capacity” of crane, as the crane standard requires. The two organizations later confirmed this (ID-0521, p. 109 and 246). As a result, those certifications do not meet the standard's requirements and operators who obtained certifications only from those organizations could not, under OSHA's crane standard, operate cranes on construction sites after November 10, 2014. Some stakeholders in the crane industry requested that OSHA remove the capacity requirement.
Most of the participants in the stakeholder meetings expressed the opinion that an operator's certification by an accredited testing organization did not mean that the operator was fully competent or experienced to operate a crane safely on a construction work site. The participants likened operator certification to a new driver's license, or a learner's permit, to drive a car. Most participants said that the operator's employer should retain the responsibility to ensure that the operator was qualified for the particular crane work assigned. Some participants wanted certification to be, or viewed to be, sufficient to operate a crane safely. Stakeholders noted that operator certification was beneficial in establishing a minimum threshold of operator knowledge and familiarity with cranes.
On February 10, 2014, OSHA published a proposal to delay the deadline for operator certification by three additional years to November 10, 2017, and to extend the existing employer duty to ensure crane operator competency for the same period (79 FR 7611). OSHA conducted a public hearing on May 19, 2014. Representatives of the construction industry reiterated that requiring the certification of all operators and supplanting the employer duty would not ensure the competency of crane operators to safely operate cranes to do construction work. A representative of one of the testing organizations that certifies by capacity (and who had previously opposed removing the capacity requirement) conceded that OSHA should undergo a rulemaking to consider removing capacity from certification requirements.
On September 26, 2014, OSHA published a final rule that delayed the operator certification deadline and extended the existing employer duty for three years to November 10, 2017, to provide time for OSHA to consider what regulatory approach it should take (79 FR 57785).
With the additional three-year extension in place, OSHA began work on a rulemaking to address the issues raised by stakeholders. On March 31 and April 1, 2015, the Agency consulted with the Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH) to solicit feedback from industry stakeholders on the draft regulatory text for a revised operator certification standard.
Commenters in their written remarks on the proposal to delay the operator certification deadline and extend the existing employer duty to November 10, 2018 focused on three issues arising from the Agency's proposed changes: (1) Whether to delay the date for crane operators to be certified; (2) whether to extend the employer duty to ensure crane operators are competent and safe; and (3) the length of time of an extension. This section examines these issues—in the order above—by first summarizing the comments and then explaining the Agency's decisions and determinations based on the record as a whole.
The majority of commenters supported the Agency's proposed extension of the deadline for crane operators to be certified (ID-0545, 0561, 0563, 0566, 0572-575, 0578-582, 0584-585, 0588-597, 0599-614, 0617-618, 0621, 0624-627, 0632-640, 0642-643, 0645-647, 0651, 0653, 0656-660, 0662-664, 0666-667). Most agreed that an extension was necessary to give OSHA time to address the issues regarding crane operation raised after publication of the crane standard: Whether to remove capacity from the crane standard's certification requirements and the preservation of the employer's role in assessing operators for safe crane operation (ID-0561, 0563, 0578, 0597, 0604, 0618, 0632, 0636, 0640, 0646-647, 0650-651, 0656, 0658, 0667). The National Commission for the Certification of Crane Operators (NCCCO) supports this rule “only in response to OSHA's stated need to address these two issues.” (ID-0632). In support of the extension, The International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) stated that they along with “contractors, insurers, trade associations, and third-party certification bodies agree on the problems OSHA has identified . . . that OSHA's `deemed qualified' language eliminates the employer's duty . . .” and “that certification by `capacity' should be eliminated from the regulatory requirements.” (ID-0651). They conclude that “[t]here is widespread agreement in the industry regarding the necessity to postpone implementation of these two elements of the rule in order to correct them.” (Id.).
Some commenters asked OSHA to delay the compliance date of the certification requirements in order to alleviate confusion that exists in the industry regarding the crane operator certification requirements. (ID-0604, 0606, 0642, 0647, 0650-651). In support of the extension, the IUOE asked OSHA to “move quickly to eliminate the cloud of uncertainty that has hung over this key safety measure for over a decade.” (ID-0651). Edison Electrical Institute hopes that “OSHA works to clarify and formulate the necessary requirements for operator certification and qualification under the final rule” as “[t]here are still many questions that require answers on the certification process and granting this extension will enable OSHA to continue its work with impacted parties to ensure compliance is met and clarity is achieved.” (ID-0642). Imperial Crane Services, Inc., and the Chicago Crane Owners Association support the extension “so that crane operator's proficiency/qualification can be further clarified in the existing cranes and derrick standard.” (ID-0604).
Commenters were also very concerned that without an extension of the operator certification requirements and the employer's duty, there would be significant disruption to the construction industry. (ID-0561, 0580, 0605, 0611, 0618, 0626-627, 0636, 0640, 0643, 0646, 0650). In the 2014 extension, OSHA noted that the record indicated that roughly two-thirds of certified operators were certified by one of the organizations that does not offer certification by capacity. Thus, some of the commenters observed that with a majority of certified operators possessing a certification by crane type only, many employers of crane operators would be in violation of operating a crane under OSHA requirements and barred from operating a crane without the possibility of being cited by OSHA. The Texas Crane Owners Association asserts that without an extension, “the obligations under [the crane standard] will undoubtedly disrupt the construction industry by creating a large number of crane operators without compliant certification.” (ID-0646). The Associated General Contractors of America agrees that failure to delay the compliance date “could potentially result in significant disruptions in the construction industry with the number of crane operators in possession of certifications that would be deemed noncompliant if the November 10, 2017, effective date remains in place.” (ID-0640). Similarly, The Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc., (ABC) commented that “many in the construction industry believe that without an extension the industry will face a future crane operator shortage. For the industry to continue to perform work without disruption, it is important an extension is granted.” (ID-0650). “[W]ithout the proposed extension there will be a significant disruption to the industry come November 10, 2017,” commented North America's Building Trades Unions, continuing that “many operators will no longer be able to operate certain cranes because their current certifications are not by crane capacity as currently called for in the rule.” (ID-0618).
Commenters opposed to the extension of the certification deadline expressed concern that it would lead to unsafe worksites. (ID-0557, 0562/0665 (duplicate comments), 0571, 0577, 0620, 0629, 0644, 0649, 0652). Jack Pitt of Murray State University commented that if OSHA delayed the compliance date, “then safety would not be a priority,” continuing that it was his opinion that requiring certification immediately “would eliminate quite a number of fatalities and injuries. . . .” (ID-0665 and 0562). Chas Scott of Murray State University commented that “[t]he longer the rule is delayed, the more fatalities that are likely to occur.” (ID-0557).
In making their arguments about the impact of the certification deadline extension on safety, several of these comments equated crane operator training and crane operator certification. (ID-0571, 0577, 0620, 0629, 0644, 0649, 0652). OSHA had previously addressed the same issue in its 2014 extension, pointing out that for the requirements for crane operator training at 29 CFR 1926.1427(f), like the other provisions from the crane standard except certification, are currently in effect and would not be impacted by any extension (see 79 FR 57788). Employers currently have, and will continue to have, a responsibility to ensure crane operators they employ are trained according to that standard.
Other comments in opposition of the extension stated that employers have had enough time to make sure that their operators are certified, meeting the certification requirements of the 2010 final rule. (ID-0542, 0551, 0556, 0558, 0568, 0583, 0587, 0615-616, 0622-623, 0630-631, 0652, 0661). An anonymous commenter stated that “[s]afety conscious construction employers know or should have known of this new operator certification requirement and have been given a substantial amount of time to comply,” (ID-0551). Another commenter noted that employers of crane operators “have had seven years to get the new certification.” (ID-0661).
Based on the record as a whole, OSHA finds the arguments in favor of delaying the operator certification deadline to be more persuasive. OSHA shares the commenters' concerns about a potential disruption to the industry that might occur if the majority of certified operators currently hold a form of certification that would not comply
The commenters who specifically addressed the extension of the existing employer assessment duty were unanimous in supporting the extension to ensure that employers retained responsibility for ensuring that their operators are competent to operate cranes. All of the comments opposed to the one-year extension focused entirely on certification and did not mention the employer duty.
The North America's Building Trades Union commented that “without the proposed extension there would not be an employer duty to ensure operators can safely operate equipment, which not only puts the operator at risk of fatality or injury, but also puts all construction workers around the equipment at risk as well as the general public on certain construction projects.” (ID-0618). The IUOE argues that even if certification is required, “[c]ertification alone . . . is simply insufficient in the absence of
While OSHA is not prepared to make a determination whether certification alone is insufficient as the IUOE claims, OSHA agrees that in order to ensure safe and competent crane operations during the one-year extension, the employer duty must also be extended. Without an extension of the employer duty, the standard would have no requirement to ensure that crane operators know how to operate the crane safely during the operator certification extension. Therefore it is important that the Agency extend the employer duty while it engages in subsequent rulemaking.
Having determined that it is appropriate to delay the certification deadline and extend the employer duty to ensure operator competence, the remaining issue is the length of the extension. In the NPRM, OSHA proposed delaying the operator certification deadline and extending the existing employer duty for one year, until November 10, 2018. OSHA requested comment on the duration of the extension.
The majority of comments support OSHA's proposed extension of the deadline for crane operator certification and the employer duty for one year. (ID-0545, 0561, 0563, 0566, 0572-575, 0578, 0580-582, 0585, 0588-600, 0602-605, 0607-614, 0617-618, 0621, 0624-627, 0632-640, 0642-643, 0645-647, 0651, 0653, 0656-660, 0662-6664, 0666-667). Some of these comments recommend that OSHA move as quickly as possible to address these rules. (ID-0605, 0618, 0632, 0651, 0656). NCCCO agrees with the Agency's proposed extension and “urges OSHA to act with all speed to ultimately issue its Final Rule
Additionally, OSHA received comments recommending an extension of three years and an indefinite extension until OSHA addresses the certification issues raised by stakeholders after publication of the 2010 final cranes and derricks standard.
The National Propane Gas Association (NPGA) recommended delaying the deadline for the certification requirement and extending the employer duty “at least three years”, arguing that “if three years was not an adequate amount of time” to address certification issues raised by stakeholders, “it is not reasonable to presume one year is sufficient.” (ID-0648). The NPGA continues that “[w]e are concerned that the short delay is indicative of the agency's intent to conduct an expedited process . . . . an accelerated rulemaking would be antithetical to the purpose and spirit of public engagement in the regulatory process.” (ID-0648). The National Association of Home Builders recommends that OSHA delay the deadline for the certification requirements and extend the employer duty another three years or indefinitely, arguing that “OSHA needs to ensure the certification procedures will actually improve safety” and not allowing enough time to address certification issues “only hurts the workers and the regulated community with continually changing deadlines and requirements.” (ID-0598). ABC also recommended that both the deadline for the certification requirement be delayed and the employer duty be extended indefinitely as recommended by ACCSH in 2014, arguing that a one year delay “will not provide a sufficient amount of time for OSHA to complete a further rulemaking. . . . Limiting the amount of time the agency has to complete the rulemaking could lead to rushed and unclear regulations.” (ID-0650).
While OSHA appreciates the concern of some stakeholders that a one-year extension is an insufficient amount of time to address the issues raised by the industry after publication of the crane standard, OSHA is not persuaded an extension longer than one year is necessary. OSHA had not even decided whether to pursue rulemaking when it finalized the three-year extension in 2014. The Agency needed time to determine what regulatory approach would be appropriate for addressing the concerns raised by stakeholders after publication of the crane standard. (79 FR 7613). OSHA took time to make site visits and spoke to over 40 industry representatives about crane operator certification and operator competency. Using this information, OSHA drafted regulatory text that it presented to a special meeting of ACCSH on March 31, and April 1, 2015, where several stakeholders had the opportunity to provide feedback to the Agency.
OSHA is in a different point of the process than it was three years ago and is confident that it will be able to
The Agency rejects the calls for an indefinite extension for the same reasons that it rejected them in 2014. Failing to specify a compliance deadline for operator certification is likely to result in greater, not less, confusion. In addition, if OSHA does not designate a fixed period after which the certification requirements would automatically take effect, the Agency may face additional legal challenges to reinstating them. Moreover, OSHA has already dedicated a significant amount of time and resources to implementing the existing standard, including conducting an extensive negotiated rulemaking process before requiring that employers ensure their crane operators are certified. The Agency therefore finds it prudent and efficient to maintain the status quo for one more year while it considers additional rulemaking.
The Agency must balance the rationale for an additional extension against the concerns raised by the other commenters who point out that any unnecessary delay in the operator certification requirement could prevent the Agency from obtaining the full safety benefit of the cranes standard. For example, if OSHA delayed the operator certification requirement for another three years but completed its rulemaking within nine months, then delaying the certification deadline would be clearly excessive and needlessly delay safety benefits. OSHA believes that given the progress it has made developing a rule addressing stakeholders' concerns regarding operator certification, a one-year extension of both the deadline for the certification requirement and the employer duty is appropriate.
Therefore, OSHA has decided to delay the operator certification deadline for one year, until November 10, 2018, and to extend the employer duty to ensure that crane operators are competent to operate a crane safely for the same one-year period, as it proposed. The Agency received no comment on the text of its proposed revision to § 1926.1427(k), and the final rule adopts the provision as proposed.
OSHA received comments to this rulemaking that, in part or in whole, asked the agency to consider alternatives and revisions to the certification requirements from the 2010 final rule. (ID-0544, 0546, 0548, 0549, 0555, 0564, 0567, 0598, 0606, 0639, 0646, 0648, 0651, 0655, 0658, 0660, 0663, 0667). These comments, although related to operator certification and the employer duty, are outside the scope of this rulemaking and the narrowly tailored issue OSHA proposed: Whether the deadline for the operator certification requirements should be delayed and whether the employer duty to ensure safe and competent crane operation should be extended by one year.
When it issued the final cranes rule in 2010, OSHA prepared a final economic analysis (2010 FEA) as required by the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act; 29 U.S.C. 651
Because OSHA estimates this rule will have a cost savings for employers of $4.4 million using a discount rate of 3 percent for the one year of the extension, this final rule is not economically significant within the meaning of Executive Order 12866, or a major rule under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act or Section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801
This FEA focuses solely on costs, and not on any changes in safety and benefits resulting from delaying the certification deadline and extending the employer duties under § 1926.1427(k)(2). As OSHA noted in its proposal, the Agency previously provided its assessment of the benefits of the cranes standard in the 2010 FEA. OSHA did not receive any comment on this approach or any request for additional analysis of benefits. As noted elsewhere in this preamble, the primary rationale for this final rule is to maintain the status quo—including preservation of the employer duty to ensure that crane operators are competent—while providing OSHA additional time to conduct rulemaking on the crane operator requirements in response to stakeholder concerns.
Extending the employer's requirement to ensure an operator's competency during this period means taking the same approach of the previous extension: Continuing measures in existence since OSHA published the crane standard in 2010. As OSHA stated in the preamble to the 2010 final rule, the interim measures in paragraph (k) “are not significantly different from requirements that were effective under subpart N of this part at former § 1926.550, § 1926.20(b)(4) (`the employer shall permit only those employees qualified by training or experience to operate equipment and machinery'), and § 1926.21(b)(2) (`the employer shall instruct each employee in the recognition and avoidance of unsafe conditions . . .')” (75 FR 48027).
Delaying the operator certification requirement defers a regulatory requirement and produces cost savings for employers. There will, however, be continuing employer costs for extending the requirement to assess operators under existing § 1926.1427(k)(2); if OSHA does not extend these requirements, they will expire in November 2017 and employers would not have these costs after 2017. With the extension, these continuing employer costs will be offset by a reduction in expenses that employers would otherwise have been required to incur to ensure that their operators are certified before the existing November 2017 deadline.
In the following analysis, OSHA examines costs and savings to determine the net economic effect of the rule. By comparing the additional assessment costs to the certification cost savings across two scenarios—scenario 1 in which there is no extension of the 2017 deadline, and scenario 2 in which there is an extension until 2018—OSHA estimates that the extension will produce a net savings for employers of $4.4 million per year using a discount rate of 3 percent ($5.2 million per year using an interest rate of 7 percent).
OSHA's analysis follows the steps below to reach its estimate of an annual net $4.4 million in savings:
(1) Estimate the annual assessment costs for employers;
(2) Estimate the annual certification costs for employers; and
(3) Estimate the year-by-year cost differential for delaying the certification deadline to 2018.
The methodology used here is substantially the same as used in the 2014 extension FEA, and OSHA did not receive any comment on this methodology when it included it in the 2017 PEA. Below, Table 1 summarizes these costs and the differentials across the two scenarios. The major differences are updated wages and a revised forecast of the composition of the operator pool across certification levels. The 2014 FEA analysis addressed a 3-year extension, so it gradually increased the number of operators without any certification during that period. The model in this PEA addresses an extension of just a single year, so it holds the number of operators with each certification level constant. The latter significantly simplifies the analysis versus that presented in the 2014 FEA extension.
OSHA estimated the annual assessment costs using the following three steps: First, determine the unit costs of meeting this requirement; second, determine the number of assessments that employers will need to perform in any given year (this determination includes estimating the affected operator pool as a preliminary step); and finally, multiply the unit costs of meeting the requirement by the number of operators who must meet it in any given year.
The Agency estimates separate assessment costs for three types of affected operators, which together comprise all affected operators: Those who have a certificate that is in compliance with the existing cranes standard; those who have a certificate that is not in compliance with the existing cranes standard; and those who have no certificate.
The wages used for the crane operator and assessor come from the BLS Occupational Employment Survey for May 2016 (BLS 2017a), which is an updated version of the same source used in the 2014 extension. From this survey a crane operator's (Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) 53-7021 Crane and Tower Operators) average hourly wage is $26.58. The full cost to the employer includes all benefits as well as the wage. From the BLS Employer Costs For Employee Compensation for December 2016 (BLS 2017b) the average percentage of benefits in total for the construction sector is 30.2 percent, giving a markup of the wage to the total compensation of 1.43 (1/(1 − 0.302)). Hence the “loaded” total hourly cost of an operator is $38.08 (1.43 × $26.58), including a markup for benefits.
Multiplying the wages of operators, assessors, and candidates by the time taken for each type of assessment provides the cost for each type of assessment. Hence, the cost of assessing an operator already holding a certificate that complies with the standard (both type and capacity) is one hour of both the operator's and assessor's time: $79.27 ($38.08 + $41.19). For an operator with a certificate for crane type only (not crane capacity), the assessment time is 2.5 hours for a cost of $198.17 (2.5 × ($38.08 + $41.19)). Finally, for an operator with no certificate, the assessment time is 4.0 hours for a cost of $317.48 (4.0 × ($38.08 + $41.19)). OSHA did not receive any comments on these unit cost estimates.
Besides these assessment costs, OSHA notes that § 1926.1427(k)(2)(ii) requires employers to provide training to employees if they are not already competent to operate their assigned equipment. To determine whether an operator is competent, the employer must first perform an assessment. Only if an operator fails the assessment must the employer provide additional operator training required by § 1926.1427(k)(2)(ii).
However, in determining this cost, OSHA made a distinction between a nonemployee candidate for an operator position and an operator who is currently an employee. For an employer assessing a nonemployee candidate, OSHA assumed, based on common industry practice, that the employer will not hire a nonemployee candidate who fails the assessment. In the second situation, an employee qualified to operate a crane fails an assessment for a crane that differs in type or capacity from the crane the employee currently operates. In this situation, the cost-minimizing action for the employer is not to assign the employee to that new type and/or capacity crane, thereby avoiding training costs. While the Agency acknowledges that there will be cases in which the employer will provide this training, it believes these costs to be minimal and, therefore, is not estimating costs for the training. OSHA made the same determinations in the 2017 PEA and did not receive public comment on them.
To calculate the estimated annual number of assessments, OSHA first estimated the current number of crane operators affected by the cranes standard. The 2014 FEA estimated 117,130 operators and this FEA also uses this estimate. The Agency solicited comment and additional data on this estimate but received none.
For the purpose of determining the number of assessments required each year under this proposal, OSHA is relying on the 23 percent turnover rate for operators originally identified in the 2008 PEA for the crane rule and used most recently in the 2014 extension FEA (79 FR 57793) and the 2017 PEA for this rule. OSHA requested comment on this rate, but received none.
This turnover rate includes all types of operators who would require assessment: Operators moving between employers; operators moving between different types and/or capacities of equipment; and operators newly entering the occupation. OSHA estimated that 26,940 assessments occur each year based on turnover (
The first part of the calculation is the same under both scenarios. Because the annual assessment costs vary by the different levels of assessment required (depending on the operator's existing level of certification), OSHA grouped the 117,130 operators subject to the crane standard into three classifications: Operators with a certificate that complies with the standard; operators with a certificate only for crane type; and operators with no certification. In order to simplify the estimation for this one-year extension (the 2014 extension was for 3 years) and reflect the last hard data point the Agency has, the Agency is using a static crane operator pool and the composition of the base operator population used in the 2014 deadline extension: 15,000 crane operators currently have a certificate that complies with the existing cranes standard, 71,700 have a certificate for crane type only (but not capacity), leaving 30,430 crane operators with no crane certification (117,130 total operators − (15,000 operators with compliant certification + 71,700 operators with certification for type only)).
Assuming the turnover rate of 23 percent and the failure rate of 15 percent for turnover-related assessments are distributed proportionally across the three types of operators, then the number of assessments for operators with compliant certification is 3,968 ((0.23 + (0.23 × 0.15)) × 15,000), the number of assessments for operators with type-only certification is 18,965 ((0.23 + (0.23 × 0.15)) × 71,700), and the number of assessments for operators with no certification is 8,049 ((0.23 + (0.23 × 0.15)) × 30,430).
Under scenario 2, there is an extension and employers would not certify all of their operators during CY 2017. OSHA estimated the CY 2017 assessment costs for scenario 2 by multiplying the assessment numbers for each type of operator by the unit costs, resulting in a cost of $6,624,861 (($79.27 × 3,968) + ($198.17 × 18,965) + ($317.08 × 8,049)). Under scenario 1, the employer-assessment requirement will be in effect for all of CY 2017, while employers would be gradually certifying all of their operators during CY 2017. As a result, the CY 2017 assessment costs identified for scenario 2 would decrease to $4,540,348 from $6,624,861 in scenario 1. This is because, as compared to scenario 2, there will be more operators who will have a compliant certificate; and therefore, under the approach described above the employer assessment will require less time. This reduction in the estimated time; and therefore, unit cost, lowers the overall assessment cost (see discussion in the 2014 deadline extension FEA for more details about this methodology).
Under both scenarios, once the certification requirement becomes effective, the employer duty to assess the crane operator no longer is in effect and so assessment costs are zero. Thus, in CY 2018, the assessment costs under scenario 1 would be zero. Under scenario 2, the assessment costs for CY 2018 would be the same as those under scenario 1 for CY 2017, because employers would be gradually certifying operators over the course of that year.
OSHA estimated the annual certification costs using the three steps: First, determine the unit costs of meeting this requirement; second, determine the number of affected operators; and, finally, multiply the unit costs of meeting the requirement by the number of operators who must meet them. In this FEA, following the same methodology as in the 2014 FEA, OSHA estimates that all certifications occur in the year prior to the deadline, hence in CY 2017 in scenario 1, while in CY 2018
OSHA estimated these different unit certification costs using substantially the same unit-cost assumptions used in the FEA for the 2010 cranes standard (and exactly the same as the FEA of the 2014 deadline extension). In those previous FEAs, OSHA estimated that training and certification costs for an operator with only limited experience would consist of $1,500 for a 2-day course (including tests) and 18 hours of the operator's time, for a total cost of $2,185.44 ($1,500 + (18 hours × $38.08)) (see 75 FR 48096-48097). OSHA continues to use a cost of $250 for the tests taken without any training (a constant fixed fee irrespective of the number of tests (75 FR 48096)), and the same number of hours used for each test that it used in the assessment calculations provided above (which the Agency based on certification test times). Accordingly, OSHA estimates the cost of a certificate compliant with the crane standard for an operator who has a type-only certificate to be $345.20 (
For scenario 1, § 1926.1427(b)(4) specifies that a certificate is valid for five years. OSHA estimates the recertification unit cost would be the same as the assessment for an operator with compliant certification (
Finally, there will be certified operators who must obtain certification when assigned to a crane that differs by type and/or capacity from the crane on which they received their current certification. This situation requires additional training, but less training than required for a “new” operator with only limited experience. Accordingly, OSHA estimated the cost for these operators as one half of the cost of training and certifying a new operator, or $1,092.72 ($2,185.44/2).
Under scenario 1 (no extension), after all operators attain certification by November 2017 there will still be ongoing certification costs each year. With a constant total number of operators, the same number of operators (5,857) will be leaving the profession each year and will not require recertification when their current 5-year certification ends. This leaves 111,274 operators (117,130 − 5,857) who will need such periodic recertification. If we approximate the timing of requirements for recertification as distributed proportionally across years, then 20 percent of all operators with a 5-year certificate (22,255 operators (.20 × 111,274)) would require recertification each year.
A final category of unit certification costs involves the continuing need for certified operators to obtain further certification when assigned to a crane that differs by type and/or capacity from the crane on which they received their current certification. This situation arises for both operators working for a single employer and operators switching employers.
The operators who will not need multiple certifications in the post-deadline period are operators with certification who move to a new employer and operate a crane with the same type and capacity as the crane on which they received certification while with their previous employer. These operators will not need multiple certifications because operator certificates are portable across employers, as specified by the cranes standard (see § 1926.1427(b)(3)). For an employer looking to hire an operator for a specific crane, this option will minimize cost, and OSHA assumes employers will choose this option when possible.
After the certification deadline, OSHA estimates that each year 23 percent of the 117,130 operators (26,940 = 0.23 × 117,130) will enter the workforce, change employers, or take on new positions that require one or more additional certifications to operate different types and/or capacities of cranes. Of these 26,940 operators, OSHA estimates 5 of the total 23 percent, or 5,857 (0.05 × 117,130), will result from new operators entering the occupation each year; 9 percent, or 10,542 (0.09 × 117,130), will result from operators switching employers but operating a crane of the same type and capacity as the crane they operated previously (
To determine the annual amount used in calculations for the second scenario (the extension to 2018), OSHA examines the costs in CY 2017 because that is the first year with certification costs. All numbers are the same, just shifted forward a year, so the total cost for having all crane operators certified in CY 2018 is $47,436,368 (in 2018 dollars).
The ultimate goal of this analysis is to determine the annualized cost differential between scenario 1 (the status quo) and scenario 2 (the extensions of the certification date and the employer assessment duty), so the final part of this PEA compares the yearly assessment and certification costs employers will incur under the two scenarios. Because the assessment and certification costs change across years under each scenario, OSHA must compare the cost differential in each year separately to determine the annual cost savings for each year attributable to scenario 2. OSHA calculated the present value of each year's differential, which provides a consistent basis for comparing the cost differentials over the extended compliance period. OSHA then annualized the present value of each differential to identify an annual amount that accounts for the discounted costs over this period. Table 1 below summarizes these calculations.
Table 1 shows that assessment and certification costs are just shifted out another year. As noted earlier, OSHA estimated the overall cost differential between these two scenarios by calculating the difference in total (assessment and certification) costs each year across the two scenarios. The net employer cost savings in current dollars attributable to adopting the second scenario are, for each certification year: 2017, $18.2 million; 2018, $8.7 million; 2019-2021, $0; 2022, −$7.5 million.
OSHA next determined the present value of these cost differentials between the two scenarios. OSHA calculated the present value of future costs using two interest rates assumptions, 3 percent and 7 percent, which follow the OMB guidelines specified by Circular A-4. At an interest rate of 3 percent, the present value of the cost differentials for CY 2017 onwards results in an estimated savings of $20.2 million ($21.3 million using the 7 percent rate). Finally, annualizing the present value over five years results in an annualized cost differential (
As a sensitivity analysis the Agency looked at including possible overhead costs. It is important to note that there is not one broadly accepted overhead rate and that the use of overhead to estimate the marginal costs of labor raises a number of issues that should be addressed before applying overhead costs to analyze the costs of any specific regulation. There are several approaches to look at the cost elements that fit the definition of
If OSHA had included an overhead rate when estimating the marginal cost of labor, without further analyzing an appropriate quantitative adjustment, and adopted for these purposes an overhead rate of 17 percent on base wages, as was done in a sensitivity analysis in the FEA in support of OSHA's 2016 final rule on Occupational Exposure to Respirable Crystalline Silica, the overhead costs would increase cost savings from $4.4 million to $4.5 million at a discount rate of 3 percent, an increase of 1.8 percent, and would increase cost savings from $5.2 million to $5.3 million at a discount rate of 7 percent, an increase of 1.9 percent.
Most employers will have savings resulting from the one-year extension, particularly employers that planned to pay for operator certification in the year before the existing 2017 deadline. The only entities likely to see a net cost will be entities that planned to hire an operator with compliant certification after November 10, 2017. Without the one-year extension, these entities will have no separate assessment duty, but under the one-year extension they will have the expense involved in assessing operator competency. As noted above, however, OSHA estimated the maximum cost for such an assessment (for operators with no certification) to be $317.08 per certified operator.
Small businesses will, by definition, have few operators, and OSHA believes the $317.08 cost will be well below 1 percent of revenues, and well below 5 percent of profits, in any industry sector using cranes. OSHA does not consider such small amounts to represent a significant impact on small businesses in any industry sector. Hence, OSHA certifies this final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. After providing relatively similar estimates in the 2014 FEA, OSHA made the same certification in the 2014 FEA and proposed the same certification in the 2017 PEA but did not receive any adverse comment on either the certification or its underlying rationale.
The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) requires Federal agencies to obtain the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval of information collection requirements before an Agency can conduct or sponsor the information collection requirement; and to display the OMB control (approval number) (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)). Agencies submit an Information Collection Request (ICR), with paperwork analysis, to OMB seeking approval of their paperwork requirements. The information collection requirements in the Cranes and Derricks in Construction Standard (29 CFR part 1926, subpart CC) have been approved by OMB in the ICR titled
In the August 30, 2017 NPRM, OSHA notified the public that the Agency believed the proposed Cranes and Derricks in Construction: Operator Certification Extension rule did not contain additional collection of information, and that OSHA did not believe it was necessary to submit a new (revised) ICR to OMB. OSHA instructed the public to submit comments on this determination to OMB and encouraged them to submit their comments to OSHA. No comments were received and OSHA has determined this final rule requires no additional collection of information or any permanent change to the collection program. As a result, the Agency did not submit an ICR to OMB.
The Agency notes that a Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other law, no person may generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OSHA reviewed this final rule in accordance with the Executive Order on Federalism (Executive Order 13132, 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), which requires that Federal agencies, to the extent possible, refrain from limiting State policy options, consult with States prior to taking any actions that would restrict State policy options, and take such actions only when clear constitutional authority exists and the problem is national in scope. Executive Order 13132 provides for preemption of State law only with the expressed consent of Congress. Federal agencies must limit any such preemption to the extent possible.
Under Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act; 29 U.S.C. 651
OSHA previously concluded from its analysis that promulgation of subpart CC complies with Executive Order 13132 (75 FR 48128-29). In States without an OSHA-approved State Plan, this final rule limits State policy options in the same manner as every standard promulgated by OSHA. For State Plan States, Section 18 of the OSH Act, as noted in the previous paragraph, permits State-Plan States to develop and enforce their own crane standards
When Federal OSHA promulgates a new standard or more stringent amendment to an existing standard, State Plans must either amend their standards to be “at least as effective as” the new standard or amendment, or show that an existing State standard covering this area is already “at least as effective” as the new Federal standard or amendment (29 CFR 1953.5(a)). State Plans adoption must be completed within six months of the promulgation date of the final Federal rule. When OSHA promulgates a new standard or amendment that does not impose additional or more stringent requirements than an existing standard, State Plans do not have to amend their standards, although OSHA may encourage them to do so.
The amendment to OSHA's crane standard in this final rule only delays the deadline for operator certification requirements and does not impose any new requirements on employers. Accordingly, State Plans are not required to amend their standards to delay the deadline for their operator certification requirements, but they may do so if they so choose. If they choose to delay the deadline for their certification requirements, they also would need to include a corresponding extension of the employer duty to assess and train operators that is equivalent to § 1926.1427(k)(2).
When OSHA issued the final rule for cranes and derricks in construction, it reviewed the rule according to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA; 2 U.S.C. 1501
As discussed above in Section III.A (Final Economic Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis) of this preamble, this final rule does not impose any costs on private-sector employers beyond those costs already taken into account in the 2010 final rule for cranes and derricks in construction. Because OSHA reviewed the total costs of the 2010 final rule under the UMRA, no further review of those costs is necessary. Therefore, for the purposes of the UMRA, OSHA certifies that this final rule does not mandate that State, local, or tribal governments adopt new, unfunded regulatory obligations, or increase expenditures by the private sector of more than $100 million in any year.
OSHA reviewed this final rule in accordance with Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249) and determined that it does not have “tribal implications” as defined in that order. The rule does not have substantial direct effects 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.
Consistent with E.O. 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017), OSHA has estimated the annualized cost savings over 10 years for this final rule to range from $4.4 million to $5.2 million, depending on the discount rate. This final rule is considered an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action. Details on the estimated cost savings of this final rule can be found in the rule's economic analysis.
The purpose of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 651
In addition to materially reducing a significant risk, a safety standard must be technologically feasible. See
Construction industry, Cranes, Derricks, Occupational safety and health, Safety.
For the reasons stated in the preamble of this final rule, OSHA amends 29 CFR part 1926 as follows:
40 U.S.C. 3701
(k)
(2) When paragraph (a)(1) of this section is not applicable, all of the requirements in paragraphs (k)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section apply until November 10, 2018.
(i) The employer must ensure that operators of equipment covered by this standard are competent to operate the equipment safely.
(ii) When an employee assigned to operate machinery does not have the required knowledge or ability to operate the equipment safely, the employer must train that employee prior to operating the equipment. The employer must ensure that each operator is evaluated to confirm that he/she understands the information provided in the training.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Final rule.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is amending the Cuban Assets Control Regulations to implement the National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM), “Strengthening the Policy of the United States Toward Cuba,” signed by the President on June 16, 2017. These amendments implement changes to the authorizations for travel to Cuba and related transactions and restrict certain financial transactions. These amendments also implement certain technical and conforming changes.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control: Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480, Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202-622-4855, Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202-622-2490; or the Department of the Treasury's Office of the Chief Counsel (Foreign Assets Control), Office of the General Counsel, tel.: 202-622-2410.
This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available from OFAC's Web site (
The Department of the Treasury issued the Cuban Assets Control Regulations, 31 CFR part 515 (the “Regulations”), on July 8, 1963, under the Trading With the Enemy Act (50 U.S.C. 4301-41). OFAC has amended the Regulations on numerous occasions. Today, OFAC, the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security, and the Department of State are taking coordinated actions to implement the NSPM, “Strengthening the Policy of the United States Toward Cuba,” signed by the President on June 16, 2017.
OFAC is making amendments to the Regulations with respect to financial transactions, travel and related transactions, educational activities, support for the Cuban people, and certain other activities, as set forth below.
In order to implement this prohibition, OFAC is adding corresponding language in the following general licenses: §§ 515.530, 515.534, 515.545, 515.560, 515.561, 515.564, 515.565, 515.566, 515.567, 515.572, 515.573, 515.574, 515.576, 515.577, 515.578, 515.581, 515.584, and 515.590. OFAC has not incorporated this prohibition into certain general licenses in accordance with the exceptions detailed in section 3(a)(iii) of the NSPM.
In addition, OFAC is adding the requirement set forth in the NSPM that certain categories of educational travel authorized by § 515.565(a), which were not permitted by regulation in effect on January 27, 2011, take place under the auspices of an organization that is a person subject to U.S. jurisdiction. This requirement is incorporated in § 515.565(a)(2). The same provision also now will require that all travelers must be accompanied by a person subject to U.S. jurisdiction who is an employee, paid consultant, agent, or other representative of the sponsoring organization, except in cases where the traveler is an employee, paid consultant, agent, or other representative traveling individually (not as part of a group), if the individual obtains a letter from the sponsoring organization. Such a letter must state that: (1) The individual is traveling to Cuba as an employee, paid consultant, agent, or other representative (including specifying the responsibilities of the individual that make him or her a representative) of the sponsoring organization; (2) the individual is acting for or on behalf of, or otherwise representing, the sponsoring organization; and (3) the individual's travel to Cuba is related to his or her role at the sponsoring organization.
In addition, OFAC is adding a “grandfathering” provision in § 515.565(d) to authorize certain travel that previously was authorized where the traveler has already completed at least one travel-related transaction (such as purchasing a flight or reserving accommodation) prior to November 9, 2017.
Because the amendments of the Regulations involve a foreign affairs function, Executive Order 12866 and the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunity for public participation, and delay in effective date, as well as the provisions of Executive Order 13771, are inapplicable. Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this rule, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) does not apply.
The collections of information related to the Regulations are contained in 31 CFR part 501 (the “Reporting, Procedures and Penalties Regulations”) and § 515.572 of this part. Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), those collections of information are covered by the Office of Management and Budget under control numbers 1505-0164, 1505-0167, and 1505-0168. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid control number.
Administrative practice and procedure, Banking, Blocking of assets, Cuba, Financial transactions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Travel restrictions.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control amends 31 CFR part 515 as set forth below:
22 U.S.C. 2370(a), 6001-6010, 7201-7211; 31 U.S.C. 321(b); 50 U.S.C. 4301-4341; Pub. L. 101-410, 104 Stat. 890 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note); Pub. L. 104-114, 110 Stat. 785 (22 U.S.C. 6021-6091); Pub. L. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681; Pub. L. 111-8, 123 Stat. 524; Pub. L. 111-117, 123 Stat. 3034; E.O. 9193, 7 FR 5205, 3 CFR, 1938-1943 Comp., p. 1174; E.O. 9989, 13 FR 4891, 3 CFR, 1943-1948 Comp., p. 748; Proc. 3447, 27 FR 1085, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 157; E.O. 12854, 58 FR 36587, 3 CFR, 1993 Comp., p. 614.
(a) Except as otherwise authorized pursuant to this part, no person subject to U.S. jurisdiction may engage in a direct financial transaction with any person that the Secretary of State has identified as an entity or subentity that is under the control of, or acts for or on behalf of, the Cuban military, intelligence, or security services or personnel and with which direct financial transactions would disproportionately benefit such services or personnel at the expense of the Cuban people or private enterprise in Cuba. For purposes of this prohibition, a person engages in a direct financial transaction by acting as the originator on a transfer of funds whose ultimate beneficiary is an entity or subentity on the State Department's List of Restricted Entities and Subentities Associated with Cuba (“Cuba Restricted List”) or as the ultimate beneficiary on a transfer of funds whose originator is an entity or subentity on the Cuba Restricted List, including a transaction by wire transfer, credit card, check, or payment of cash. This prohibition does not apply to certain transactions set forth in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
The names of entities and subentities that the Secretary of State has identified as meeting the criteria set forth in this section are published in the
(b) The prohibition in paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to any travel-related transactions, including those that involve direct financial transactions with an entity or subentity on the Cuba Restricted List, provided those travel-related transactions were initiated prior to the date that entity or subentity was added to the Cuba Restricted List as published in the
(c) The prohibition in paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to any transactions related to commercial engagements that involve direct financial transactions with an entity or subentity on the Cuba Restricted List, provided those commercial engagements were in place prior to the date that entity or subentity was added to the Cuba Restricted List as published in the
This section does not prohibit a person subject to U.S. jurisdiction from participating in an indirect financial transaction, such as those authorized pursuant to § 515.584(d) relating to funds transfers or § 515.584(g) relating to U.S. dollar monetary instruments, where the person does not act as the originator or beneficiary on a transfer of funds.
For purposes of this part, the term
(a) * * *
(5) A direct financial transaction prohibited by § 515.209, where the terms of the applicable general or specific license expressly exclude such a transaction.
(d)
(b)
(1) The items previously were exported or reexported to Cuba pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section or § 515.559; and
(2) The items are being imported into the United States or a third country either:
(i) In order to service or repair them before they are exported or reexported back to Cuba, or
(ii) To return them to the United States or a third country.
This paragraph does not authorize the exportation or reexportation of any item to Cuba. The exportation or reexportation of serviced, repaired, or replacement items to Cuba must be separately authorized pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section or § 515.559, in addition to any Department of Commerce authorization that may be required.
(c)
(c)
(c) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, persons generally or specifically licensed under this part to engage in transactions in connection with travel to, from, and within Cuba may engage in the following transactions:
(1)
(d) Nothing in paragraphs (c)(2), (c)(3), and (c)(6)(i) of this section authorizes a direct financial transaction prohibited by § 515.209 if the terms of the applicable general or specific license expressly exclude such a transaction.
(a) * * * Nothing in this paragraph authorizes a direct financial transaction prohibited by § 515.209.
(c)
(a)
(i) Participation in a structured educational program in Cuba as part of a course offered at the U.S. institution, provided the program includes a full term, and in no instance includes fewer than 10 weeks, of study in Cuba. An individual planning to engage in such transactions must obtain a letter from the U.S. institution stating that the individual is a student currently enrolled in an undergraduate or graduate degree program at the institution, or is a full-time permanent employee of the institution, and that the Cuba-related travel is part of a
(ii) Noncommercial academic research in Cuba specifically related to Cuba and for the purpose of obtaining a graduate degree. A student planning to engage in such transactions must obtain a letter from the U.S. institution stating that the individual is a student currently enrolled in a graduate degree program at the U.S. institution and that the research in Cuba will be accepted for credit toward that degree;
(iii) Participation in a formal course of study at a Cuban academic institution, provided the formal course of study in Cuba will be accepted for credit toward the student's undergraduate or graduate degree at the U.S. institution and provided that the course of study is no shorter than 10 weeks in duration. An individual planning to engage in such transactions must obtain a letter from the U.S. institution stating that the individual is a student currently enrolled in an undergraduate or graduate degree program at the U.S. institution and that the study in Cuba will be accepted for credit toward that degree and will be no shorter than 10 weeks in duration;
(iv) Teaching at a Cuban academic institution by an individual regularly employed in a teaching capacity at the U.S. institution, provided the teaching activities are related to an academic program at the Cuban institution and provided that the duration of the teaching will be no shorter than 10 weeks. An individual planning to engage in such transactions must obtain a letter from the U.S. institution stating that the individual is a full-time permanent employee regularly employed in a teaching capacity at the U.S. institution;
(v) Sponsorship of a Cuban scholar to teach or engage in other scholarly activity at the U.S. institution (in addition to those transactions authorized by the general license contained in § 515.571); and
See § 515.571(a) for authorizations related to certain banking transactions and receipt of salary or other compensation by Cuban nationals present in the United States in a non-immigrant status or pursuant to other non-immigrant travel authorization issued by the U.S. government.
(vi) The organization of, and preparation for, the activities described in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (a)(1)(v) of this section by a full-time permanent employee of the U.S. institution. An individual engaging in such transactions must obtain a letter from the U.S. institution stating that the individual is a full-time permanent employee of the U.S. institution.
(2) To the extent not authorized in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction, including U.S. academic institutions and their faculty, staff, and students, are authorized to engage in transactions, including the travel-related transactions set forth in § 515.560(c), that are directly incident to the following activities, provided that any travel-related transactions pursuant to these authorizations take place under the auspices of an organization that is a person subject to U.S. jurisdiction, and further provided that all such travelers be accompanied by a person subject to U.S. jurisdiction who is an employee, paid consultant, agent, or other representative of the sponsoring organization, except in cases where the traveler is an employee, paid consultant, agent, or other representative traveling individually (not as part of a group) and the individual traveler obtains a letter from the sponsoring organization stating that: The individual is traveling to Cuba as an employee, paid consultant, agent, or other representative (including specifying the responsibilities of the individual that make him or her a representative) of the sponsoring organization; the individual is acting for or on behalf of, or otherwise representing, the sponsoring organization; and the individual's travel to Cuba is related to his or her role at the sponsoring organization:
(i) Participation in a structured educational program in Cuba as part of a course offered for credit by a U.S. graduate or undergraduate degree-granting academic institution that is sponsoring the program;
(ii) Noncommercial academic research in Cuba specifically related to Cuba and for the purpose of obtaining an undergraduate or graduate degree;
(iii) Participation in a formal course of study at a Cuban academic institution, provided the formal course of study in Cuba will be accepted for credit toward the student's graduate or undergraduate degree;
(iv) Teaching at a Cuban academic institution related to an academic program at the Cuban institution, provided that the individual is regularly employed by a U.S. or other non-Cuban academic institution;
(v) Sponsorship of a Cuban scholar to teach or engage in other scholarly activity at the sponsoring U.S. academic institution (in addition to those transactions authorized by the general license contained in § 515.571).
See § 515.571(a) for authorizations related to certain banking transactions and receipt of salary or other compensation by Cuban nationals present in the United States in a non-immigrant status or pursuant to other non-immigrant travel authorization issued by the U.S. government.
(vi) Educational exchanges sponsored by Cuban or U.S. secondary schools involving secondary school students' participation in a formal course of study or in a structured educational program offered by a secondary school or other academic institution and led by a teacher or other secondary school official. This includes participation by a reasonable number of adult chaperones to accompany the secondary school students to Cuba;
(vii) Sponsorship or co-sponsorship of non-commercial academic seminars, conferences, symposia, and workshops related to Cuba or global issues involving Cuba and attendance at such events by faculty, staff, and students of a participating U.S. academic institution;
(viii) Establishment of academic exchanges and joint non-commercial academic research projects with universities or academic institutions in Cuba;
(ix) Provision of standardized testing services, including professional certificate examinations, university entrance examinations, and language examinations, and related preparatory services for such exams, to Cuban nationals, wherever located;
(x) Provision of Internet-based courses, including distance learning and Massive Open Online Courses, to Cuban nationals, wherever located, provided that the course content is at the undergraduate level or below;
(xi) The organization of, and preparation for, activities described in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (a)(2)(x) of this section by an employee, paid consultant, agent, or other representative of the sponsoring organization that is a person subject to U.S. jurisdiction; and
(xii) Facilitation by an organization that is a person subject to U.S. jurisdiction, or a member of the staff of such an organization, of licensed educational activities in Cuba on behalf of U.S. academic institutions or secondary schools, provided that:
(A) The organization is directly affiliated with one or more U.S. academic institutions or secondary schools; and
(B) The organization facilitates educational activities that meet the requirements of one or more of the general licenses set forth in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (iii), (a)(2)(i) through (iii), and (a)(2)(vi) of this section.
The authorizations in this paragraph extend to adjunct faculty and part-time staff of U.S. academic institutions. A student enrolled in a U.S. academic institution is authorized pursuant to paragraph (a)(2) of this section to participate in the academic activities in Cuba described through any sponsoring U.S. academic institution.
An individual undergraduate student serves as a research assistant at his or her U.S. undergraduate degree-granting academic institution. This individual may travel to Cuba to engage in noncommercial academic research specifically related to Cuba for the purpose of obtaining an undergraduate degree pursuant to paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section if the student is either accompanied by an employee, paid consultant, agent, or other representative of the academic institution (either individually or as part of a group), or has obtained a letter from the institution stating that the student is an employee, paid consultant, agent, or other representative (including specifying the responsibilities that make him or her a representative) of the academic institution, that the student is acting for or on behalf of or otherwise representing the academic institution, and that the student's travel to Cuba is related to his or her role at the academic institution.
See § 515.560(c)(6) for an authorization for individuals to open and maintain accounts at Cuban financial institutions; see § 515.573 for an authorization for entities conducting educational activities authorized by § 515.565(a) to establish a physical presence in Cuba, including an authorization to open and maintain accounts at Cuban financial institutions.
The export or reexport to Cuba of goods (including software) or technology subject to the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730 through 774) may require separate authorization from the Department of Commerce.
See § 515.590(a) for an authorization for the provision of educational grants, scholarships, or awards to a Cuban national or in which Cuba or a Cuban national otherwise has an interest.
(b)
(1) The exchanges take place under the auspices of an organization that is a person subject to U.S. jurisdiction and that sponsors such exchanges to promote people-to-people contact;
(2) Travel-related transactions pursuant to this authorization are for the purpose of engaging, while in Cuba, in a full-time schedule of activities that enhance contact with the Cuban people, support civil society in Cuba, or promote the Cuban people's independence from Cuban authorities;
(3) Each traveler has a full-time schedule of educational exchange activities that result in meaningful interaction between the traveler and individuals in Cuba;
(4) A person subject to U.S. jurisdiction who is an employee, paid consultant, agent, or other representative of the sponsoring organization accompanies each group traveling to Cuba to ensure that each traveler has a full-time schedule of educational exchange activities;
(5) The predominant portion of the activities engaged in by each travelers is not with a prohibited official of the Government of Cuba, as defined in § 515.337, or a prohibited member of the Cuban Communist Party, as defined in § 515.338; and
(6) In addition to all other information required by § 501.601 of this chapter, persons relying on the authorization in paragraph (b) of this section, including entities sponsoring travel pursuant to the authorization in paragraph (b) of this section, must retain records sufficient to demonstrate that each individual traveler has engaged in a full-time schedule of activities that satisfy the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(5) of this section. Individuals may rely on the entity sponsoring the travel to satisfy his or her recordkeeping requirements with respect to the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section. These records must be furnished to the Office of Foreign Assets Control on demand pursuant to § 501.602 of this chapter.
An organization sponsors and organizes educational exchanges not involving academic study pursuant to a degree program for travelers to learn side-by-side with Cuban individuals in areas such as environmental protection or the arts. Each traveler in the group will have a full-time schedule of educational exchange activities that result in meaningful interaction between the travelers and individuals in Cuba. The group will be accompanied by a person who is subject to U.S. jurisdiction who is a representative of the sponsoring organization for the duration of the trip. The organization's activities qualify for the general license for people-to-people travel. In addition, the individual travelers may rely on the entity sponsoring the travel to satisfy their recordkeeping requirements.
An individual plans to travel to Cuba to participate in discussions with Cuban artists on community projects, exchanges with the founders of a youth arts program, and extended dialogue with local city planners and architects to learn about historical restoration projects in Old Havana. The individual traveler will have a full-time schedule of such educational exchange activities that result in meaningful interaction between the traveler and individuals in Cuba. The individual's activities do not qualify for the general license for people-to-people travel because the individual is not traveling under the auspices of an organization that is a person subject to U.S. jurisdiction and that sponsors such exchanges to promote people-to-people contact. The individual's travel may qualify for the general license in § 515.574 (Support for the Cuban People) provided the individual meets all of its requirements.
Except as provided in paragraph (b)(6) of this section, each person relying on the general authorizations in these paragraphs, including entities sponsoring travel pursuant to the authorization in paragraph (b) of this section, must retain specific records related to the authorized travel transactions. See §§ 501.601 and 501.602 of this chapter for applicable recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f) Transactions related to activities that are primarily tourist-oriented are not authorized pursuant to this section.
(g)
(a) * * * Nothing in this paragraph authorizes a direct financial transaction prohibited by § 515.209.
(d) Nothing in paragraph (a) or (b) of this section authorizes a direct financial transaction prohibited by § 515.209.
(a) * * *
(1) * * * Nothing in this paragraph authorizes a direct financial transaction prohibited by § 515.209 if the terms of the applicable general or specific license authorizing the travel expressly exclude such a transaction.
(f)
(2) Nothing in paragraph (d)(2), (3), or (6) of this section authorizes a direct financial transaction prohibited by § 515.209.
(a) * * *
(2) Each traveler engages in a full-time schedule of activities that:
(i) Enhance contact with the Cuban people, support civil society in Cuba, or promote the Cuban people's independence from Cuban authorities; and
(ii) Result in meaningful interaction with individuals in Cuba.
Staying in a room at a rented accommodation in a private Cuban residence (
(c)
An individual plans to travel to Cuba, stay in a room at a rented accommodation in a private Cuban residence (
A group of friends plans to travel and maintain a full-time schedule throughout their trip by volunteering with a recognized non-governmental organization to build a school for underserved Cuban children with the local community. In their free time, the travelers plan to rent bicycles to explore the streets of Havana and visit an art museum. The travelers' trip would qualify for the general license because the volunteer activities promote independent activity intended to strengthen civil society in Cuba and constitute a full-time schedule that enhances contact with the Cuban people and supports civil society in Cuba, and results in meaningful interaction between the travelers and individuals in Cuba.
An individual plans to travel to Cuba, rent a bicycle to explore the neighborhoods and beaches, and engage in brief exchanges with local beach vendors. The individual intends to stay at a hotel that does not appear on the Cuba Restricted List (see § 515.209). The traveler's trip does not qualify for this general license because none of these activities promote independent activity intended to strengthen civil society in Cuba.
(c)
(f)
(f)
* * * Nothing in this paragraph authorizes a direct financial transaction prohibited by § 515.209.
(f) Any banking institution, as defined in § 515.314, that is a person subject to U.S. jurisdiction is authorized to provide financing for exports or reexports of items, other than agricultural commodities, authorized pursuant to § 515.533, including issuing, advising, negotiating, paying, or confirming letters of credit (including letters of credit issued by a financial institution that is a national of Cuba), accepting collateral for issuing or confirming letters of credit, and processing documentary collections. With the exception of transactions related to exports or reexports of medicines or medical supplies, items associated with the provision of telecommunications and internet services for the Cuban people, or items associated with air and sea operations that support permissible travel, cargo, or trade, nothing in this paragraph authorizes a direct financial transaction prohibited by § 515.209.
The provision of grants, scholarships, or awards relating to the following activities to a Cuban national or in which Cuba or a Cuban national otherwise has an interest is authorized, provided that nothing in this section authorizes a direct financial transaction prohibited by § 515.209:
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Route 1 & 9 (Lincoln Highway) Bridge across the Hackensack River, mile 1.8, at Jersey City, New Jersey. The deviation is necessary to restrict bridge openings during the morning and afternoon rush hour periods to alleviate vehicular traffic congestion resulting from area roadway closures.
This deviation is effective from 12:01 a.m. on November 13, 2017 until 11:59 p.m. on April 1, 2018.
The docket for this deviation, USCG-2017-0991, is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Judy K. Leung-Yee, Bridge Management Specialist, First District Bridge Branch, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 212-514-4336, email
The owner of the bridge, the New Jersey Department of Transportation, requested a temporary deviation in order to complete rehabilitation of the adjacent Pulaski Skyway Bridge. The Route 1 & 9 Bridge across the Hackensack River, mile 1.8, at Jersey City, New Jersey is a vertical lift bridge with a vertical clearance of 35 feet at mean high water and 40 feet at mean low water in the closed position. The existing drawbridge operating regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.5.
On September 9, 2016, the Coast Guard published a temporary final rule entitled, “Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Route 1 & 9 (Lincoln Highway) Bridge, Hackensack River, Jersey City, NJ,” under docket number USCG-2016-0173, in the
Due to unanticipated project delays, the New Jersey Department of Transportation has requested to continue to restrict the bridge opening of the Route 1 & 9 Bridge allowing for completion of adjacent Pulaski Skyway bridge rehabilitation.
This temporary deviation will allow the Route 1 & 9 Bridge to open on signal from November 13, 2017 to April 1, 2017, except that the draw will not open to vessel traffic between 6 a.m. and 10 a.m. and between 2 p.m. and 6 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. Tide dependent deep draft vessels may request bridge openings during the rush hour closure periods, provided that at least a twelve hour advance notice is given by calling the number posted at the bridge. The waterway is transited by recreational vessels and commercial vessels. Coordination with waterway users has indicated no objections to the proposed closure of the draw. Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at anytime. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies. There is no alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so vessel operators may arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the South Fulton Avenue Bridge across the Hutchinson River, mile 2.9, at Mount Vernon, New York. This deviation is necessary to facilitate bridge rehabilitation allowing the owner to temporarily close the draw for ten days.
This deviation is effective from 12:01 a.m. on November 13, 2017 until 11:59 p.m. on November 22, 2017.
The docket for this deviation, USCG-2017-0983, is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Judy K. Leung-Yee, Bridge Management Specialist, First District Bridge Branch, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 212-514-4336, email
The owner of the bridge, the Westchester County Department of Public Works and Transportation, requested a temporary deviation in order to facilitate bridge rehabilitation including placement of the concrete deck for the counterweight spans, installation of concrete on the movable spans, installation of sidewalk deck panels, control/mechanical equipment wiring and testing, and bridge testing.
The South Fulton Avenue Bridge across the Hutchinson River, mile 2.9, at Mount Vernon, New York is a bascule bridge with a vertical clearance of 6 feet at mean high water and 13 feet at mean low water in the closed position. The existing drawbridge operating regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.793(c).
This temporary deviation will allow the South Fulton Avenue Bridge to remain in the closed position from 12:01 a.m. on November 13, 2017 to 11:59 p.m. on November 22, 2017. The waterway is transited by recreational vessels and commercial vessels. There is only one facility upstream of this bridge. Coordination with waterway user has indicated no objection to the proposed closure of the draw. Vessels that can pass under the bridge without an opening may do so at all times. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies. There is no alternate route for vessels to pass.
The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so vessel operators may arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing temporary safety zones in the Atlantic Ocean, off the coast of Rehoboth Beach, DE and in Breakwater Harbor near Cape Henlopen. Safety zone one is being established for navigable waters in the vicinity of the derrick barge HAAKON during dredging operations, pipe laying operations, diving operations and underwater construction operations. Safety zone two is being established for waters in the vicinity of the working barges and pipeline located in Breakwater Harbor during pipeline fusing and testing operations. This regulation is necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters of Breakwater Harbor and the Atlantic Ocean in the vicinity of the construction operations off the coast of Rehoboth Beach during construction activities. Entry of vessels or persons into these zones is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Delaware Bay.
This rule is effective without actual notice from November 9, 2017 through February 28, 2018. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from November 6, 2017 through November 9, 2017.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Petty Officer Edmund Ofalt, Waterways Management Branch, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Delaware Bay; telephone (215) 271-4814, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule due to the short time period between when Sector Delaware Bay received complete details of this project, October 30, 2017, and the date when these safety zones needed to go into effect. It is impracticable and contrary to the public interest to publish an NPRM to provide a notice and opportunity for comment period because the safety zones must be established by November 6, 2017, to ensure safety of life on navigable waters in the vicinity of dredging operations, pipe laying operations, diving operations as well as construction
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Delaware Bay has determined that potential hazards associated with dredging, diving, pipe laying, and construction operations starting November 6, 2017 will be a safety concern for vessels attempting to transit the Atlantic Ocean offshore of Rehoboth Beach and Breakwater Harbor. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment on the navigable waters within the safety zones while dredging, diving, pipe laying, and construction operations are being conducted.
This rule establishes two safety zones from November 6, 2017, through February 28, 2018, unless cancelled earlier by the COTP, to facilitate dredging, diving, pipe laying, and construction operations. Dredging operations will commence on November 6, 2017. The derrick barge HAAKON will begin dredging at approximate coordinates 38°43′43.79″ N., 75°3′32.60″ W. and move to the east. Simultaneously, at another location, pipeline fusing operations will begin and pipeline will be connected into two sections of approximately 1,900 feet in length each and one section approximately 1,800 feet in length. Pipeline fusing operations are expected to take approximately 25 days. At the completion of pipeline fusing operations, all the sections of pipeline will be pulled into Breakwater Harbor to approximately 38°47′53.00″ N., 75°6′13.85″ W. The two 1,900 foot sections of pipeline will be fused together and tested for continuity for at least 48 hours. When the pipeline proves to be continuous, it will be taken to the location of dredging operations where it will be inserted into a hole which has been horizontally drilled back to the Rehoboth Beach water treatment facility. The 1,800 foot section will then be laid in the trench and connected to the 3,800 foot section. A diffuser of approximately 127 feet will then be connected to the end of the pipe. Upon completion of connections and testing, a portion of the sediment removed during the dredging operations will be placed back over the pipeline and diffuser along with marine matting to ensure stability.
Safety zone one includes all navigable waters within 150 yards of the derrick barge HAAKON and associated dredging, diving, and construction equipment operating in the Atlantic Ocean offshore of Rehoboth Beach, DE, at approximate location 38°43′43.79″ N., 75°3′32.60″ W.
Safety zone two includes all navigable waters within 150 yards of the platform barge MANSON 76 and all associated equipment, to include pipeline, operating in Breakwater Harbor at approximate location 38°47′53.00″ N., 75°6′13.85″ W.
Vessels requesting to enter either safety zone must receive permission from the COTP on VHF-FM channel 16. Vessels may also contact the HAAKON or MANSON 76 in the event of an emergency on VHF-FM channel 68 or 13.
This rule was developed after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below is a summary of analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and 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 rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule 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 size, location, and duration of the safety zones. Although this regulation will restrict access to regulated areas, the effect of this rule will not be significant because the locations allow for transit around the areas included in the safety zones as well as a reduction in vessel traffic in the areas due to seasonal variations in the quantity of vessel traffic in these locations.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves safety zones that encompass all navigable waters within 150 yards of dredging, diving, construction operations and associated equipment. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(1) Safety zone one includes all navigable waters within 150 yards of the derrick barge HAAKON and associated equipment operating in the Atlantic Ocean offshore of Rehoboth Beach, DE, at approximate location 38°43′43.79″ N., 75°3′32.60″ W.
(2) Safety zone two includes all navigable waters within 150 yards of the platform barge MANSON 76 and all associated equipment, to include pipeline, operating in Breakwater Harbor at approximate location 38°47′53.00″ N., 75°6′13.85″ W.
(3) These coordinates are based on the World Geodedic System 1984 (WGS 84) horizontal datum reference.
(b)
(2)
(c)
(1) Entry into or transiting within either safety zone is prohibited unless vessels obtain permission from the Captain of the Port, via VHF-FM channel 16. Vessels may also contact the derrick barge HAAKON or platform barge MANSON 76, via VHF-FM channel 13 or 68 in an emergency.
(2) Vessels granted permission to enter and transit the safety zone must do so in accordance with any directions or orders of the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative. No person or vessel may enter or remain in a safety zone without permission from the Captain of the Port.
(3) This section applies to all vessels that intend to transit through the safety zone except vessels that are engaged in the following operations: Enforcement of laws; service of aids to navigation, and emergency response.
(d)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for navigable waters within a 100 yard radius of the salvage vessel and associated machinery in the Turning Basin, Bahia De Ponce in Ponce, Puerto Rico (PR). The safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environments from potential hazards created by the salvage operations. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port San Juan.
This rule is effective without actual notice from November 9, 2017 until 7 p.m. on November 12, 2017. For the purposes of enforcement, actual
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. Efrain Lopez, Sector San Juan Prevention Department, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (787) 289-2097, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because of a submerged vessel was located in Port of Ponce Turning Basin and immediate action is needed to respond to potential safety hazards associated with emergency salvage operations. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM because a safety zone must be established by November 5, 2017.
We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port San Juan (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with emergency salvage operations starting on November 5, 2017 through November 12, 2017, will be a safety concern for anyone within a 100-yard radius of the salvage vessel and associated machinery with the operation. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the obstructions are removed.
This rule establishes a safety zone from 7 a.m. until 7 p.m. on November 5, 2017 through November 12, 2017. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within 100 yards of vessels and associated machinery being used by personnel to clear the obstructions in Port of Ponce Turning Basin. The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters while the operation is ongoing. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule 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 size, location, and duration of the safety zone. The majority of vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around the safety zone, which will impact only a portion of the Turning Basin in Ponce, PR for a short period time. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the COTP or a designated representative.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone that will prohibit entry within 100 yards of vessels and associated machinery being used by personnel to remove an obstruction in the Port of Ponce. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record keeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone may contact the COTP San Juan by telephone at (787) 729-6800, option #4, or the Resident Inspection Office (RIO) Ponce at (787) 284-8423, or a designated representative via VHF-FM radio on channel 16 to request authorization. If authorization is granted, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the COTP San Juan or a designated representative.
(d)
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Final rule; CRA revocation.
By operation of the Congressional Review Act (CRA), the “Non-subsistence Take of Wildlife, and Public Participation and Closure Procedures, on National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska” (non-subsistence take of wildlife rule) shall be treated as if it had never taken effect. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issues this document to effect the removal of any amendments, deletions, or other modifications made by the nullified rule and the reversion to the text of the regulations in effect immediately prior to the effective date of the non-subsistence take of wildlife rule.
This rule is effective November 9, 2017.
Previous documents related to the Non-subsistence Take of Wildlife, and Public Participation and Closure Procedures, on National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska rule (non-subsistence take of wildlife rule) of August 5, 2016 (81 FR 52248), may be found on the internet at
Stephanie Brady, Chief of Conservation Planning and Policy, National Wildlife Refuge System, Alaska Regional Office, 1011 E. Tudor Rd., Mail Stop 211,
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published the Non-subsistence Take of Wildlife, and Public Participation and Closure Procedures, on National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska (non-subsistence take of wildlife rule) on August 5, 2016 (81 FR 52248). The rule became effective on September 6, 2016. On February 16, 2017, the United States House of Representatives passed a resolution of disapproval [H.J. Res. 69] of the non-subsistence take of wildlife rule under the Congressional Review Act (CRA), 5 U.S.C. 801
However, because the CRA does not include direction regarding the removal, by the Office of the Federal Register or otherwise, of the voided language from the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service must publish this document to effect the removal of the voided text. This document will enable the Office of the Federal Register to effectuate congressional intent to remove the voided text of the non-subsistence take of wildlife rule as if it had never taken effect, and restore the previous language and prior state of the CFR.
This action is not an exercise of the Department's rulemaking authority under the Administrative Procedure Act, because the Department is not “formulating, amending, or repealing a rule” under 5 U.S.C. 551(5). Rather, the Department is effectuating changes to the CFR to reflect what congressional action has already accomplished—namely, the nullification of any changes purported to have been made to the CFR by the non-subsistence take of wildlife rule and the reversion to the regulatory text in effect immediately prior to September 6, 2016, the effective date of the non-subsistence take of wildlife rule. Accordingly, the Department is not soliciting comments on this action. Moreover, this action is not a final agency action subject to judicial review.
This final rule is considered an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action. We estimate the cost savings of this rule to be negligible. The average trip-related expenditures for big game hunting ($139 per day) yields approximately $5.9 million annually in big game hunting-related expenditures on national wildlife refuges (NWRs) in Alaska. Since only a small fraction of big game hunters would likely have chosen to not hunt on NWRs because of the original rule, the impact is minimal. The effect to the local communities is far less than $5.9 million annually because few hunters use the prohibited methods and those hunters that do would have likely chosen a substitute site.
Fishing, Hunting, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wildlife, Wildlife refuges.
Alaska, Recreation and recreation areas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wildlife refuges.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, and under the authority of the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
5 U.S.C. 301; 16 U.S.C. 460k, 664, 668dd-668ee, and 715i; Pub. L. 115-20, 131 Stat. 86.
(h) * * * (Baiting is authorized in accordance with State regulations on national wildlife refuges in Alaska).
16 U.S.C. 460(k)
(d) The State of Alaska is authorized to regulate the taking of fish and wildlife for subsistence uses within Alaska National Wildlife Refuges to the extent such regulation is consistent with applicable Federal law, including but not limited to ANILCA.
Fish may be taken by local rural residents for subsistence uses in compliance with applicable State and Federal law. To the extent consistent with the provisions of this part and other Federal law, applicable State laws and regulations governing the taking of fish which are now or will hereafter be in effect are hereby incorporated by reference as a part of these regulations.
Local rural residents may hunt and trap wildlife for subsistence uses in Alaska National Wildlife Refuges in compliance with applicable State and Federal laws. To the extent consistent with the provisions of this part and other Federal law, applicable State laws and regulations governing the taking of wildlife which are now or will hereafter be in effect are hereby incorporated by reference as a part of these regulations.
(a) The taking of fish and wildlife for sport hunting, trapping, and sport fishing is authorized in accordance with applicable State and Federal law and such laws are hereby adopted and made a part of these regulations;
(b) The exercise of valid commercial fishing rights or privileges obtained pursuant to existing law, including any use of refuge areas for campsites, cabins, motorized vehicles, and aircraft landing directly incident to the exercise of such rights or privileges, is authorized;
(c) The following provisions shall apply to any person while engaged in the taking of fish and wildlife within an Alaska National Wildlife Refuge:
(1)
(ii) Each person shall comply with the applicable provisions of Federal law; and
(iii) In addition to the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, each person shall continue to secure a trapping permit from the appropriate Refuge Manager prior to trapping on the Kenai, Izembek and Kodiak Refuges and the Aleutian Islands Unit of the Alaska Maritime Refuge.
(iv) It shall be unlawful for a person having been airborne to use a firearm or any other weapon to take or assist in taking a wolf or wolverine until after 3:00 a.m. on the day following the day in which the flying occurred, except that a trapper may use a firearm or any other weapon to dispatch a legally caught wolf or wolverine in a trap or snare on the same day in which the flying occurred. This prohibition does not apply to flights on regularly scheduled commercial airlines between regularly maintained public airports.
(2)
(ii) Each person shall comply with the applicable provisions of Federal law.
(d) Nothing in this section shall apply to the taking of fish and wildlife for subsistence uses.
(e) Nothing in these rules shall be interpreted as waiving the requirements of other fish and wildlife conservation statutes such as the Airborne Hunting Act or those provisions of subchapter C of title 50 CFR regarding the taking of depredating wildlife. Animal control programs shall only be conducted in accordance with a special use permit issued by the Refuge Manager.
(a)
(c)
(2) Emergency closures or restrictions relating to the taking of fish and wildlife shall be accompanied by notice with a subsequent hearing;
(3) Other emergency closures or restrictions shall become effective upon notice as prescribed in paragraph (f) of this section; and
(4) No emergency closure or restriction shall be for a period exceeding 30 days.
(d)
(2) Other temporary closures shall be effective upon notice as prescribed in paragraph (f) of this section; and
(3) Temporary closures or restrictions shall extend only for so long as necessary to achieve their purposes, and in no case may exceed 12 months or be extended beyond that time.
(e)
(f)
(1) Published in at least one newspaper of general circulation in the State and in at least one local newspaper if available, posted at community post offices within the vicinity affected, made available for broadcast on local radio stations in a manner reasonably calculated to inform residents in the affected vicinity, and designated on a map which shall be available for public inspection at the office of the Refuge Manager and other places convenient to the public; or
(2) Designated by the posting of appropriate signs; or
(3) Both.
(g)
(h)
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
NMFS issues regulations to implement Amendment 48 to the Fishery Management Plan for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs (Crab FMP) and to revise regulations implementing the American Fisheries Act (AFA) Program and the
Effective December 11, 2017.
Electronic copies of Amendment 48 to the Crab FMP, the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), and the Categorical Exclusion prepared for this action are available from
The CR Program Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), RIR, and Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, as well as the AFA Program EIS and RIR, are available from the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at
Stephanie Warpinski, 907-586-7228.
This final rule implements Amendment 48 to the Crab FMP and regulatory amendments to the CR Program. NMFS published a notice of availability for Amendment 48 to the Crab FMP in the
This final rule modifies regulations at 50 CFR 679.2, 679.7, 680.2, and 680.42 that specify how NMFS determines holding and use of limited access privileges (LAPs) for the purposes of monitoring excessive share limits for CDQ groups under the AFA Program and the CR Program. The following section of the preamble provides a brief description of the AFA, CR, and CDQ Programs, and the elements of these programs that apply to Amendment 48 and this final rule. For a more detailed description, please see the preamble of the proposed rule (82 FR 39743; August 22, 2017) and Sections 2.6 through 2.8 of the RIR (see
Section 303A(c)(5)(D) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires NMFS to establish excessive share limits to prevent excessive consolidation of harvesting and processing LAPs in order to maintain an appropriate distribution of economic and social benefits for fishery participants and communities (16 U.S.C. 1853a(c)(5)(D)). Because determination of excessive shares must consider the specific circumstances of each fishery, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) and NMFS have implemented different excessive share limits in the LAP programs in Alaska's fisheries, including the AFA and CR Programs.
NMFS implemented use caps for the AFA Program in 2002 (67 FR 79692; December 30, 2002) and holding and use caps for the CR Program in 2005 (70 FR 10174; March 2, 2005). Regulations at 50 CFR 679.2, 679.7, 680.2, and 680.42 prohibit a person from using more than the harvesting and processing limits established in the AFA Program and from holding and using more than a specific portion of the LAPs allocated under the CR Program. Under 50 CFR 679.2, “person” includes individuals, corporations, partnerships, associations, and other non-individual entities. NMFS determines a person's holding and use of a LAP in the AFA Program and CR Program by summing (1) the amount directly held and used by that person, and (2) the amount held and used by that person indirectly through an ownership interest in or control of another entity that also holds and uses the LAPs. Ownership attribution refers to the method NMFS uses to assess the relationships between different entities that participate in LAP programs.
NMFS uses two ownership attribution methods to determine the holding and use of LAPs. These two methods for attributing holding and use of a LAP are commonly known as the “individual and collective rule” and the “10-percent rule.” Under the individual and collective rule, NMFS attributes holding and use of LAPs by one person proportionally to their ownership in or control of another entity that holds and uses LAPs. For example, if Company A has a 15 percent ownership of Company B that holds LAPs, Company A would be attributed 15 percent of Company B's holding and use of the LAPs. In contrast, under the 10-percent rule, a person is attributed 100 percent of an entity's LAPs if that person owns or otherwise controls 10 percent or more of that entity. Thus, if Company A owns or controls 10 percent or more of Company B, then 100 percent of Company B's holdings and use of LAPs are attributed to Company A. When a person owns or controls 10 percent or more of another entity, the individual and collective rule is less restrictive than the 10-percent rule because a person is only attributed holding and use of LAPs in proportion to how much that person owns or controls of other entities, rather than attributing 100 percent of the other entity's LAP holdings once the 10-percent ownership or control threshold is met. Under a holding and use cap, the individual and collective rule would allow a person to hold and use more LAPs than if the person was evaluated using the 10-percent rule.
Section 210(e)(1) of the AFA restricts an individual, corporation, or other entity to harvesting no more than 17.5 percent of the pollock available to be harvested in the directed pollock fishery. Section 210(e)(2) of the AFA directed the Council to recommend for Secretarial approval conservation and management measures to prevent any particular individual or entity from processing an excessive share of pollock available in the directed pollock fishery. The Council and NMFS set this limit at 30 percent of the sum of the directed fishing allowances for pollock (67 FR 79692, 79698; December 30, 2002). Every year, these limits are published in the annual harvest specifications (
Section 210(e)(3) of the AFA also specified that any entity in which 10 percent or more of the interest is owned or controlled by another individual or entity shall be considered to be the same entity as the other individual or entity for purposes of monitoring the harvesting and processing use caps. This section of the AFA directed NMFS to use the 10-percent rule to determine the use of AFA Program harvesting and processing privileges.
The CR Program was implemented on April 1, 2005 (70 FR 10174; March 2, 2005). The CR Program established a LAP program for nine crab fisheries in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) and assigned quota share (QS) to persons based on their historic participation in one or more of those nine BSAI crab fisheries during a specific period. Each year, a person who holds QS may receive an exclusive harvest privilege called individual fishing quota (IFQ). NMFS also issued processor quota share (PQS) under the CR Program. Each year, PQS yields an exclusive privilege to process a portion of the IFQ in each of the nine BSAI crab fisheries, called individual processor quota (IPQ). The CR Program includes limits on the amount of QS and PQS that a person can hold and the amount of IFQ and IPQ that a person can use (see Section 2.7 of the RIR for more information).
For processing privileges, the CR Program limits a person to holding no more than 30 percent of the PQS initially issued in the fishery, and to using no more than the amount of IPQ resulting from 30 percent of the PQS initially issued in a given fishery, with a limited exemption for persons receiving more than 30 percent of the initially-issued PQS (50 CFR 680.42(b)). 50 CFR 680.42(b)(3) specifies that NMFS uses the 10-percent rule to monitor holding and use caps for PQS and IPQ for all CR Program participants as recommended by the Council and addressed in the preamble to the proposed rule for the CR Program (69 FR 63200, 63219, and 63226; October 29, 2004).
The CDQ Program was established by the Council and NMFS in 1992, and authorization for the Program was incorporated into the Magnuson-Stevens Act in 1996. The purpose of the CDQ Program is (1) to provide eligible western Alaska villages with the opportunity to participate and invest in fisheries in the BSAI, (2) to support economic development in western Alaska, (3) to alleviate poverty and provide economic and social benefits for residents of western Alaska, and (4) to achieve sustainable and diversified local economies in western Alaska (16 U.S.C. 1855(i)(1)(A)) (see Section 2.8 of the RIR).
CDQ groups participate in LAP programs, including the AFA and the CR Programs, by purchasing harvesting and processing privileges and through ownership of vessels and processors that participate in these fisheries. The Magnuson-Stevens Act was amended by the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-241; the Coast Guard Act) to specify the method that NMFS must use for monitoring excessive share limits as they apply to CDQ groups—the proportional or “individual and collective” rule.
NMFS implemented in practice the method specified in the 2006 amendment to the Magnuson-Stevens Act for CDQ groups to monitor excessive share limits in the AFA Program and the CR Program; however, the Crab FMP and the regulations for the AFA Program and the CR Program were not revised to be consistent with the 2006 amendment to the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
This section of the preamble provides a brief description of this final rule. For a more detailed description of the rationale for this final rule, see the preamble of the proposed rule (82 FR 39743; August 22, 2017). This final rule revises the AFA Program to specify that NMFS uses the individual and collective rule for CDQ groups to attribute harvesting and processing privileges of AFA pollock proportionally to the CDQ groups' ownership or control of vessels and processors active in those fisheries. For example, if a CDQ group owns 15 percent of an entity that uses AFA harvesting and processing privileges, the CDQ group will be attributed 15 percent of the harvesting or processing privileges of that company for purposes of monitoring excessive harvesting and processing use caps under the AFA.
This final rule also implements Amendment 48 to the Crab FMP and revises the CR Program to specify that NMFS uses the individual and collective rule for CDQ groups to attribute holding and use of PQS and IPQ based on the CDQ groups' proportional ownership or control of entities that hold and use PQS and IPQ. For example, if a CDQ group owns 15 percent of a company that holds or uses PQS or IPQ, the CDQ group will be attributed 15 percent of the holding or use of that PQS or IPQ.
NMFS has used the individual and collective rule for CDQ group ownership attribution for the AFA Program and the CR Program since enactment of the Coast Guard Act; however, the regulations and the Crab FMP for the PQS and IPQ holding and use caps have not been updated to reflect this change. This final rule updates the regulations, and Amendment 48 amends the Crab FMP, to be consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and NMFS' current method of ownership attribution for CDQ groups. This final rule and Amendment 48 to the Crab FMP benefit CDQ groups and the public by clarifying the method NMFS uses to attribute holding and use of harvesting and processing privileges by CDQ groups for purposes of monitoring holding and use caps for the AFA and CR Programs.
This final rule does not alter the regulations for the QS and IFQ holding and use caps under the CR Program because current CR Program regulations specify that NMFS uses the individual and collective rule for all program participants, including CDQ groups, to attribute any participants' holding and use of QS and IFQ based on their proportional ownership or control of entities that hold and use QS and IFQ.
This final rule revises 50 CFR 679.2, 679.7(k)(6) and (7), 680.2, and 680.42(b) to specify that NMFS uses the individual and collective rule for CDQ groups for purposes of ownership attribution in the AFA Program and the CR Program. In this final rule, NMFS clarifies the amendatory text from the proposed rule to specify that only the introductory text to the definition of
The Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, has determined that Amendment 48 to the Crab FMP and this final rule are necessary for the conservation and management of the AFA, CR, and CDQ Program fisheries and are consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the proposed rule stage that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. No comments were received regarding this certification. As a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis was not required, and none was prepared, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605.
Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Alaska, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS amends 50 CFR part 679 and part 680 as follows:
16 U.S.C. 773
(k) * * *
(6)
(7)
16 U.S.C. 1862; Pub. L. 109-241; Pub. L. 109-479.
(1)
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) Is not a CDQ group and directly or indirectly owns a 10 percent or greater interest in an entity that holds PQS.
(iii) A person that is not a CDQ group and holds PQS is limited to a PQS use cap that is calculated based on the sum of all PQS held by that PQS holder and all PQS held by any affiliate of the PQS holder. A CDQ group that holds PQS is limited to a PQS use cap that is calculated based on the sum of all PQS held, individually or collectively, by that CDQ group.
(iv) A person that is not a CDQ group and holds IPQ is limited to an IPQ use cap that is calculated based on the sum of all IPQ held by that IPQ holder and all IPQ held by any affiliate of the IPQ holder. A CDQ group that holds IPQ is limited to an IPQ use cap that is calculated based on the sum of all IPQ held, individually or collectively, by that CDQ group.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM); reopening of comment period.
We are revising an earlier notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which applies to all The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes. This action revises the NPRM by adding a reporting requirement. We are proposing this airworthiness directive (AD) to address the unsafe condition on these products. Since these actions impose an additional burden over that proposed in the NPRM, we are reopening the comment period to allow the public the chance to comment on these changes.
The comment period for the NPRM published in the
We must receive comments on this SNPRM by December 26, 2017.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this SNPRM, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Bill Ashforth, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6432; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
Since we issued the NPRM, we have determined that reporting must be required in order to ensure the continuing structural airworthiness of The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes with a high number of flight cycles. All cracks involving an SSI or related structure in close vicinity to the SSI must be reported to Boeing in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the supplemental structural inspections. We have revised paragraph (h) of this proposed AD to include reporting as part of the inspection program.
We gave the public the opportunity to comment on the NPRM. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
United Airlines stated that it concurs with the NPRM and has no further comments.
Boeing and United Parcel Service (UPS) requested that we include a compliance time of “1,000 flight cycles measured from 12 months after the effective date of the AD” instead of a compliance time of “within 1,000 flight cycles or 12 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later” as specified in paragraphs (i)(1)(ii), (i)(2)(ii), (j)(1)(ii), and (j)(2)(ii) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM). Boeing stated that it is not realistic to incorporate the proposed inspections within 12 months, as specified in paragraph (h) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM), while simultaneously performing inspections as specified in paragraphs (i) and (j) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM). Boeing noted that the related AD, AD 2004-07-22 R1, Amendment 39-15326 (73 FR 1052, January 7, 2008; corrected February 14, 2008 (73 FR 8589)) (“AD 2004-07-22 R1”), increases the compliance time up to 1,000 flight cycles, after allowing 12 months to implement the new program. UPS stated that the proposed AD (in the NPRM) should include a 1,000-flight-cycle grace period similar to that provided in paragraphs (i)(1)(ii) and (i)(2)(ii) of AD 2004-07-22 R1. UPS stated that the proposed AD (in the NPRM) creates a situation for airplanes that are already over a threshold to have inspections due almost immediately upon the revision of the maintenance or inspection program.
In addition, KLM Royal Dutch Airlines requested that we provide a grace period for SSI items for which the inspection interval has to be lowered due to a flight-hour/flight-cycle ratio of 7.0 or more. British Airways stated that a suitable grace period should be introduced given that certain inspection intervals could be reduced from 6 years to 2 years.
We agree with the requests to revise the compliance time. The revised compliance time proposed by Boeing and UPS is consistent with the compliance time in AD 2004-07-22 R1, and will not adversely affect safety. This revised compliance time provides an adequate grace period for reduced intervals. We have revised paragraphs (i)(1)(ii), (i)(2)(ii), (j)(1)(ii), and (j)(2)(ii) of this proposed AD accordingly.
Boeing and KLM Royal Dutch Airlines requested that we clarify the compliance times for removable structural components. The commenters noted that for inspections of removable structural components, the accumulated flight cycles and flight hours on the component should be used instead of flight cycles and flight hours on the airframe. Boeing noted that some SSI details are replaced, such as when installing removable structural components or installing used structural parts in a repair. The commenters recommended we add a note to paragraphs (i) and (j) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) to address this issue.
We agree because an SSI can be removed from the airframe and replaced, and have different flight cycles and flight hours than the airframe. Boeing Document D6-35022, “Supplemental Structural Inspection Document for Model 747 Airplanes,” Revision H, dated September 2013; and Boeing Document D6-35022-1, “747-400 LCF Supplemental Structural Inspection Document—Appendix A,” dated November 2015; state the following:
The initial inspection (threshold) and intervals are measured in flight cycles or flight hours that a particular SSI detail has accumulated regardless of what the airframe as a whole has accumulated. Most SSI details have never been replaced and therefore have accumulated the same flight cycles and flight hours as the airframe. Some SSI details are replaced, such as when installing removable structural components (repairable/rotable/expendables) or installing used structural parts as a repair. In these cases the SSI details have accumulated flight cycles and flight hours that may be different than the airframe. The operator must account for this in determining when inspections must be done.
We have added new content to paragraph (l) to this proposed AD (replacing the content in paragraph (l) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM)) to state that for compliance times that specify total flight cycles and total flight hours, and the SSI is a removable structural component, those compliance times must be measured on the SSI since its installation, regardless of what the airframe as a whole has accumulated. If the total flight cycles and total flight hours on the SSI are not available or cannot be determined, the airframe total flight cycles and total flight hours are to be used for the compliance times identified in paragraphs (i) and (j) of this proposed AD. We have also added a reference to “paragraph (l) of this AD” to paragraphs (i) and (j) of this proposed AD.
Boeing requested that we add an explanation to the NPRM regarding the continuation of the inspections in AD 2004-07-22 R1 until the start of the new inspections specified in the NPRM. Boeing recommended that we add the following text to the “Proposed AD Requirements” section in the preamble of the NPRM:
Note it is required to start and continue inspections per D6-35022 Rev G, as required by AD 2004-07-22 R1; until inspections per D6-35022 Rev H, dated Sept. 2013, and if required also D6-35022-1 Appendix A, dated Nov. 2015, are accomplished as required by the new AD.
We agree with the statement that Boeing provided. Inspections required by AD 2004-07-22 R1 are terminated only after accomplishment of the corresponding inspections required by this AD, as specified in paragraphs (i) and (j) of this proposed AD. However, the “Proposed AD Requirements” section is not restated in this proposed AD. Therefore, we have not changed this proposed AD in this regard.
Boeing requested that we revise the header and first sentence of paragraph (i) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) to clarify the affected airplanes. Boeing stated that the text “all Model 747 airplanes” should be revised so that the paragraph excludes Model 747-8 and 747-8F airplanes. Boeing noted those models are not included in the applicability specified in paragraph (c) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM).
We agree to clarify the language for the affected airplanes for paragraph (i) of this proposed AD. When we use the term “all airplanes” in the regulatory text of an AD, we mean all airplanes identified in paragraph (c) of the AD. Model 747-8 and 747-8F airplanes are not identified in paragraph (c) of this proposed AD. We have revised the header and first sentence of paragraph (i) of this proposed AD by specifying “all airplanes except . . .” instead of “all Model 747 airplanes except . . . .”
Boeing requested that we revise paragraph (m)(3) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) to clarify that AMOCs are no longer needed for AD 2004-07-22 R1 after the requirements of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) are implemented. Boeing stated that both ADs should not be required to be reported on FAA Form 8100-9.
We agree to clarify the AMOC requirements, but we do not agree to revise paragraph (p)(3) of this proposed AD (paragraph (m)(3) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM)). Paragraphs (i) and (j) of this proposed AD state that doing
Qantas Airways requested that we clarify paragraph (m)(4) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM), which approves previous AMOCs for the actions specified in paragraphs (h), (i), and (j) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM), except for any SSI that has an expanded inspection area identified in Boeing Document D6-35022, “Supplemental Structural Inspection Document for Model 747 Airplanes,” Revision H, dated September 2013; or Boeing Document D6-35022-1, “747-400 LCF Supplemental Structural Inspection Document—Appendix A,” dated November 2015. Qantas Airways requested that previous AMOCs also be approved for the actions required by paragraph (k) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM), which specifies repairing any cracked structure.
We agree and have added a reference to paragraph (k) in paragraph (p)(4) of this proposed AD (paragraph (m)(4) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM)).
UPS requested that we revise paragraph (k) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) to match the wording in paragraph (j) of AD 2004-07-22 R1 in order to avoid an unnecessary burden for Boeing, operators, and the FAA. UPS stated that paragraph (k) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) specifies repairs to be done in accordance with AMOC-approved methods. UPS noted that previous repairs have been approved as AMOCs to paragraph (j) of AD 2004-07-22 R1, which corresponds to paragraph (k) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM). UPS further stated that paragraph (m)(4) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) states that AMOCs approved for AD 2004-07-22 R1 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraphs (h), (i), and (j) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM). UPS noted that paragraph (j) of AD 2004-07-22 R1 requires repairs to be done in accordance with FAA-approved methods. UPS concluded that a requirement to have all repairs be AMOC-approved creates an unnecessary burden.
We agree to revise paragraph (k) of this proposed AD. Paragraph (j) of AD 2004-07-22 R1 allows repairs to be performed using an FAA-approved method. This is because the original intent of the supplemental structural inspection document (SSID) program was to perform damage-tolerant-type inspections of SSIs that had no significant prior fatigue crack history on pre-14 CFR 25.571 amendment 45 airplanes. In accordance with the SSID program, when cracking was found, Boeing would remove the SSI from the SSID, produce a separate service bulletin to address the cracking, and the FAA would then mandate the inspections specified in that service bulletin. These repairs would then need an AMOC to the corresponding AD when inspections were due. Since AD 2004-07-22 R1 was issued, the FAA and Boeing have determined that in many cases it is not necessary to create a separate service bulletin and AD, provided the cracks are found in an SSI and the existing inspections in the SSID are sufficient to maintain airworthiness and detect cracks in a timely manner. This is similar to how airworthiness limitations programs are managed on post-14 CFR 25.571 amendment 45 airplanes. We have revised paragraph (k) of this proposed AD to state that repairs are to be performed using an FAA-approved method.
We also acknowledge that AMOCs to AD 2004-07-22 R1 have been issued, but these were issued to paragraph (l)(3) of that AD, rather than to paragraph (j) of that AD as discussed by UPS. These AMOCs were issued because operators could not inspect the SSI in accordance with the SSID and required alternate inspections or inspection intervals. We have determined that the guidance on when AMOCs are needed relative to the SSID program is not clear. Therefore, we have discussed this in the “Proposed Requirements of this SNPRM” section in this document and added new content to paragraph (m) to this proposed AD to clarify when operators must request an AMOC.
British Airways and UPS requested that we approve an alternative determination of airplane utilization (
UPS recommended that an option be included to allow operators to use projected utilizations. UPS stated that the following terminology in Boeing Document D6-35022, “Supplemental Structural Inspection Document for Model 747 Airplanes,” Revision H, dated September 2013, can be contradictory and cannot be complied with: “for determining utilization, use flight hours and cycles accumulated since the last D check or its equivalent. If future utilization is known, use the new average flight hours.” UPS stated that the option would allow the operator to determine utilization from its maintenance program.
We disagree that future airplane utilization (unless known through scheduled maintenance) or airplane utilization based on the delivery date of the airplane is acceptable. The terminology used in Boeing Document D6-35022, “Supplemental Structural Inspection Document for Model 747 Airplanes,” Revision H, dated September 2013, is:
After implementing the FLS [Flight Length Sensitive] inspections and to account for utilization changes over time, it is recommended the operator re-assess the airplane's utilization at least every D check or its equivalent. As a result of a re-assessment, SSIs which require inspection more frequently should be inspected within the new interval since the last inspection or at the next C check, whichever is later.
Future airplane utilization or airplane utilization from the delivery date would not, in general, be conservative in assessing the aircraft structure and is not equivalent. We have not changed this proposed AD in this regard.
We also disagree that the terminology that UPS cited in Boeing Document D6-35022, “Supplemental Structural Inspection Document for Model 747 Airplanes,” Revision H, dated September 2013, is contradictory. If the utilization that is used to set up the maintenance program changes over time, then the maintenance program schedule should be updated based on the new utilization. For example, if the average flight hours increase over the assessment period, then that operator should revise its maintenance program in consideration of the new average
UPS and British Airways requested that we provide a tolerance for selecting the appropriate DTR forms. UPS recommended a tolerance of +/−0.1 hour be allowed for selecting DTR forms. UPS stated that the historic utilization of its fleet is slightly less than 7 flight hours per flight cycle since delivery of the airplane and over the most recent D-check interval. UPS stated that current utilization projections show an average over 7 flight hours per flight cycle. UPS concluded that since it would have no knowledge ahead of time which airplane will be under or over 7, a tolerance in selecting the appropriate DTR form would provide a significant benefit to incorporating the program change without affecting the level of safety. British Airways recommended a tolerance of +/−0.2 hour for the 7-hour utilization threshold and +/−0.25 hour for 9- or 11-hour utilization thresholds. British Airways noted that if the utilization increases during the next interval, then the interval is significantly reduced, causing difficulty in providing the correct maintenance. The commenters noted that no tolerance is provided in Boeing Document D6-35022, “Supplemental Structural Inspection Document for Model 747 Airplanes,” Revision H, dated September 2013.
We do not find it necessary to include the requested tolerance in this AD, because section 5.1.3 of Boeing Document D6-35022, “Supplemental Structural Inspection Document for Model 747 Airplanes,” Revision H, dated September 2013, states, “DTR values can be read to the nearest two significant figures (0.1),” and section 7.3 of that document provides the following example on how to determine what the average flight hours per flight cycle without the use of additional tolerances:
For Wing SSIs, the initial step is to check to see if the SSI if Flight Length Sensitive (FLS). If so, the operator uses the average flight length to select the DTR Check Form that the airplane's average flight length fits under. For example, at the SSID threshold, the airplane's average flight length is 8.6 hours. For this SSID item, there may be forms for <7 hours and >7 hours. In this case, the operator is to use the >7 hour DTR check form.
UPS requested that we clarify whether a reassessment of utilization is required. UPS stated that Boeing Document D6-35022, “Supplemental Structural Inspection Document for Model 747 Airplanes,” Revision H, dated September 2013, states, “it is recommended the operator re-assess the airplane's utilization at least every D check or equivalent,” but it is not clear if this recommendation is a requirement of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) or an option.
We agree to clarify. Boeing Document D6-35022, “Supplemental Structural Inspection Document for Model 747 Airplanes,” Revision H, dated September 2013, is for an exploratory program. When that document calls out recommendations on re-assessing the airplane's utilization, this should be done at the operator's own discretion. The reassessment is not a requirement of this proposed AD. We have not changed this proposed AD in this regard.
KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (KLM) requested that we provide guidance for adjusting certain intervals. KLM stated that no information is given on how to adjust repeat flight length sensitive (FLS) tasks for airplanes with a flight-hour/flight-cycle ratio of 7.0 or more once the initial inspection is performed. KLM stated that chapter 5.0 of Boeing Document D6-35022, “Supplemental Structural Inspection Document for Model 747 Airplanes,” Revision H, dated September 2013, does not give clear guidelines. KLM stated that FLS tasks in Boeing Document D6-35022, “Supplemental Structural Inspection Document for Model 747 Airplanes,” Revision H, dated September 2013, will result in a significant decrease of the repetitive interval of complex inspections for a flight-hour/flight-cycle ratio of 7.0 or more.
In reviewing Boeing Document D6-35022, “Supplemental Structural Inspection Document for Model 747 Airplanes,” Revision H, dated September 2013, we have determined that it adequately addresses adjustment of the repetitive FLS tasks in sections 5.1.3 and 7.3. In addition, under the provisions of paragraph (p) of this AD, we will consider requests for alternate approaches to compliance time changes if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that the approach and compliance time changes would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed this proposed AD in this regard.
Boeing and KLM requested that we revise a typographical error in paragraph (j)(2) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM), which refers to paragraph (i)(2)(ii) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM). The commenters stated that the correct reference is paragraph (j)(2)(ii) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM).
We agree with the request. We have revised paragraph (j)(2) of this proposed AD accordingly.
We have determined that the requirements specified in paragraph (l) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) are not necessary. The inspection program for transferred airplanes was included in early SSID programs that involved a “candidate fleet” (a specific group of airplanes that was inspected instead of all airplanes). Therefore, we have removed those requirements from this proposed AD.
We reviewed Boeing Document D6-35022, “Supplemental Structural Inspection Document for Model 747 Airplanes,” Revision H, dated September 2013. This service information describes procedures for inspections to detect cracks of all structure identified as SSIs, and includes six new SSIs since the last revision.
We also reviewed Boeing Document D6-35022-1, “747-400 LCF Supplemental Structural Inspection Document—Appendix A,” dated November 2015. This service information describes procedures for inspections of the wings, fuselage, and empennage SSIs for Model 747-400 LCF airplanes.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of these same type design. Certain changes described above expand the scope of the NPRM. As a result, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment
This SNPRM would require revising the maintenance or inspection program to include inspections that will give no less than the required damage tolerance rating (DTR) for certain SSIs, inspecting for cracks of all SSI structure, and repairing any cracked structure. This proposed AD also would require reporting all cracks involving an SSI or related structure in close vicinity to the SSI to Boeing.
This SNPRM would require revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new inspections. Compliance with these inspections is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by these inspections, the operator may not be able to accomplish the actions described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph (p) of this proposed AD. The request should include a description of changes to the required inspections that will ensure the continued damage tolerance of the affected airplane.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 118 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We have not specified cost estimates for the inspection and repair specified in this proposed AD. Compliance with this proposed AD constitutes a method of compliance with the FAA aging airplane safety final rule (AASFR) (70 FR 5518, February 2, 2005) for certain baseline structure of Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes. The AASFR requires certain operators to incorporate damage tolerance inspections into their maintenance inspection programs. These requirements are described in 14 CFR 121.1109(c)(1) and 14 CFR 129.109(b)(1). Accomplishment of the actions specified in this proposed AD will meet the requirements of these regulations for certain baseline structure. The costs for accomplishing the inspection portion of this proposed AD were accounted for in the regulatory evaluation of the AASFR for airplanes affected by that rule. For airplanes not affected by the AASFR, we have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the inspection portion of this proposed AD.
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary reporting that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspections in the maintenance inspection program. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this action:
A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control number for the collection of information required by this proposed AD is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this proposed AD has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with this proposed AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, ATTN: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by December 26, 2017.
This AD affects AD 2004-07-22 R1, Amendment 39-15326 (73 FR 1052, January 7, 2008; corrected February 14, 2008 (73 FR 8589)) (“AD 2004-07-22 R1”).
This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes, certificated in any category.
A Model 747-400 LCF airplane is a Model 747-400 series airplane that has been modified from a passenger airplane to a freighter configuration, as specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-00-2084.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage; 54, Nacelles/Pylons; 55, Stabilizers; 57, Wings.
This AD was prompted by a report of incidents involving fatigue cracking in transport category airplanes that are approaching or have exceeded their design service objective, and a structural reevaluation by the manufacturer that identified additional structural elements that qualify as structural significant items (SSIs). We are issuing this AD to ensure the continued structural integrity of all The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
For the purposes of this AD, an SSI is defined as a principal structural element (PSE). A PSE is a structural element that contributes significantly to the carrying of flight, ground, or pressurization loads, and whose integrity is essential in maintaining the overall structural integrity of the airplane.
Prior to reaching the compliance times specified in paragraph (i)(1)(i), (i)(2)(i), (j)(1)(i), or (j)(2)(i) of this AD, as applicable, or within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later: Incorporate a revision into the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, that provides no less than the required damage tolerance rating (DTR) for each SSI listed in the applicable service information specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD. The revision to the maintenance or inspection program must include, and must be implemented in accordance with, the procedures in Section 5.0, “Damage Tolerance Rating (DTR) System Application,” and Section 6.0, “SSI Discrepancy Reporting” of Boeing Document D6-35022, “Supplemental Structural Inspection Document for Model 747 Airplanes,” Revision H, dated September 2013; and Boeing Document D6-35022-1, “747-400 LCF Supplemental Structural Inspection Document—Appendix A,” dated November 2015; as applicable. Accomplishing the revision required by this paragraph terminates the actions required by paragraphs (f), (g), and (h) of AD 2004-07-22 R1.
(1) For all airplanes except Model 747-400 LCF airplanes: SSIs listed in Boeing Document D6-35022, “Supplemental Structural Inspection Document for Model 747 Airplanes,” Revision H, dated September 2013.
(2) For Model 747-400 LCF airplanes: SSIs listed in Boeing Document D6-35022, “Supplemental Structural Inspection Document for Model 747 Airplanes,” Revision H, dated September 2013; and SSIs listed in Boeing Document D6-35022-1, “747-400 LCF Supplemental Structural Inspection Document—Appendix A,” dated November 2015. For SSIs listed in both Boeing Document D6-35022-1, “747-400 LCF Supplemental Structural Inspection Document—Appendix A,” dated November 2015; and Boeing Document D6-35022, “Supplemental Structural Inspection Document for Model 747 Airplanes,” Revision H, dated September 2013: Incorporate the SSIs listed in Boeing Document D6-35022-1, “747-400 LCF Supplemental Structural Inspection Document—Appendix A,” dated November 2015.
For all airplanes except Model 747-400 LCF airplanes: Perform inspections to detect cracks of all structure identified in Boeing Document D6-35022, “Supplemental Structural Inspection Document for Model 747 Airplanes,” Revision H, dated September 2013, at the times specified in paragraph (i)(1), (i)(2), or (i)(3) of this AD, as applicable, except as required by paragraph (l) of this AD. Once the initial inspection has been performed, in order to remain in compliance with the maintenance or inspection program, as required by paragraph (h) of this AD, repetitive inspections are required at the intervals specified in Boeing Document D6-35022, “Supplemental Structural Inspection Document for Model 747 Airplanes,” Revision H, dated September 2013. Doing an inspection required by this paragraph terminates the corresponding inspection required by paragraph (i) of AD 2004-07-22 R1.
(1) For wing structure, except as provided by paragraph (i)(3) of this AD: Inspect at the times specified in paragraph (i)(1)(i) or (i)(1)(ii) of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(i) Within the applicable compliance time specified in paragraph (i)(1)(i)(A) or (i)(1)(i)(B) of this AD.
(A) For all Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes: Prior to the accumulation of 20,000 total flight cycles or 100,000 total flight hours, whichever occurs first.
(B) For all Model 747-400, 747-400D, and 747-400F series airplanes: Prior to the accumulation of 20,000 total flight cycles or 115,000 total flight hours, whichever occurs first.
(ii) Within 1,000 flight cycles measured from 12 months after the effective date of this AD.
(2) For all structure other than wing structure, except as provided by paragraph (i)(3) of this AD: At the time specified in paragraph (i)(2)(i) or (i)(2)(ii) of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(i) Prior to the accumulation of 20,000 total flight cycles.
(ii) Within 1,000 flight cycles measured from 12 months after the effective date of this AD.
(3) For any portion of an SSI that has been replaced with new structure: Inspect at the later of the times specified in paragraphs (i)(3)(i) and (i)(3)(ii) of this AD.
(i) At the time specified in paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD, as applicable.
(ii) Within 10,000 flight cycles after the replacement of the part with a new part.
For Model 747-400 LCF airplanes: Perform inspections to detect cracks of all structure identified in Boeing Document D6-35022, “Supplemental Structural Inspection Document for Model 747 Airplanes,” Revision H, dated September 2013; and Boeing Document D6-35022-1, “747-400 LCF Supplemental Structural Inspection Document—Appendix A,” dated November 2015; at the times specified in paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2) of this AD, as applicable, except as required by paragraph (l) of this AD. Once the initial inspection has been performed, in order to remain in compliance with the maintenance or inspection program, as required by paragraph (h) of this AD, repetitive inspections are required at the intervals specified in Boeing Document D6-35022, “Supplemental Structural Inspection Document for Model 747 Airplanes,” Revision H, dated September 2013; and Boeing Document D6-35022-1, “747-400 LCF Supplemental Structural Inspection Document—Appendix A,” dated November 2015. For SSIs listed in both Boeing Document D6-35022, “Supplemental Structural Inspection Document for Model 747 Airplanes,” Revision H, dated September 2013; and Boeing Document D6-35022-1, “747-400 LCF Supplemental Structural Inspection Document—Appendix A,” dated November 2015; the SSIs listed in Boeing Document D6-35022-1, “747-400 LCF Supplemental Structural Inspection Document—Appendix A,” dated November 2015, take precedence (
(1) For wing structure: Inspect at the times specified in paragraph (j)(1)(i) or (j)(1)(ii) of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(i) Prior to the accumulation of 20,000 total flight cycles or 115,000 total flight hours, whichever occurs first.
(ii) Within 1,000 flight cycles measured from 12 months after the effective date of this AD.
(2) For all structure other than wing structure: At the time specified in paragraph (j)(2)(i) or (j)(2)(ii) of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(i) At the earlier of the times specified in paragraphs (j)(2)(i)(A) and (j)(2)(i)(B) of this AD.
(A) Prior to the accumulation of 20,000 total flight cycles.
(B) Within the applicable initial compliance time specified in Boeing Document D6-35022, “Supplemental Structural Inspection Document for Model 747 Airplanes,” Revision H, dated September 2013; and Boeing Document D6-35022-1, “747-400 LCF Supplemental Structural Inspection Document—Appendix A,” dated November 2015. For SSIs are listed in both Boeing Document D6-35022, “Supplemental Structural Inspection Document for Model 747 Airplanes,” Revision H, dated September 2013; and Boeing Document D6-35022-1, “747-400 LCF Supplemental Structural Inspection Document—Appendix A,” dated November 2015; the SSIs listed in Boeing Document D6-35022-1, “747-400 LCF Supplemental Structural Inspection Document—Appendix A,” dated November 2015, take precedence (
(ii) Within 1,000 flight cycles measured from 12 months after the effective date of this AD.
If any cracked structure is found during any inspection required by paragraph (i) or (j) of this AD, repair before further flight using an FAA-approved method.
For compliance times identified in paragraphs (i) and (j) of this AD that specify total flight cycles and total flight hours, and the SSI is a removable structural component, those compliance times must be measured on the SSI since its first installation on any airplane, regardless of what the airframe as a whole has accumulated. If the total flight cycles and total flight hours on the SSI are not available or cannot be determined, use the airframe total flight cycles and total flight hours for the compliance times identified in paragraphs (i) and (j) of this AD.
After accomplishing the revision required by paragraph (h) of this AD, no alternative inspections or inspection intervals may be used unless the alternative inspection or inspection interval is approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (p) of this AD.
Accomplishing the revision required by paragraph (h) of this AD and all of the initial inspections required by paragraph (i) or (j) of this AD, as applicable, terminates all requirements of AD 2004-07-22 R1.
A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.
(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (q)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) AMOCs approved for AD 2004-07-22 R1 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraphs (h), (i), (j), and (k) of this AD for the SSIs identified in the AMOC, except for any SSI that has an expanded inspection area identified in Boeing Document D6-35022, “Supplemental Structural Inspection Document for Model 747 Airplanes,” Revision H, dated September 2013; or Boeing Document D6-35022-1, “747-400 LCF Supplemental Structural Inspection Document—Appendix A,” dated November 2015, as applicable.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Bill Ashforth, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6432; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; Internet
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM); reopening of comment period.
We are revising an earlier proposal for certain Airbus Model A318-112, A319-115, A320-214, A320-232, and A321-111 airplanes. This action revises the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) by adding airplanes to the applicability and removing others that were inadvertently included due to typographical errors. We are proposing this airworthiness directive (AD) to address the unsafe condition on these products. Since these actions would impose an additional burden over those in the NPRM, we are reopening the comment period to allow the public the chance to comment on these changes.
The comment period for the NPRM published in the
We must receive comments on this SNPRM by December 26, 2017.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this SNPRM, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office-EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-1149.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Model A318-112, A319-115, A320-214, A320-232, and A321-111 airplanes. The NPRM published in the
Since we issued the NPRM, we determined that we inadvertently specified that Model A318-112 airplanes were included in the applicability (in paragraph (c) of the proposed AD). In addition, we specified in
In addition, in paragraph (c) of the proposed AD, we inadvertently included Model A321-111 airplanes in the applicability. However, Model A321-211 airplanes are affected as specified in the MCAI.
Since we did not include the Model A319-112 or Model A321-211 airplanes in the NPRM and there are affected airplanes on the U.S. register, we are issuing this SNPRM to include Model A319-112 and Model A321-211 airplanes in the applicability.
EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued the MCAI to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A319-112, A319-115, A320-214, A320-232, and A321-211 airplanes. The MCAI states:
Following in-service experience and further analyses, it was ascertained that the galley 5 without kick load retainers on external position could not withstand the expected loading during several flight phases or in case of emergency landing.
This condition, if not corrected, could lead to galley/trolley detachment and collapse into an adjacent cabin aisle or cabin zone, possibly spreading loose galley equipment items, compartment doors or leaking fluids, blocking an evacuation route, and consequently resulting in injury to crew or passengers.
To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus issued 6 Service Bulletins (SB) to provide modification instructions for the affected aeroplanes.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires modification of galley 5 trolley compartments to install kick load retainers.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-25-1B29, dated June 19, 2014; and Service Bulletin A320-25-1B30, dated June 19, 2014. This service information describes procedures for installing kick-load retainers on certain galley 5 trolley compartments. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane configurations. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this proposed AD. We considered the comments received.
American Airlines had no objections to the NPRM.
Spirit Airlines noted that manufacturer's serial number (MSN) 5672 is not listed in paragraph (c) of the proposed AD (the applicability), but is listed in paragraph (g)(2) of the proposed AD as an airplane on which the kick-load retainers must be installed.
We agree that there is a discrepancy between paragraphs (c) and (g)(2) of the proposed AD. We have determined that MSN 5672 is not affected by the identified unsafe condition. We have removed MSN 5672 from paragraph (g)(2) of this proposed AD accordingly.
Spirit Airlines requested that certain MSNs that are shown in paragraph (c) of the proposed AD be added to paragraph (g) of the proposed AD and that we refer to Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1BBZ, dated October 2, 2015, as the appropriate source of service information for the applicable required actions.
We disagree that Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1BBZ, dated October 2, 2015, should be added to paragraph (g) of this proposed AD. Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1BBZ, dated October 2, 2015, has not been reviewed and approved by the FAA for accomplishing the installation required by this proposed AD. The requirements for the MSNs identified by the commenter are included in paragraph (g)(3) of this proposed AD, which specifies that the installation must be done using a method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). We have not changed this proposed AD in this regard.
Spirit Airlines requested we exclude airplanes on which Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1BCN, dated December 22, 2015, has been accomplished. Spirit Airlines stated that accomplishing the service bulletin removes galley 5.
We agree that the actions required by this proposed AD are not required on airplanes on which galley 5 has been removed. We have revised paragraph (g) of this AD accordingly.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs.
Certain changes described above expand the scope of the NPRM. As a result, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for the public to comment on this SNPRM.
We estimate that this SNPRM affects 19 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this SNPRM:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by December 26, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to Airbus Model A319-112, A319-115, A320-214, A320-232, and A321-211 airplanes, certificated in any category, manufacturer's serial numbers 1479, 3096, 3693, 3713, 3739, 3791, 3896, 3902, 3907, 3931, 3949, 3969, 4030, 4045, 4049, 4059, 4066, 4077, 4083, 4124, 4146, 4158, 4188, 4198, 4206, 4209, 4218, 4235, 4255, 4264, 4304, 4321, 4371, 4374, 4395, 4411, 4417, 4431, 4485, 4492, 4502, 4528, 4541, 4548, 4592, 4595, 4638, 4651, 4669, 4703, 4724, 4737, 4746, 4770, 4780, 4783, 4826, 4827, 4860, 4863, 4865, 4902, 4934, 4945, 4951, 4952, 4971, 4996, 5023, 5029, 5042, 5088, 5095, 5132, 5159, 5164, 5171, 5175, 5192, 5210, 5227, 5241, 5247, 5251, 5275, 5277, 5297, 5306, 5340, 5343, 5348, 5356, 5366, 5370, 5385, 5387, 5392, 5396, 5400, 5407, 5418, 5427, 5438, 5456, 5458, 5469, 5495, 5517, 5555, 5624, 5674, 5678, 5698, 5699, 5704, 5709, 5714, 5791, 5745, 5753, 5761, 5781, 5786, 5788, 5789, 5798, 5804, 5810, 5821, 5827, 5842, 5874, 5882, 5889, 5903, 5907, 5916, 5924, 5958, 5984, 5994, 6000, 6004, 6054, 6080, 6107, 6166, 6176, 6234, 6266, 6293, 6335, 6344, 6365, 6430, and 6444.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 25, Equipment/furnishings.
This AD was prompted by in-service experience and further analysis, which showed that the galley 5 without kick-load retainers was unable to withstand the expected loading during several flight phases or in case of emergency landing. We are issuing this AD to prevent galley/trolley detachment and collapse into an adjacent cabin aisle or cabin zone, possibly spreading loose galley equipment items, compartment doors, or leaking fluids. These hazards could block an evacuation route and result in injury to crew or passengers.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, install kick-load retainers on the galley 5 trolley compartments as specified in paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), or (g)(3) of this AD, as applicable. For airplanes on which galley 5 is not installed, no action is required by this paragraph.
(1) For Airbus Model A319-115 airplanes, manufacturer's serial numbers 5678, 5698, 5704, 5745, 5753, 5761, 5781, 5786, 5788, 5789, 5798, 5810, 5827, and 5842, do the installation in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1B29, dated June 19, 2014.
(2) For Airbus Model A320-232 airplanes, manufacturer's serial numbers 5458, 5517, 5624, and 5804, do the installation in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1B30, dated June 19, 2014.
(3) For airplanes not identified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, do the installation using a method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0040, dated March 2, 2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-1149.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”).
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
The Commission proposes to amend the Energy Labeling Rule (“Rule”) by updating ranges of comparability and unit energy cost figures on EnergyGuide labels for dishwashers, furnaces, room air conditioners, and pool heaters. The Commission also proposes to set a compliance date for EnergyGuide labels on room air conditioner boxes.
Comments must be received by December 4, 2017.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
Hampton Newsome, (202) 326-2889, Attorney, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, Room CC-9528, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.
The Commission issued the Energy Labeling Rule (“Rule”) in 1979,
The Rule requires manufacturers to attach yellow EnergyGuide labels to many covered products and prohibits retailers from removing these labels or rendering them illegible. In addition, it directs sellers, including retailers, to post label information on Web sites and in paper catalogs from which consumers can order products. EnergyGuide labels for most covered products contain three key disclosures: Estimated annual energy cost, a product's energy consumption or energy efficiency rating as determined by DOE test procedures, and a comparability range displaying the highest and lowest energy costs or efficiency ratings for all similar models. For cost calculations, the Rule specifies national average costs for applicable energy sources (
As discussed below, the Commission proposes to update comparability ranges (Appendices A-J to Part 305) and national average energy cost figures (Appendix K to Part 305) for several product categories consistent with the Rule's five-year schedule. This document also contains changes to EnergyGuide label location for room air conditioners previously announced by the Commission.
In accordance with the Rule's five-year schedule for label updates, the Commission publishes proposed revisions to the comparability range and energy cost information for dishwashers, furnaces, pool heaters, and room air conditioners.
The Commission does not propose amending range and cost information for EnergyGuide labels for refrigerators, freezers, clothes washers, water heaters, central air conditioners, and televisions because label information for these products has been updated recently.
The proposed amendments also set a compliance date for changes to room air conditioner labels previously announced by the Commission. In 2015, the Commission announced final amendments to require labels on room air conditioner boxes and replace the EER (“Energy Efficiency Ratio”) disclosure with CEER (“Combined Energy Efficiency Ratio”) (80 FR 67285, 67292-3 (Nov. 2, 2015)). However, to reduce burden on manufacturers that use both the U.S. and Canadian labels, the Commission delayed a compliance date announcement until Natural Resources Canada (NRCan), which administers the Canadian EnerGuide labeling program, had announced similar provisions. On December 28, 2016, NRCan published regulatory amendments providing manufacturers the option to print the EnerGuide label on packaging (Canada Gazette, Vol. 150, No. 26 (Dec. 28, 2016)) in lieu of affixing the EnerGuide label to the product. Thus, now it is appropriate to announce a compliance date.
To ensure ample time for manufacturers to redesign packaging, the Commission proposes to set an effective date of October 1, 2018. This date should coincide with the beginning of the product season giving
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before December 4, 2017. Write “Energy Label Ranges, Matter R611004” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you prefer to file your comment on paper, write “Energy Label Ranges, Matter R611004” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex E), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex E), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Because your comment will be placed on the publicly accessible FTC Web site at
Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record.
Visit the Commission Web site at
Because written comments appear adequate to present the views of all interested parties, the Commission has not scheduled an oral hearing regarding these proposed amendments. Interested parties may request an opportunity to present views orally. If such a request is made, the Commission will publish a document in the
The current Rule contains recordkeeping, disclosure, testing, and reporting requirements that constitute information collection requirements as defined by 5 CFR 1320.3(c), the definitional provision within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations that implement the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). OMB has approved the Rule's existing information collection requirements through November 30, 2019 (OMB Control No. 3084 0069). The proposed amendments do not change the substance or frequency of the recordkeeping, disclosure, or reporting requirements and, therefore, do not require further OMB clearance.
The provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act relating to a Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis (5 U.S.C. 603-604) are not applicable to this proceeding because the proposed amendments do not impose any new obligations on entities regulated by the Energy Labeling Rule. As explained elsewhere in this document, the proposed amendments do not significantly change the substance or frequency of the recordkeeping, disclosure, or reporting requirements. Thus, the amendments will not have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” 5 U.S.C. 605. The Commission has concluded, therefore, that a regulatory flexibility analysis is not necessary, and certifies, under Section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), that the proposed amendments
Advertising, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out above, the Commission proposes to amend 16 CFR part 305 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 6294.
(c) All information required by paragraph (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this section must be submitted for new models prior to any distribution of such model. Models subject to design or retrofit alterations which change the data contained in any annual report shall be reported in the manner required for new models. Models which are discontinued shall be reported in the next annual report.
(a)
(b)
(c) * * *
(3) For refrigerator and refrigerator-freezer labels:
(i) If the model's energy cost falls outside of either or both ranges on the label, include the language in paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
(ii) If the model's energy cost only falls outside of the range for models with similar features, but is within the range for all models, include the product on the scale and place a triangle below the dollar value.
(iii) If the model's energy cost falls outside of both ranges of comparability, omit the triangle beneath the yearly operating cost value.
(d) Label types. Except as indicated in paragraph (d)(3) of this section, the labels must be affixed to the product in the form of an adhesive label or a hang tag as follows:
(3)
(g) * * *
(12) * * *
(iii) A map appropriate for the model and accompanying text as illustrated in the sample label 7 in appendix L.
(13) * * *
(ii) A map appropriate for the model and accompanying text as illustrated in the sample label 7 in appendix L.
(14) For any single-package air conditioner with a minimum EER below 11.0, the label must contain the following regional standards information:
(ii) A map appropriate for the model and accompanying text as illustrated in the sample label 7 in appendix L.
“Compact” includes countertop dishwasher models with a capacity of fewer than eight (8) place settings. Place settings shall be in accordance with appendix C to 10 CFR part 430, subpart B. Load patterns shall conform to the operating normal for the model being tested.
“Standard” includes dishwasher models with a capacity of eight (8) or more place settings. Place settings shall be in accordance with appendix C to 10 CFR part 430, subpart B. Load patterns shall conform to the operating normal for the model being tested.
This Table contains the representative unit energy costs that must be utilized to calculate estimated annual energy cost disclosures required under sections 305.11 and 305.20 for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, freezers, clothes washers, and water heaters. This Table is based on information published by the U.S. Department of Energy in 2013.
This Table contains the representative unit energy costs that must be utilized to calculate estimated annual energy cost disclosures required under sections 305.11 and 305.20 for dishwashers and room air conditioners. This Table is based on information published by the U.S. Department of Energy in 2017.
By direction of the Commission.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notification of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Menu Labeling: Supplemental Guidance for Industry.” The draft guidance, when finalized, will address concerns raised by stakeholders regarding the implementation of nutrition labeling required for foods sold in covered establishments. It includes expanded and new interpretations of policy, and identifies places where FDA intends to be more flexible in its approach. This draft guidance also includes many graphical depictions in order to convey our thinking on various topics and to provide examples of options for implementation. It addresses calorie disclosure signage for self-service foods, including buffets and grab-and-go foods; reasonable basis, and the criteria for considering the natural variation of foods; various methods for providing calorie disclosure information, including those for pizza; compliance and enforcement; and criteria for distinguishing between menus and other information presented to the consumer.
Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by January 8, 2018 to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on the 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 do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
•
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 draft guidance to the Office of Nutrition and Food Labeling, HFS-800, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740. Send two self-addressed adhesive labels to assist that office in processing your request. See the
Ashley Rulffes, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-820), Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740, 240-402-2371.
We are announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Menu Labeling Supplemental Guidance for Industry.” We are issuing the draft guidance consistent with our good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on this topic. It does not establish any rights for any person, and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternate approach if it satisfies the requirements of the
In the
In the
This draft guidance addresses concerns raised by stakeholders regarding the implementation of nutrition labeling required for foods sold in covered establishments. The draft guidance reflects extensive further analysis by FDA in light of the comments we received to the IFR. In addition, given extensive further analysis by the Agency, we are withdrawing Questions and Answers 5.17 and 5.18 in our previous guidance entitled “A Labeling Guide for Restaurants and Retail Establishments Selling Away-From-Home Foods—Part II (Menu Labeling Requirements in Accordance With FDA's Food Labeling Regulations)” announced in the
This 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 § 101.11(b)(2), (c)(3), and (d) have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0783.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notification of petition.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing that we have filed a petition, submitted by Colorcon, Inc., proposing that the color additive regulations be amended by expanding the permitted uses of synthetic iron oxide as a color additive to include use in dietary supplement tablets and capsules.
The color additive petition was filed on October 3, 2017.
For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to
Molly A. Harry, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740, 240-402-1075.
Under section 721(d)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 379e(d)(1)), we are giving notice that we have filed a color additive petition (CAP 7C0308), submitted by Colorcon, Inc., 275 Ruth Rd., Harleysville, PA 19438. The petition proposes to amend the color additive regulations in § 73.200 (21 CFR 73.200)
We have determined under 21 CFR 25.32(k) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
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.
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; request for comments.
On October 6, 2017, NMFS received an application under section 120 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) from the state of Oregon (state) requesting authorization to intentionally take, by lethal methods, individually identifiable California sea lions (CSLs;
This authorization is requested as part of a larger effort to protect and recover listed salmonid stocks in the Willamette River basin. NMFS has determined that the application contains sufficient information to warrant establishing a Pinniped-Fishery Interaction Task Force (Task Force), which will be established after the closing of a public comment period. NMFS solicits public comments on the state's application, other relevant information related to pinniped predation on salmonids in the Willamette River, and nominations for potential members of a Task Force.
Comments must be received by January 8, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2017-0126, by any of the following methods:
•
•
NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields, if you wish to remain anonymous).
Robert Anderson, NMFS, West Coast Region (503) 231-2226.
The state's application is available via the Internet at the following address:
Section 120 of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361,
The MMPA requires the Task Force be composed of the following: (1) NMFS/NOAA staff, (2) scientists who are knowledgeable about the pinniped interaction, (3) representatives of affected conservation and fishing community organizations, (4) Indian Treaty tribes, (5) the state, and (6) such other organizations as NMFS deems appropriate. The Task Force reviews the state's application, the factors contained in section 120(d), and public comments and, as required by section 120, recommends to NMFS whether to approve or deny the application. The Task Force is also required to submit with its recommendation a description of the specific pinniped individual or individuals; the proposed location, time, and method of such taking; criteria for evaluating the success of the action; the duration of the intentional lethal taking authority; and a suggestion for non-lethal alternatives, if available and practicable, including a recommended course of action.
On October 6, 2017, NMFS received an application signed by the director of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) on the state's behalf, requesting authorization under section 120 of the MMPA to intentionally take, by lethal methods, individually identifiable CSLs in the vicinity of Willamette Falls, which are having a significant negative impact on the decline or recovery of salmonid fishery stocks listed as threatened under the ESA. According to the state's application, impacted salmon and steelhead include UWR steelhead (threatened) and UWR Chinook salmon (threatened).
On October 10, 2017, NMFS provided the director of the ODFW a letter acknowledging receipt of the application and a determining that the application produced sufficient evidence of the problem interaction to warrant establishing a Task Force.
The state's application provides information on studies conducted by the state that document when pinniped predation occurs in the vicinity of Willamette Falls, numbers of pinnipeds present, numbers of individual sea lions observed, numbers of salmonids consumed, the proportion of all salmonids passing Willamette Falls that are taken by pinnipeds in the vicinity of Willamette Falls, and a population viability analysis that predicts the extinction risks to UWR steelhead due to pinniped predation.
The state began a pinniped predation monitoring program at Willamette Falls in 1995 followed by a CSL branding program in Astoria, Oregon, in 1997 to monitor foraging behavior throughout the Columbia River basin. The trend in CSL abundance at the Willamette Falls over this period has been steadily upward, with single-day maximum counts increasing each year as follows: 27 (2014), 32 (2015), 35 (2016), and at least 40 (2017). The state's application indicates that pinniped predation on wild UWR steelhead and wild UWR Chinook salmon in 2014 was estimated at 780 (12 percent of the total return) and 496 (7 percent of the total return) fish, respectively. In 2015 pinniped predation on wild UWR steelhead and wild UWR Chinook salmon was estimated at 577 (11 percent of the total return) and 899 (9 percent of the total return) fish, respectively. In 2016 pinniped predation on wild UWR steelhead and wild UWR Chinook salmon was estimated at 915 (14 percent of the total return) and 650 (9 percent of the total return) fish, respectively. In 2017 pinniped predation on wild UWR steelhead and wild UWR Chinook salmon was estimated at 270 (25 percent of the total return) and 399 (6 percent of the total return) fish, respectively. Pinniped predation estimates at Willamette Falls represent a minimum of the total river-wide predation because they apply only to the area immediately in the vicinity of Willamette Falls, apply only to the sampling period, and CSLs have been documented feeding on salmonids throughout the Columbia River estuary.
The state initiated non-lethal deterrence methods to deter CSLs at Willamette Falls starting in 2010, with the goal to move CSLs down river and away from Willamette Falls to reduce predation on salmon and steelhead stocks. However, these efforts, like the non-lethal deterrence efforts at Ballard Locks and Bonneville Dam, have been largely unsuccessful. Over time, non-lethal deterrence methods have done little to eliminate or reduce predation of salmon and steelhead at Ballard Locks, Bonneville Dam, and Willamette Falls. Despite more than 35 years of exhaustive efforts to find an effective, long-term, non-lethal solution to eliminating or reducing predation on salmonids, such efforts have proven to be unsuccessful. With this in mind, the state, as stated in their application, proposes not to conduct non-lethal hazing concurrent with the lethal removal as efforts to non-lethally deter CLSs have proven ineffective at reducing or eliminating the problem interaction.
The state proposes to lethally remove a limited number of CSLs in the vicinity of Willamette Falls. In addition to animals located in the vicinity of Willamette Falls, all individually identifiable CSLs that have been documented feeding on salmonids, and have been approved for lethal removal by NMFS, would be candidates for removal without restriction to time or location. Annual removals under the proposed action are expected to be less than 0.5 percent of the Potential Biological Removal (PBR) level for CSLs (current PBR level is 9,200 animals out of an estimated population of 296,740). Individual CSLs would be lethally removed by humane methods following recommendations of a Safety and Animal Care committee convened by the state.
The proposed action to address pinniped predation is part of a
In their application, the state asserts that taking no action or continued use of only non-lethal methods will likely result in an expansion of the problem interaction by allowing CSLs to become recruited into the pool of nuisance animals. The expected benefit of permanent removal of the animals in question will be to reduce a significant source of mortality that has jeopardized state, Federal, and non-governmental efforts to recover ESA-listed salmon and steelhead stocks in the Willamette River basin. The state's population viability analysis predicts that elimination of the problem interaction will reduce the probability of extinction of the three independent UWR steelhead populations from 20-64 percent to <5 percent.
In considering whether the application should be approved or denied, the MMPA requires that the Task Force and NMFS consider: (1) Population trends, feeding habits, the location of the pinniped interaction, how and when the interaction occurs, involved; (2) past efforts to deter such pinnipeds, and whether the applicant has demonstrated that no feasible and prudent alternatives exist and that the applicant has taken all reasonable nonlethal steps without success; (3) the extent to which such pinnipeds are causing undue injury impact to, or imbalance with, other species in the ecosystem, including fish populations; and (4) the extent to which such pinnipeds are exhibiting behavior that presents an ongoing threat to public safety. The NMFS West Coast Regional Administrator has considered the state's application and determined that it provides sufficient evidence to warrant establishing a Task Force. The application describes the means of identifying individual pinnipeds, includes a detailed description of the problem interaction between pinnipeds and listed salmonids in the vicinity of Willamette Falls, and describes the expected benefits of potential taking of pinnipeds. The application also documents the state's past non-lethal efforts to deter pinnipeds in the vicinity of Willamette Falls.
NMFS solicits public comments on the state's application and any additional information that should be considered by the Task Force in making its recommendation, or by NMFS in making its determination whether to approve or deny the application. NMFS is interested in receiving additional information related to the factors that must be considered in determining whether to approve or deny the application (see Background), and on the impact of sea lion predation in the vicinity of Willamette Falls on the affected salmonid stocks.
NMFS requests that comments be specific. In particular, we request information regarding: (1) Observations of pinnipeds (number, species and predation on salmonids) in the Willamette River;
(2) Information on areas where numbers of pinnipeds are concentrated in the Willamette River, including resting/haul out sites and locations where pinnipeds have been repeatedly observed taking salmonids; and
(3) Dates when pinnipeds have been observed in the Willamette River.
NMFS also solicits the names and affiliations of experts from the academic and scientific community, tribes, Federal and state agencies, and the private sector for consideration as potential Task Force members. A Task Force, established under section 120(c) of the MMPA must, to the maximum extent practicable, consist of an equitable balance among representatives of resource users and non-users as outlined above. The state's application included a list of suggested agencies and organizations for inclusion in the Task Force (see Electronic Access). Nominations for Task Force membership must include sufficient background information (
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before January 8, 2018.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to the West Coast Regional Office—7600 Sand Point Way NE., Seattle, WA 98115, Keeley Kent, telephone number ((206) 526-4655), or
This request is for extension of a currently approved information collection.
In January 2011, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) implemented a trawl rationalization program, a catch share program, for the Pacific coast groundfish fishery's trawl fleet. The program was developed through Amendment 20 to the Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP), under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801
This collection utilizes both electronic and paper forms, depending on the specific item. Methods of submittal include email of electronic forms, and mail and facsimile transmission of paper forms.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
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.
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
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice of availability.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in association with the nonfederal sponsor, the Virginia Port Authority, an agent of the Commonwealth of Virginia, announces the availability of the Norfolk Harbor Navigation Improvements Draft General Reevaluation Report/Environmental Assessment (GRR/EA) for public review and comment. The purpose of this Draft GRR/EA is to identify whether the original authorized plan is still in the federal interest and to evaluate alternatives that have the potential to improve the current and future operational efficiency of commercial vessels currently using the Norfolk
This study was authorized by Section 216 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (Pub. L. 91-611), which authorizes the review of completed federal projects in the interest of navigation and related purposes to determine the feasibility of further port deepening.
The Draft GRR/EA is available for a 30-day review period. Written comments, pursuant to the NEPA, will be accepted until the close of public review at the close of business on December 10, 2017.
Written comments or questions from the public may be submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District, ATTN: Ms. Kimberly Koelsch, Planning Branch, Environmental Analysis Section (CENAO-WR-PE), Norfolk, VA 23510 or via email to
Ms. Kimberly Koelsch, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District, VA 23510, 757-201-7837 or via email at
The document is available at the following locations:
(1) USACE Norfolk Harbor and Channels Deepening Project Web site:
(2) Slover Public Library, 235 East Plume Street, Norfolk, VA 23510.
(3) Copies may also be requested in writing at (see
The Action Alternative consists of constructing and maintaining the following features:
• Deepening the Atlantic Ocean Channel to a required depth of approximately 59 feet.
• Deepening the Thimble Shoal Channel to a required depth of approximately 56 feet.
• Widening the Thimble Shoal Channel Meeting Areas (one on each side of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel) to approximately 1,200 feet (an additional 200 feet from current conditions) and deepening where necessary to a required depth of 56 feet.
• Deepening Anchorage F to a required depth of approximately 55 feet.
• Deepening the Norfolk Harbor Channel to a required depth of approximately 55 feet.
• Deepening the Newport News Channel to a required depth of approximately 55 feet.
• Associated Operations and Maintenance Activities.
Implementation of the Preferred Alternative would have the potential to impact water quality, benthic resources, cultural resources, floodplains, federally listed threatened and endangered species, marine mammals, and other natural resources. The Proposed Action must be located in a floodplain in order to use the Craney Island Dredged Material Management Area (CIDMMA) as a dredged material placement site. The Proposed Action will adhere to the 8-step process as outlined under Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management.
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice of availability.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Tulsa District has prepared a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) to analyze the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the construction of the proposed Lower Bois d'Arc Creek Reservoir (LBCR) and related actions proposed by the North Texas Municipal Water District (NTMWD) in Fannin County, Texas. The Proposed Action is a regional water supply project intended to provide up to 175,000 acre-feet/year (AFY), with an estimated firm yield of 120,665 AFY, of new water for NTMWD's member cities and direct customers in all or portions of nine counties in northern Texas—Collin, Dallas, Denton, Fannin, Hopkins, Hunt, Kaufman, Rains, and Rockwall. Construction of the reservoir and related facilities would result in permanent impacts to approximately 5,874 acres of wetlands, 651,140 linear feet of streams, and 78 acres of open waters. This action requires authorization from the USACE under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The Section 404 permit applicant is the NTMWD.
The FEIS will be used to inform the final USACE decision on this proposal. In accordance with the NEPA regulations, a final decision will not be made before December 9, 2017.
Comments, if any, regarding the FEIS must be submitted by December 9, 2017, to Mr. Andrew R. Commer, Regulatory Office Chief, USACE Tulsa District (CESWT-RO), 2488 East 81st Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74137-4290, or via email:
Mr. Andrew R. Commer, USACE Tulsa
The FEIS was prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, and the USACE regulations for NEPA implementation (33 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] parts 230 and 325 (with associated Appendices B and C)). The USACE Tulsa District, Regulatory Office is the lead federal agency responsible for the FEIS and information contained in the EIS will serve as the basis for a decision whether or not to issue a Section 404 permit. All comments received on the Revised Draft EIS (RDEIS), to include the Draft EIS (DEIS) comments not specifically addressed in the RDEIS, are reflected and responses are provided in the accompanying Comment Categories and Responses Document. It also provides information for Federal, State, and local agencies having jurisdictional responsibility for affected resources.
The USACE has determined that the basic project purpose in the present case is to develop a new water supply for the applicant NTMWD and its member cities and customers.
The purpose of the FEIS is to provide decision-makers and the public with information pertaining to the Proposed Action and Alternatives, and to disclose environmental impacts and identify mitigation measures to reduce impacts. NTMWD proposes to build the LBCR with a total storage capacity of approximately 367,609 acre-feet. A dam approximately 10,400 feet (about 2 miles) long and up to 90 feet high would be constructed, and much of the reservoir footprint would be cleared of trees and built structures. NTMWD also proposes to construct several related facilities or connected actions. These include a raw water intake pump station and electrical substation at the reservoir site, as well as a 90 to 96-inch diameter buried pipeline to carry raw water from the new reservoir approximately 35 miles in a southwesterly direction. The raw water pipeline will connect to a new water treatment plant (WTP)—the “North WTP”—and terminal storage reservoir (TSR) that would be located west of the City of Leonard, also in Fannin County, Texas. The North WTP and TSR will be constructed regardless of whether NTMWD receives a Section 404 permit to proceed with the Proposed Action; the North WTP and TSR are not part of the Proposed Action. A number of rural roads within the footprint and in the vicinity of the proposed reservoir would have to be closed or relocated; the most significant of these is FM 1396, which would be relocated to cross the reservoir in a different alignment on an entirely new bridge that would need to be constructed.
An aquatic resources mitigation plan has been prepared by the applicant to comply with the federal policy of “no overall net loss of wetlands” and to provide compensatory mitigation, to the extent practicable, for impacts to other waters of the United States that would be impacted by construction of the proposed reservoir. NTMWD has purchased a 14,960-acre parcel of land known as the Riverby Ranch, which borders the Red River. This working ranch is located downstream of the proposed project within both the same watershed (Bois d'Arc Creek) and the same county (Fannin). NTMWD acquired the Riverby Ranch specifically because its biophysical features have the potential to provide a portion of the appropriate mitigation for the proposed project. Additional mitigation is proposed within a 1,900-acre upstream site and within the proposed reservoir itself. Though not part of the proposed mitigation plan, Bois d'Arc Creek downstream of the reservoir will receive environmental flow releases as a result of an operations plan and flow regime established in consultation with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), and stipulated in the Water Rights Permit issued by TCEQ to NTMWD.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 6, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department participated as cooperating agencies in the formulation of the FEIS.
On December 8, 2009, the USACE held a NEPA EIS public scoping meeting in Bonham, Texas. On March 24, 2015, the USACE held a public meeting during the comment period on the previous DEIS. On March 27, 2017, the USACE published the availability of the RDEIS in response to comments received on the DEIS. The revision and publication of this FEIS is informed by public and agency comment on the original DEIS and RDEIS and changes have been made to address commented issues. No public meeting is planned during this comment period. Copies of the FEIS will be available for review at the USACE Tulsa District Office, the permit applicant's office in Wylie Texas, and at four locations in the project area in Fannin County, Texas, addresses of each as follows.
1. Bonham Public Library, 305 East 5th Street, Bonham, TX 75418; (903) 583-3128.
2. Sam Rayburn Library, 800 West Sam Rayburn Drive, Bonham, TX 75418; (903) 583-2455.
3. Bertha Voyer Memorial Library, 500 6th Street, Honey Grove, TX 75446; (903) 378-2206.
4. Leonard Public Library, 102 South Main Street, Leonard, TX 75452; (903) 587-2391.
5. North Texas Municipal Water District headquarters, 505 East Brown Street, Wylie, TX 75098.
6. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District, Regulatory Office, 2488 East 81st Street, Tulsa, OK 74137-4290.
Electronic copies of the FEIS may be obtained from the USACE Tulsa District, Regulatory Office or its Web site at
Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of intended transfer of Confidential Business Information to contractor and its subcontractors.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) intends to transfer confidential business information (CBI) collected from numerous industries under a newly awarded contract to Eastern Research Group (ERG) and its subcontractors. Transfer of this information is necessary for ERG to assist the Office of Water in the preparation of effluent guidelines and standards and with its effluent guidelines planning and review activities. Much of the information being transferred was or will be collected under the authority of section 308 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Interested persons may submit comments on this intended transfer of information to the address noted below.
Comments on the transfer of data are due November 14, 2017.
Comments may be sent to M. Ahmar Siddiqui, Document Control Officer, Engineering and Analysis Division (4303T), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.
M. Ahmar Siddiqui, Document Control Officer, at (202) 566-1044, or via email at
EPA has transferred CBI to various contractors and subcontractors over the history of the effluent guidelines program under 40 CFR 2.302(h). EPA determined that this transfer was necessary to enable the contractors and subcontractors to perform their work in supporting EPA in planning, developing, and reviewing effluent guidelines and standards for certain industries.
Today, pursuant to 40 CFR 2.302(h)(2), EPA is giving notice that it has entered into a new contract with ERG, contract number EP-C-17-041, located in Chantilly, Virginia. The purpose of this contract is to secure technical and engineering analysis support for EPA in its development, review, implementation, and defense of water-related initiatives for a variety of industries. To obtain assistance in responding to this contract, ERG has entered into contracts with the following subcontractors and consultant: PG Environmental, LLC (located in Chantilly, Virginia and Golden, Colorado), Great Lakes Environmental Center (located in Traverse City, Michigan and Columbus, Ohio), LimnoTech (located in Ann Arbor, Michigan), Mabbett & Associates, Inc. (located in Bedford, Massachusetts), RESPEC Consulting and Services (located in Mountain View, California), The Water Planet Company (located in New London, Connecticut), and Jack Martin (located in Georgetown, Delaware).
All EPA contractor, subcontractor, and consultant personnel are bound by the requirements and sanctions contained in their contracts with EPA and in EPA's confidentiality regulations found at 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. ERG will adhere to an EPA-approved security plan which describes procedures to protect CBI. ERG will apply the procedures in this plan to CBI previously gathered by EPA and to CBI that may be gathered in the future. The security plan specifies that contractor personnel are required to sign non-disclosure agreements and are briefed on appropriate security procedures before they are permitted access to CBI. No person is automatically granted access to CBI: A need to know must exist.
The information that will be transferred to ERG consists of information previously collected by EPA to support the development and review of effluent limitations guidelines and standards under the CWA and that EPA had transferred to ERG under a previous contract with them. In particular, information, including CBI, collected for the planning, development, and review of effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the following industries may be transferred to ERG under the new contract: Airport deicing; aquaculture; centralized waste treatment; coal bed methane; concentrated animal feeding operations; coal mining; construction and development; drinking water treatment; industrial container and drum cleaning; industrial laundries; industrial waste combustors; iron and steel manufacturing; landfills; meat and poultry products; metal finishing; metal products and machinery; nonferrous metals manufacturing; oil and gas extraction (including coalbed methane); ore mining and dressing; organic chemicals, plastics, and synthetic fibers; pesticide chemicals; petroleum refining; pharmaceutical manufacturing; pulp, paper, and paperboard manufacturing; shale gas extraction; steam electric power generation; textile mills; timber products processing; tobacco; transportation equipment cleaning; and other industrial categories that EPA has reviewed as part of its CWA required annual review activities.
EPA also intends to transfer to ERG all information listed in this notice, of the type described above (including CBI) that may be collected in the future under the authority of section 308 of the CWA or voluntarily submitted (
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC or Receiver), as Receiver for 10511, Highland Community Bank, Chicago, Illinois, has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the receivership estate of Highland Community Bank (Receivership Estate); the Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law. The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments, and deeds. Effective November 1, 2017, the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.
Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. and its continuation at the conclusion of the open meeting on November 16, 2017.
999 E Street NW., Washington, DC.
This meeting will be closed to the public.
Compliance matters pursuant to 52 U.S.C. 30109.
Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
Office of Government-wide Policy (OGP), General Services Administration (GSA).
Notice of FTR Bulletin 18-02, Requirement to Report Agency Travel, Transportation, and Relocation Data and Costs.
The purpose of this notice is to inform Federal agencies that FTR Bulletin 18-02, pertaining to the reporting of travel, transportation, and relocation data and costs is now available online at
November 9, 2017.
Mr. Cy Greenidge, Office of Government-wide Policy, Office of Asset and Transportation Management, at 202-219-2349, or by email at
5 U.S.C. 5707(c).
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request titled
CDC will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
(a) 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;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) 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,
(e) Assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to
Community Assessment for Public Health Emergency Response (CASPER) (OMB Control Number 0920-1036, Expiration 12/31/2017)—Revision—National Center for Environmental Health (NCEH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The National Center for Environmental Health (NCEH) is requesting a revision of a currently approved generic information collection plan to reduce the number of burden hours associated with conducting Community Assessments for Public Health Emergency Response (CASPERs). Specifically, NCEH seeks to make the following changes:
• Decrease the number of proposed CASPERs conducted annually from 15 to 6.
• Decrease the number of total annual respondents from 3,200 to 1,284, resulting in a burden reduction of 946 hours.
• Update respondent costs to reflect current wage data from 2015.
CASPER is an effective public health tool designed to quickly provide low-cost, household-based information about a community's needs and health status in a simple, easy-to-understand format for decision-makers during a public health emergency. A CASPER can be conducted as part of disaster/emergency response to help inform decision-making and resource distribution.
CASPERs comprise household interviews (approximately 30-minutes long) with an adult (≥18 years of age) household member. Households are identified using a 2-stage process so that they are representative of an entire area. Data are collected about the current household needs (
Each time a CASPER is conducted, it is tailored to the current needs of public health and, if appropriate, emergency managers. Because these CASPERs are requested by states during disasters or emergencies, it is important that CDC have the ability to gain urgent approval for data collection.
In the past three years, CDC has conducted two CASPERs. These CASPERs were in support of the California Drought in Mariposa County and the West Virginia Flooding of 2016. The 2016 California Drought CASPER
Based on the experience of the past three years, NCEH requests changes to this generic information collection plan to reduce the number of CASPERs conducted annually, reduce the number of referral forms completed, and update respondent costs to reflect wage data from 2015. The revised estimated burden is based on conducting 6 emergency CASPERs per year, interviewing 210 households (the respondents) per CASPER, and completing 24 referral forms per year. The total burden requested for this generic information collection plan is 631 hours from 1,284 respondents (see table below). This is a reduction in burden of 946 hours from the previously approved generic information collection plan. There is no cost to respondents other than their time.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a proposed and/or continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection project titled “Rapid Response Suicide Investigation Data Collection.” CDC will use information collected to respond to urgent requests for CDC assistance.
CDC must receive written comments on or before January 8, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2017-0102 by any of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:
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,
5. Assess information collection costs.
Rapid Response Suicide Investigation Data Collection—New—National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
CDC is frequently called upon to respond to urgent requests from one or more external partners (
These public health data are used by external partners (
Requests for assistance may include a state, county, community, or vulnerable population. Suicide rates are increasing across age-groups and vulnerable populations, include, but are not limited to, youth, middle-aged adults, active duty service personnel, veterans, and American Indian/Alaska Native communities. Investigations likely will often require collection of information from 10 or more respondents. The data analytic approach for the
Multiple analytical strategies are likely to be employed in a single investigation. This may include descriptive analyses, logistic regression, and temporal and spatial cluster analyses. The goal of the analyses is to inform suicide prevention strategies by understanding (a) significant increases in fatal or nonfatal suicidal behavior; (b) the risk factors associated with trends of fatal or nonfatal suicidal behavior; (c) the groups most affected (
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request titled “Childhood Blood Lead Surveillance (CBLS) and Adult Blood Lead Epidemiology and Surveillance (ABLES)” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. CDC previously published a “Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations” notice on April 6, 2017 to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. CDC did not receive comments related to the previous notice. This notice serves to allow an additional 30 days for public and affected agency comments.
CDC will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget
(a) 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;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) 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,
(e) Assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to
Childhood Blood Lead Surveillance (CBLS) and Adult Blood Lead Epidemiology and Surveillance (ABLES)—New—National Center for Environmental Health (NCEH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Over the past several decades, there have been substantial efforts in environmental lead abatement, improved protection from occupational lead exposure, and a reduction in the prevalence of population blood-lead levels (BLLs) over time. U.S. population BLLs have substantially decreased over the last four decades. For example, the CDC has reported the 1976-1980 U.S. BLL mean in children, 6 months to 5 years, as 16.0 micrograms per deciliter (μg/dL); and among adults, 18 to 74 years, as 14.1 μg/dL. More recently, the CDC reported the 2009-2010 U.S. BLL geometric means among children, 1 to 5 years, and among adults, 20 years and older, as 1.2 μg/dL. Despite the reduction in the overall population BLL over four decades, lead exposures continue to occur at unacceptable levels for individuals in communities and workplaces across the nation. As of 2015, both the National Center for Environmental Health (NCEH) and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) define elevated BLLs as greater than or equal to 5 μg/dL for individuals of all ages.
NCEH is leading this new three-year information collection project that covers two CDC information collections, one for childhood blood lead surveillance by NCEH and another for adult blood lead surveillance by NIOSH. Thus, blood lead surveillance over the human lifespan is covered under this single ICR, specifically for children, less than 16 years, through the NCEH Childhood Blood Lead Surveillance (CBLS) Program, and for adults, 16 years and older, through the NIOSH Adult Blood Epidemiology and Surveillance (ABLES) Program.
The goal of the NCEH CBLS Program is to support blood lead screening and to promote primary prevention of exposure to lead. Also, the CBLS Program supports secondary prevention of adverse health effects when lead exposures occur in children through improved program management and oversight in respondent jurisdictions.
This new information collection project will cover the NCEH Fiscal Year 2017 (FY17) three-year cooperative agreement, titled “Lead Poisoning Prevention—Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention—financed partially by Prevention and Public Health Funds” (Funding Opportunity Announcement [FOA] No. CDC-RFA-EH17-1701-PPHF17). The first year of this new program, with 48 awardees, will run concurrently with the final and fourth budget year for “PPHF 2014: Lead Poisoning Prevention—Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention—financed solely by 2014 Prevention and Public Health Funds” (FOA No. CDC-RFA-EH14-1408PPHF14). The information collection project titled “Healthy Homes and Lead Poisoning Surveillance System (HHLPSS)” (OMB Control Number 0920-0931; expiration date05/31/2018) is funded by an existing four-year FY14 cooperative agreement with up to 40 awardees. Returning awardees will submit childhood blood lead surveillance data under HHLPSS for the final year of the FY14 program, and then will continue to submit data for the second year of the FY17 program under this new project.
New FY17 awardees will submit CBLS data only under this new information collection project. NCEH is requesting approval for the following differences for the new program: (1) Clarifying awardees' procedures for data delivery into the CBLS system; and (2) revising the CBLS Variables forms to remove healthy homes variables. Based on available FY17 funds, NCEH is also requesting the following: (3) Increasing the number of potential NCEH respondents from 40 to 48; and (4) increasing the NCEH annual time burden from 640 to 760 hours.
On a quarterly basis, CDC anticipates that up to 47 CBLS respondents will submit quarterly text files of individual blood lead test records. Based on experience, CDC also anticipates that one awardee will report quarterly aggregated records to CBLS. The estimated annual time burden for NCEH CBLS is 760 hours.
The goal of the NIOSH Adult Blood Lead Epidemiology and Surveillance (ABLES) Program is to build state capacity for adult blood lead surveillance programs to measure trends in adult blood lead levels and to prevent lead over-exposures. CDC is taking this opportunity to provide the public with a detailed description of the NIOSH ABLES information collection. Previously, ABLES was included but not fully described in the HHLPSS information collection request (OMB Control Number 0920-0931; expiration date 05/31/2018). To correct for this omission, NIOSH is requesting approval for the following: (1) Providing a detailed description of the authority and scope of the ABLES information reporting procedures; (2) adding 40 NIOSH respondents to the burden table; and (3) adding 280 hours for the NIOSH annual time burden. Once approved in this new information collection request, CDC will submit a revision request to remove the description of the ABLES Program from the existing HHLPSS project.
On an annual basis, and in addition to a brief narrative report of notable lead surveillance activities in the past year, NIOSH gives ABLES respondents the option to report either individual adult case blood lead results or aggregate counts of adult blood lead test results. NIOSH anticipates that 80 percent of state programs will send case records and 20 percent will send aggregate records. The estimated annual time burden for NIOSH ABLES is 280 hours.
In total, CDC is requesting approval for a total annual time burden of 1,040 hours. CDC defines respondents as State or local health departments, or their Bona Fide agents, with lead poisoning prevention programs.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice; Correction.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) requested publication of a document in the
Leroy Richardson, 1600 Clifton Road, MS D-74, Atlanta, GA 30333; telephone (404) 639-4965; email:
Correct the docket number to read:
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request titled “Assessment of Ill Worker Policies Study” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. CDC previously published a “Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations” notice on July 14, 2017 to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. CDC did not receive comments related to the previous notice. This notice serves to allow an additional 30 days for public and affected agency comments.
CDC will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
(a) 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;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) 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,
(e) Assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to
Assessment of Ill Worker Policies Study—New—National Center for Environmental Health (NCEH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is requesting a new three-year OMB clearance to conduct information collection entitled “Assessment of Ill Worker Policies Study.” CDC's National Center for Environmental Health implements the Environmental Health Specialists Network (EHS-Net) program, which conducts studies to identify and understand environmental factors associated with foodborne illness outbreaks and other food safety issues (
EHS-Net is a collaborative project of the CDC, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), industry partners and eight state and local public health departments (California, Minnesota, New York, New York City, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Southern Nevada Health District, and Harris County Texas). CDC funds these state and local health departments, which enables them to collaborate on study design, collect study data, and co-analyze study data with CDC. The federal partners also provide funding and input into study design and data analysis. Ill food service workers have long been identified as a source of contamination in restaurants. The 2013 FDA Food Code specifically addresses food worker health under section 2-201. However, even with these regulations in place food workers continue to serve as a source for disease transmission (
The FDA Food Code also calls for excluding food workers from working in the restaurant that are diagnosed with an illness or have symptoms. Research has indicated that many food service workers have reported working while sick and that the reasons provided are multi-faceted. To assist in reducing this national disease burden, it is critical to develop and implement successful interventions that address the reasons that restaurant workers continue to work while sick. The goals of this study include:
(1) Assess restaurant ill worker management practices and plans; and
(2) Assess whether an educational intervention will result in restaurants enhancing their ill worker management procedures.
The data from this study can be used to further develop educational materials, trainings, and tools that are targeted towards improving retail food establishment ill worker management practices.
This data collection request aims to address data gap by surveying restaurants on their ill worker polices through a quasi-experimental nonequivalent group pre- post-test design, with implementation of an educational intervention to randomly selected independently-owned restaurants in the EHS-Net area. Data will be collected by study personnel from restaurants that are split into two groups, intervention and control restaurants requiring up to three visits. The assessments at each site visit will be the same in both the intervention and control restaurants.
Data collection will consist of a manager interview to understand the current practices in the restaurant, a facility observation to observe the practices in place to prevent contamination from an employee, and a food worker survey to obtain their beliefs towards the current policies. The educational intervention planned in the study is designed to encourage restaurants to develop ill worker management policies that have provisions to address the reasons that workers have reported working while ill. The success of the intervention will be measured using a pre- post-test nonequivalent groups design. If the intervention is resulting in having restaurants enhance their ill worker management policies; at the follow up visit, the intervention will be provided to the control restaurants and an additional follow up visit will occur in these restaurants.
For the purpose of the burden hours, eight sites will collect data in 40 restaurants. The total estimated annualized burden hours averaged over the three-year study period are 352 burden hours. Participation in this proposed information collection is voluntary. There is no cost to respondents other than their time.
The descriptive study will document the policies and practices of child welfare agencies and related organizations to identify, assess, and refer to services children who may have been exposed to prenatal substances and/or diagnosed with a resulting condition such as fetal alcohol spectrum disorders (FASD). The study will document procedures as well as challenges faced and lessons learned to inform the field of practice as well as policy makers, program administrators, and funders at various levels.
The proposed information collection activities consist of semi-structured interviews and surveys conducted at 28 child welfare agency sites. Focus groups conducted at 8 of the 28 sites will gather information on needs, challenges, and strategies to support children with prenatal substance exposures and their families within the child welfare system.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chap 35) Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 330 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20201. Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. Email address:
The Department specifically requests comments on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announces a forthcoming public advisory committee meeting of the Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee. The general function of the committee is to provide advice and recommendations to the Agency on FDA's regulatory issues. The meeting will be open to the public.
The meeting will be held on January 24, 2018, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. and January 25, 2018, from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m.
FDA White Oak Conference Center, Building 31, the Great Room (Rm. 1503), 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Answers to commonly asked questions including information regarding special accommodations due to a disability, visitor parking, and transportation may be accessed at:
Caryn Cohen, Office of Science, Center for Tobacco Products, Food and Drug Administration, Document Control Center, Bldg. 71, Rm. G335, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 1-877-287-1373, email:
FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is available at
Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please contact Caryn Cohen at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Evaluating Drug Effects on the Ability to Operate a Motor Vehicle.” The purpose of this guidance is to assist sponsors in the evaluation of the effects of psychoactive drugs on the ability to operate a motor vehicle. Driving is a complex activity involving a wide range of cognitive, perceptual, and motor activities. Reducing the incidence of motor vehicle accidents (MVAs) that occur because of drug-impaired driving is a public health priority. This guidance finalizes the draft guidance issued on January 16, 2015, of the same name.
The announcement of the guidance is published in the
You may submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a
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 this guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Naomi Lowy, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 4204, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-0692.
FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Evaluating Drug Effects on the Ability to Operate a Motor Vehicle.” The purpose of this guidance is to assist sponsors in the evaluation of the effects of psychoactive drugs on the ability to operate a motor vehicle.
Driving is a complex activity involving a wide range of cognitive, perceptual, and motor activities that can be adversely affected by therapeutic drugs. Reducing the incidence of MVAs that occur because of drug-impaired driving is a public health priority.
Drugs that impair driving ability may also impair an individual's ability to judge the extent of his or her own impairment. This increases the need for objective evaluation of the presence and degree of driving impairment, with risk mitigation strategies based on that information. This guidance recommends a systematic effort to identify drugs for which evaluation of effects on driving abilities may be needed and the types of studies that such an evaluation entails.
This guidance finalizes the draft guidance issued on January 16, 2015, (80 FR 2432) of the same name. Changes made to the guidance took into consideration comments received. In addition to editorial changes made primarily for clarification, the guidance provides multiple areas of clarification throughout the document.
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on evaluating drug effects on the ability to operate a motor vehicle. 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 guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.
This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information that 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 parts 312 and 314 have been approved under OMB control numbers 0910-0014 and 0910-0001, respectively.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the guidance at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Fax written comments on the collection of information by December 11, 2017.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, Fax: 202-395-7285, or emailed to
Ila S. Mizrachi, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-7726,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
We are seeking to renew OMB approval of the Health and Diet Survey, which is a voluntary consumer survey intended to gauge and to track consumer attitudes, awareness, knowledge, and behavior regarding various topics related to health, nutrition, physical activity, and product labeling. OMB approved this collection as a generic collection on December 5, 2014. The authority for FDA to collect the information derives from FDA's Commissioner of Food and Drugs authority provided in section 1003(d)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 393(d)(2)).
We will use the Health and Diet Survey findings to test and refine our ideas, but will generally conduct further research before making important decisions such as adopting new policies and allocating or redirecting significant resources to support these policies.
This survey has been repeated approximately every 3 to 5 years over the course of the past 3 decades for the purpose of tracking changes and trends in public opinions and consumer behavior, with some new questions added or omitted or partially modified in each iteration in response to emerging and current events or issues. In the next 3 years, we plan to field this survey two to three times. We will use the information from the Health and Diet Survey to evaluate and develop strategies and programs to encourage and help consumers adopt healthy diets and lifestyles. The information will also help FDA evaluate and track consumer awareness and behavior as outcome measures of their achievement in improving public health.
In the
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
We base our estimate of the number of respondents and the average burden per response on our experience with previous Health and Diet Surveys and we estimate that the burden for this information collection has increased by 580 hours (from 1,882 to 2,462 hours) since the last OMB approval. The increase is due to an expected increase in the number of participants completing the survey screener (from 30,000 to 40,000 participants) and number of participants taking the survey (from 3,000 to 4,000). We will use a cognitive interview screener with 100 individuals to recruit prospective interview participants. We estimate that it will take a screener respondent approximately 5 minutes (0.08 hours) to complete the cognitive interview screener, for a total of 8 hours. We will conduct cognitive interviews with 18 participants. We estimate that it will take a participant approximately 1 hour to complete the interview, for a total of 18 hours. Prior to the administration of the Health and Diet Survey, the Agency plans to conduct a pretest to identify and resolve potential survey administration problems. We will use a pretest screener with 2,000 individuals; we estimate that it will take a respondent approximately 2 minutes (0.033 hours) to complete the pretest screener, for a total of 66 hours. The pretest will be conducted with 200 participants; we estimate that it will take a participant 15 minutes (0.25 hours) to complete the pretest, for a total of 50 hours. We will use a survey screener to select an eligible adult respondent in each household reached by landline telephone numbers to participate in the survey. A total of 40,000 individuals in the 50 states and the District of Columbia will be screened by telephone. We estimate that it will take a respondent 2 minutes (0.033 hours) to complete the screening, for a total of 1,320 hours. We estimate that 4,000 eligible adults will participate in the survey, each taking 15 minutes (0.25 hours), for a total of 1,000 hours. Thus, the total estimated burden is 2,462 hours.
We are requesting this burden for unplanned surveys so as not to restrict our ability to gather information on consumer attitudes, awareness, knowledge, and behavior regarding various topics related to health, nutrition, physical activity, and product labeling. This ability will help the
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Fax written comments on the collection of information by December 11, 2017.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, Fax: 202-395-7285, or emailed to
Ila S. Mizrachi, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-7726,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
Section 412(e) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 350a(e)) provides that if the manufacturer of an infant formula has knowledge that reasonably supports the conclusion that an infant formula processed by that manufacturer has left its control and may not provide the nutrients required in section 412(i) of the FD&C Act or is otherwise adulterated or misbranded, the manufacturer must promptly notify the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the Secretary). If the Secretary determines that the infant formula presents a risk to human health, the manufacturer must immediately take all actions necessary to recall shipments of such infant formula from all wholesale and retail establishments, consistent with recall regulations and guidelines issued by the Secretary. Section 412(f)(2) of the FD&C Act states that the Secretary shall by regulation prescribe the scope and extent of recalls of infant formula necessary and appropriate for the degree of risk to human health presented by the formula subject to recall. FDA's infant formula recall regulations in part 107 (21 CFR part 107) implement these statutory provisions.
Section 107.230 requires each recalling firm to conduct an infant formula recall with the following elements: (1) Evaluate the hazard to human health, (2) devise a written recall strategy, (3) promptly notify each affected direct account (customer) about the recall, and (4) furnish the appropriate FDA district office with copies of these documents. If the recalled formula presents a risk to human health, the recalling firm must also request that each establishment that sells the recalled formula post (at point of purchase) a notice of the recall and provide FDA with a copy of the notice. Section 107.240 requires the recalling firm to conduct an infant formula recall with the following elements: (1) Notify the appropriate FDA district office of the recall by telephone within 24 hours, (2) submit a written report to that office within 14 days, and (3) submit a written status report at least every 14 days until the recall is terminated. Before terminating a recall, the recalling firm is required to submit a recommendation for termination of the recall to the appropriate FDA district office and wait for FDA's written concurrence (§ 107.250). Where the recall strategy or implementation is determined to be deficient, FDA may require the firm to change the extent of the recall, carry out additional effectiveness checks, and issue additional notifications (§ 107.260). In addition, to facilitate location of the product being recalled, the recalling firm is required to maintain distribution records for at least 1 year after the expiration of the shelf life of the infant formula (§ 107.280).
The reporting and recordkeeping requirements described previously are designed to enable FDA to monitor the effectiveness of infant formula recalls in order to protect babies from infant formula that may be unsafe because of contamination, nutritional inadequacy, or is otherwise adulterated or misbranded. FDA uses the information collected under these regulations to help ensure that such products are quickly and efficiently removed from the market.
In the
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
The reporting and third-party disclosure burden estimates are based on FDA's records, which show that there are six manufacturers of infant formula and that there have been, on average, two infant formula recalls per year for the past 3 years. Based on this information, FDA estimates that there will be, on average, approximately two infant formula recalls per year over the next 3 years.
Thus, FDA estimates that two respondents will conduct recalls annually under §§ 107.230, 107.240, and 107.250. The estimated number of respondents for § 107.260 is minimal because FDA seldom uses this section; therefore, FDA estimates that there will be one or fewer respondents annually for § 107.260. The estimated number of hours per response is an average based on FDA's experience and information from firms that have conducted recalls. FDA estimates that two respondents will conduct infant formula recalls under § 107.230 and that it will take a respondent 4,450 hours to comply with the requirements of that section, for a total of 8,900 hours. FDA estimates that two respondents will conduct infant formula recalls under § 107.240 and that it will take a respondent 1,482 hours to comply with the requirements of that section, for a total of 2,964 hours. FDA estimates that two respondents will submit recommendations for termination of infant formula recalls under § 107.250 and that it will take a respondent 120 hours to comply with the requirements of that section, for a total of 240 hours. Finally, FDA estimates that one respondent will need to carry out additional effectiveness checks and issue additional notifications, for a total of 625 hours.
Under 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2), the time, effort, and financial resources necessary to comply with a collection of information are excluded from the burden estimate if the reporting, recordkeeping, or disclosure activities needed to comply are usual and customary because they would occur in the normal course of activities. No burden has been estimated for the recordkeeping requirement in § 107.280 because these records are maintained as a usual and customary part of normal business activities. Manufacturers keep infant formula distribution records for the prescribed period as a matter of routine business practice.
Table 2 reports FDA's third-party disclosure burden estimates for §§ 107.230 and 107.260. The estimated burden hours per disclosure is an average based on FDA's experience. The third-party disclosure burden in § 107.230 is the requirement to promptly notify each affected direct account (customer) about the recall, and if the recalled formula presents a risk to human health, the recalling firm must also request that each establishment that sells the recalled formula post a notice of the recall at the point of purchase. FDA estimates that two respondents will conduct infant formula recalls under § 107.230 and that it will take a respondent 50 hours to comply with the third-party disclosure requirements of that section, for a total of 100 hours. The third-party disclosure burden in § 107.260 is the requirement to issue additional notifications where the recall strategy or implementation is determined to be deficient. FDA estimates that one respondent will issue additional notifications under § 107.260 and that it will take a respondent 25 hours to comply with the third-party disclosure requirements of that section, for a total of 25 hours.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of
Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by January 8, 2018.
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before January 8, 2018. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Amber Sanford, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-8867,
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. “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 records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
Under the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 (Pub. L. 94-295), class II devices were defined as those devices for which there was insufficient information to show that general controls themselves would provide a reasonable assurance of safety and
Condoms without spermicidal lubricant containing nonoxynol 9 are classified in class II. They were originally classified before the enactment of provisions of the Safe Medical Devices Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-629), which broadened the definition of class II devices and now permit FDA to establish special controls beyond performance standards, including guidance documents, to help provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of such devices.
In December 2000, Congress enacted Public Law 106-554, which directed FDA to “reexamine existing condom labels” and “determine whether the labels are medically accurate regarding the overall effectiveness or lack of effectiveness in preventing sexually transmitted diseases. . . .” In response, FDA recommended labeling intended to provide important information for condom users, including the extent of protection provided by condoms against various types of sexually transmitted diseases.
Respondents to this collection of information are manufacturers and repackagers of male condoms made of natural rubber latex without spermicidal lubricant. FDA expects approximately five new manufacturers or repackagers to enter the market yearly and to collectively have a third-party disclosure burden of 60 hours. The number of respondents cited in table 1 is based on FDA's database of premarket submissions and the electronic registration and listing database. The average burden per disclosure was derived from a study performed for FDA by Eastern Research Group, Inc., an economic consulting firm, to estimate the impact of the 1999 over-the-counter (OTC) human drug labeling requirements final rule (64 FR 13254, March 17, 1999). Because the packaging requirements for condoms are similar to those of many OTC drugs, we believe the burden to design the labeling for OTC drugs is an appropriate proxy for the estimated burden to design condom labeling.
The special controls guidance document also refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. The collections of information in 21 CFR part 801 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 807 subpart E have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 820 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0073.
The collection of information under 21 CFR 801.437 does not constitute a “collection of information” under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Rather, it is a “public disclosure of information originally supplied by the Federal Government to the recipient for the purpose of disclosure to the public” (5 CFR 1320.3(c)(2)).
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
The estimated burden of this information collection has not changed since the last OMB approval.
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 entitled “Use of a Drug Master File for Shared System REMS Submissions.” The draft guidance provides information to applicants who are part of a shared system Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) on using an electronic Type V Drug Master File (DMF). FDA recommends that applicants who are part of a shared system REMS use a Type V DMF for their REMS submissions to improve the efficiency of the submission and review process.
Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by January 8, 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 do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
•
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 draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002; or to the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Gita Toyserkani, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 2422, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-1783,
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Use a of Drug Master File for Shared System REMS Submissions.”
A REMS is a required risk management plan that uses tools beyond the FDA-approved prescribing information to ensure that the benefits of certain drugs outweigh their risks (see section 505-1 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355-1)). FDA can, under certain circumstances, require that the REMS for a drug include one or more elements to assure safe use (ETASU) (see section 505-1(f) of the FD&C Act). When ETASUs are required for an innovator drug, any abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) referencing that innovator drug must use an shared system REMS with the innovator (unless FDA waives the requirement for using a shared system) (see section 505-1(i) of the FD&C Act). There are also circumstances under which multiple applicants form an SSR to minimize the burden on the health care delivery system, such as for a class of similar products.
Under a shared system REMS, multiple applicants should coordinate the submission of identical documents to their respective applications. To improve the efficiency of the submission and review process for shared system REMS, FDA recommends that applicants who are part of a shared system REMS use a Type V DMF for their REMS submissions. A DMF is a submission to the Agency that may be used to provide confidential detailed information to the Agency. Among other things, a DMF allows the DMF holder to authorize other applicants to reference information in the holder's DMF. A DMF is submitted solely at the discretion of the DMF holder, and the technical contents of a DMF are customarily reviewed by FDA only in connection with the review of an application.
The use of a DMF is not a requirement for shared system REMS. However, if shared system REMS applicants choose to use the DMF option for their shared system REMS submissions, this guidance (and the technical conformance guide that supplements it, available at
This 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 use of a DMF for submission of shared system REMS. 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 guidance is not 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 314.50 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0001; the collections of information in 21 CFR 314.70 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0001; the collections of information in 21 CFR 201.57 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0572; the collections of information in 21 CFR 314.420 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0001; and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 601 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0338.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announces a forthcoming public advisory committee meeting of the Blood Products Advisory Committee (the Committee). The general function of the committee is to provide advice and recommendations to the Agency on FDA's regulatory issues related to blood and products derived from blood. The meeting will be open to the public.
The meeting will be held on November 30, 2017, from 8 a.m. to 5:45 p.m. and on December 1, 2017, from 8 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Building 31 Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD, 20993-0002. Answers to commonly asked questions including information regarding special accommodations due to a disability, visitor parking, and transportation may be accessed at:
Bryan Emery or Joanne Lipkind, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Avenue, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, Bldg. 71, Rm. 6132, at 240-402-8054,
FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is available at
Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please contact Bryan Emery or Joanne Lipkind at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following 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.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below. The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comment. The Fogarty International Center (FIC), National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), including the Superfund Research Program (SRP) within NIEHS, National Institute of General Medical Science (NIGMS), and National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health, may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
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 or request more information on the proposed project contact: Dr. Rachel Sturke, Evaluation Officer, Division of Science Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, FIC, NIH, 16 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 or call non-toll-free number (301) 496-1491 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.
OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 16,154.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below.
Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30-days of the date of this publication.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to the: Office of Management and Budget, Office of Regulatory Affairs,
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, contact: Lorena Kaplan, M.P.H., CHES, Office of Communications,
This proposed information collection was previously published in the
The
In compliance with section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below.
Data collected for the STS campaign generic clearance will be used by a number of audiences, including STS campaign staff, NICHD leadership, STS campaign collaborators, Federal SUID/SIDS Workgroup members, SUID/SIDS stakeholders, clinical and maternal and child health professionals. These audiences may use the information collections to: (1) Develop new campaign messages, materials, and/or training curricula; (2) monitor and improve campaign activities; (3) make decisions about campaign activities; (4) inform current campaign activities; and (5) inform and/or change practices and behaviors of program participants.
Examples of the types of information collections that could be included under this generic clearance include:
The sub-studies for this generic clearance will be small scale, designed to obtain results frequently and quickly to guide campaign development and implementation, inform campaign direction, and be used internally for campaign management purposes. NICHD's current scope and capacity for STS generic sub-studies is non-existent and this request would fill this gap.
Changes have been made to the annualized burden hours to reflect the anticipated data collections during the next 3 years.
OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 12,920.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces the next meeting of the National Toxicology Program (NTP) Board of Scientific Counselors (BSC). The BSC, a federally chartered, external advisory group composed of scientists from the public and private sectors, will review and provide advice on programmatic activities. The meeting is open to the public and registration is requested for both attendance and oral comment and required to access the webcast. Information about the meeting and registration are available at
Registration to view the meeting via the webcast is required.
Dr. Mary Wolfe, Designated Federal Officer for the BSC, Office of Liaison, Policy and Review, Division of NTP, NIEHS, P.O. Box 12233, K2-03, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. Phone: 984-287-3209, Fax: 301-451-5759, Email:
The public may attend the meeting in person or view the webcast. Registration is required to view the webcast; the URL for the webcast will be provided in the email confirming registration. Individuals who plan to provide oral comments (see below) are encouraged to register online at the BSC meeting Web site (
Time is allotted during the meeting for the public to present oral comments to the BSC on the agenda topics. Public comments can be presented in-person at the meeting or by teleconference line. There are 50 lines for this call; availability is on a first-come, first-served basis. The lines will be open from 8:30 a.m. until adjournment,
Persons registering to make oral comments are asked to send a copy of their statement and/or PowerPoint slides to the Designated Federal Officer by November 30, 2017. Written statements can supplement and may expand upon the oral presentation. If registering on-site and reading from written text, please bring 20 copies of the statement for distribution to the BSC and NTP staff and to supplement the record.
The BSC is governed by the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. app.), which sets forth standards for the formation and use of advisory committees.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the joint meeting of the NCI Board of Scientific Advisors (BSA) and National Cancer Advisory Board (NCAB).
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting. The open session will be videocast and can be accessed from the NIH Videocasting and Podcasting Web site (
A portion of the National Cancer Advisory Board meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended, for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National Cancer Institute, 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.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NCI-Shady Grove campus. All visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
The National Toxicology Program (NTP) announces a meeting to peer review the
Canden Byrd, ICF, 2635 Meridian Parkway, Suite 200, Durham, NC, USA 27713. Phone: (919) 293-1660, Fax: (919) 293-1645, Email:
NTP follows an established, four-part process for preparing the RoC (
Antimony trioxide was selected for review following solicitation of public comment, review by the NTP Board of Scientific Counselors on December 14-15, 2016, and approval by the NTP Director (
Antimony trioxide is the most commercially significant form of antimony and is a high-production-volume chemical with a production volume exceeding one million pounds per year. Its major industrial use is as a synergist with halogenated flame-retardants in textiles, plastics, and rubber. The main exposures to antimony trioxide are from inhalation of airborne solid dust and for workers in facilities producing or using antimony trioxide. Exposures of the public to antimony trioxide are primarily from environmental exposures secondary to human activities. Antimony trioxide can form in the product life cycle of other antimony compounds, such as during the use of automobile brake containing antimony trisulfate, which can oxidize into antimony trioxide. The draft RoC monograph includes a cancer hazard assessment of antimony trioxide.
Following the meeting, a report of the peer review will be prepared and made available on the NTP Web site. Individuals are encouraged to access the meeting Web page to stay abreast of the most current information regarding the meeting.
Oral public comment at this meeting is welcome, with time set aside on January 24 for the presentation of oral remarks on the draft monograph. Public comments will be presented by teleconference line. Fifty (50) lines will be available for this call; availability is on a first-come, first-served basis. The lines will be open from 8:30 a.m. until
Persons wishing to make an oral presentation are asked to register online at
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below.
Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30-days of the date of this publication.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to the: Office of Management and Budget, Office of Regulatory Affairs,
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, contact: Dr. Jennifer Guimond, Project Clearance Liaison, Office of Science Policy, Reporting, and Program Analysis,
This proposed information collection was previously published in the
The
In compliance with section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below.
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 NICHD's services will be unavailable.
The NICHD 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 provides useful information, but it does 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.
As a general matter, information collections will not result in any new system of records containing privacy information and will not ask questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private.
OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 4,950.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice and request for comments; Extension of an existing collection of information.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). The information collection is published in the
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the OMB Desk Officer for Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, and sent via electronic mail to
Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to the CBP Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, or via email
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice and request for comments; Extension of an existing collection of information.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). The information collection is published in the
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the OMB Desk Officer for Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, and sent via electronic mail to
Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to the CBP Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, or via email
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for the State of Florida (FEMA-3385-EM), dated September 5, 2017, and related determinations.
This amendment was issued October 20, 2017.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this emergency is closed effective October 18, 2017.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until January 8, 2018.
If you have additional comments, particularly with respect to the estimated public burden or associated response time, have suggestions, need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions, or desire any additional information, please contact Kenneth Mason, Firearms and Explosives Services Specialist, either by mail at National Firearms Act Branch, 244 Needy Road, Martinsburg, WV 25405, by email at
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until January 8, 2018.
If you have additional comments, particularly with respect to the estimated public burden or associated response time, have suggestions, need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions, or desire any additional information, please contact Roderic Spencer, National Center for Explosives Training and Research (NCETR) either by mail at 3750 Corporal Road, Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898, or by email at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is being revised to eliminate the Pre-Screening Qualifications Certification—ATF Form 8620.62, which is no longer needed. The proposed information collection is also being published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until January 8, 2018.
If you have additional comments, particularly with respect to the estimated public burden or associated response time, have suggestions, need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions, or desire any additional information, please contact John Dugan, Physical Security Programs Branch, either by mail at 99 New York Avenue NE., Washington, DC 20226 or by email at
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announces a meeting of the Human Exploration and Operations (HEO) Committee of the NASA Advisory Council (NAC). This Committee reports to the NAC.
Wednesday, November 29, 2017, 10:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.; and Thursday, November 30, 2017, 8:30 a.m.-12:00 p.m., Local Time.
The Debus Conference Facility, NASA Kennedy Space Center, Visitor Center, SR 405, NASA Kennedy Space Center, FL 32899.
Public attendees may park in Lot 4 and Lot 5.
Dr. Bette Siegel, Designated Federal Officer,
The meeting will be open to the public up to the seating capacity of the room. This meeting is also available telephonically and by WebEx. You must use a touch tone phone to participate in this meeting. Any interested person may dial the toll free access number 1-888-324-9238 or toll access number 1-517-308-9132, and then the numeric participant passcode: 3403297, to participate in this meeting by telephone. The WebEx link is
The agenda for the meeting includes the following topics:
Attendees will be requested to sign a register before access to the meeting. It is imperative that the meeting be held on these dates to the scheduling priorities of the key participants.
Notice.
This notice announces the membership of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) Senior Executive Service (SES) Performance Review Board (PRB).
Send comments concerning this notice to: National Endowment for the Arts, 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20506.
Craig McCord Sr. by telephone at (202) 682-5473 or by email at
4314(c)(1) through (5) of Title 5, U.S.C., requires each agency to establish, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management, one or more SES Performance Review Boards. The Board shall review and evaluate the initial appraisal of a senior executive's performance by the supervisor, along with any response by the senior executive, and make recommendations to the appointing authority relative to the performance of the senior executive.
The following persons have been selected to serve on the Performance Review Board of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA):
Dated: November 1, 2017.
National Endowment for the Arts.
Notice of proposed collection; comment request.
The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This program helps to ensure that requested data is provided in the desired format; reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized; collection instruments are clearly understood; and the impact of collection requirements on respondents is properly assessed. Currently, the National Endowment for the Arts is soliciting comments concerning the proposed information collection for applications from individuals applying to the Literature Fellowships: Translation Projects category. A copy of the information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the address section of this notice.
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the address section below within 60 days from the date of this publication in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Can help the agency minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the electronic submission of responses.
Email comments to Jillian Miller, Director, Office of Guidelines and Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts, at
Jillian Miller, Director of Guidelines and Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts, at
National Science Foundation.
Notice of permits issued.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978, Public Law 95-541. This is the required notice.
Nature McGinn, ACA Permit Officer, Office of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower
On October 5, 2017, the National Science Foundation published a notice in the
Weeks of November 13, 20, 27, December 4, 11, 18, 2017.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and Closed.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of November 13, 2017.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of November 20, 2017.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of December 4, 2017.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of December 18, 2017.
The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Denise McGovern at 301-415-0681 or via email at
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
Members of the public may request to receive this information electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969), or email
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning negotiated service agreements. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the market dominant or the competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the market dominant or the competitive product list.
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern market dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3010, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633,
1.
2.
3.
This notice will be published in the
On July 21, 2017, the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“Exchange” or “Nasdaq”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposed to offer the MELO order type. A MELO would be a non-displayed order priced at the midpoint between the National Best Bid and Offer (“NBBO”) and would not be eligible to execute until a minimum period of one half of a second (“Holding Period”) has passed after acceptance of the order by the system.
If a MELO is modified by a member (other than to decrease the size of the order or to modify the marking of a sell order as long, short, or short exempt) during the Holding Period, the system would restart the Holding Period.
Movements in the NBBO while a MELO is in the Holding Period would not reset the Holding Period, even if, as a result of the NBBO move, the MELO's limit price is less aggressive than the NBBO midpoint.
MELOs may be entered via any of the Exchange's communications protocols and the type of communications protocol used would not affect how the system handles MELOs.
MELOs would be active only during Market Hours.
MELOs must be entered with a size of at least one round lot, and any shares of a MELO remaining after an execution that are less than one round lot would be cancelled.
Once a MELO becomes eligible to execute by existing unchanged for the Holding Period, the MELO may only execute against other eligible MELOs.
As proposed, MELOs would be subject to real-time surveillance to determine if the order type is being abused by market participants.
The Exchange stated that it plans to implement MELO within thirty days after Commission approval of the proposal.
The Commission received one comment letter that expressed support for the proposal
One commenter stated its belief that MELOs could provide a valuable tool for investors, and particularly institutional investors, seeking to execute in large size.
Two commenters expressed concern with the degree of order segmentation presented by the proposal.
In addition, one commenter remarked that market participants with marketable held orders or resting orders seeking to execute against marketable held order flow would be unlikely to utilize MELOs because marketable held orders are typically required to be executed fully and promptly.
In contrast, one commenter stated that allowing MELOs to interact with non-MELOs would defeat the purpose of the MELO order type.
In Amendment No. 2, the Exchange stated that although MELOs may forgo the opportunity to interact with other liquidity on the Exchange, users of MELOs accepted this possibility in return for the ability to interact with other market participants with the same time horizon.
One commenter raised the concern that, under the proposal, MELO executions would be reported to the Securities Information Processors and provided on Nasdaq's proprietary data feed in the same manner as all other transactions on Nasdaq.
By contrast, one commenter stated that it does not believe that the lack of specific identification of MELOs in trade reports would result in any difficulties for the markets, or complexity for investors or other market participants when assessing execution quality.
In Amendment No. 2, the Exchange stated that it currently does not identify on data feeds in real time the order types and attributes that resulted in an execution (
Lastly, one commenter asserted that allowing MELOs to be cancelled at any time during the Holding Period does not appear to be consistent with the intended use of the order type.
In Amendment No. 2, the Exchange stated that MELOs may be cancelled at any time, including during the Holding Period, in order to allow members to effectively manage risk.
The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,
The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional analysis of, and input from commenters with respect to, the consistency of the proposal with Sections 6(b)(5)
The Commission requests that interested persons provide written submissions of their data, views, and arguments with respect to the issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of interested persons concerning whether the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, is consistent with Section 6(b)(5), 6(b)(8), or any other provision of the Act, or rules and regulations thereunder. Although there does not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval which would be facilitated by an oral presentation of data, views, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4 under the Act,
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments regarding whether the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, should be approved or disapproved by November 30, 2017. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by December 14, 2017. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
This proposed rule change by The Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) would formalize and update OCC's Collateral Risk Management Policy (“CRM Policy”). This policy would promote compliance with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(5), which generally requires a covered clearing agency to have policies and procedures reasonably designed to, among other things, limit the assets it accepts as collateral to those with low credit, liquidity, and market risks and subject such assets to appropriate haircuts and concentration limits that are reviewed for continued sufficiency not less than annually.
The proposed rule change does not require any changes to the text of OCC's By-Laws or Rules. All terms with initial capitalization that are not otherwise defined herein have the same meaning as set forth in the OCC By-Laws and Rules.
In its filing with the Commission, OCC 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. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.
On September 28, 2016, the Commission adopted amendments to Rule 17Ad-22
“[l]imit the assets it accepts as collateral to those with low credit, liquidity, and market risks, and set and enforce appropriately conservative haircuts and concentration limits if the covered clearing agency requires
OCC meets the definition of a covered clearing agency, and is therefore subject to the requirements of the CCA rules, including Rule 17Ad-22(e)(5).
OCC proposes to formalize and update its CRM Policy. The purpose of the CRM Policy is to describe OCC's framework for collateral acceptability, valuations and haircuts, and collateral maintenance. The CRM Policy, as proposed, is designed to promote compliance with the Rule 17Ad-22(e)(5)
With regard to a covered clearing agency's policies and procedures that address collateral, the Commission noted in the release adopting the CCA rules that such policies and procedures generally should take into account whether the covered clearing agency has: (1) Limited the assets it accepts to those with low credit, liquidity, and market risks; (2) established prudent valuation practices and developed haircuts that are regularly tested and take into account stressed market conditions; (3), established stable and conservative haircuts to reduce the need for pro-cyclical adjustments; (4) avoided concentrated holdings of certain assets where such holdings would significantly impair the ability to liquidate the assets quickly and without significant adverse price affects; (5) mitigated risks associated with the use of cross-border collateral, as applicable, and ensured that the collateral can be used in a timely manner; and (6) uses a collateral management system that is well designed and operationally flexible.
Certain descriptions in the CRM Policy are included to promote compliance with the Commission's guidance and Rule 17Ad-22(e)(5). For example, consistent with the guidance regarding cross-border collateral, the CRM Policy provides that OCC has the authority to reduce the haircut value of Canadian government securities if it observes increased credit risk, and that OCC applies an additional haircut to such securities to cover exchange rate risk. Consistent with the Commission's guidance that collateral risk management systems should remain operationally flexible, the CRM Policy also describes the authority of the Financial Risk Management department (“FRM”) to reject a collateral withdrawal request if OCC determines that a Clearing Member's reasonably anticipated settlement obligations exceed available liquidity resources.
The descriptions below provide a general overview of the three substantive sections of OCC's CRM Policy.
The CRM Policy describes the categories of risk that are considered by OCC in determining which asset classes should be acceptable forms of collateral as margin assets and Clearing Fund contributions. OCC's assessment of an asset class generally includes an evaluation of market risk, credit risk, liquidity risk. This assessment is conducted by the Credit and Liquidity Risk Working Group (“CLRWG”), which is a cross functional group comprised of representatives from multiple departments as noted in the Credit and Liquidity Risk Working Group Procedure. The CRM Policy further provides that the CLRWG establishes criteria for each asset class considered an acceptable form of collateral that evaluates additional risks with respect to the asset class such as execution risk, custody risk, and operational risk. With respect to market risks, the CRM Policy provides that eligible assets classes are accepted after consideration of their liquidity, price transparency, price volatility, offset potential with contracts cleared by OCC, modeling implications and projected inventories.
With respect to credit risk, the CRM Policy separately considers counterparty risk and sovereign credit risk. For example, to safeguard against counterparty risk, the CRM Policy provides that FRM evaluates the creditworthiness of counterparties, including custodial agents and settlement banks, against existing qualification standards and monitors the health of such counterparties on an ongoing basis through established processes, supported by a separate policy within OCC.
Pursuant to the CRM Policy, OCC mitigates liquidity risk
The CRM Policy describes OCC's approach to valuing collateral and setting and applying haircuts. With respect to valuation, the CRM Policy provides that OCC's key considerations focus on its pricing process, the period of time between collateral revaluations
The CRM Policy also outlines the three parts of OCC's collateral management processes: (1) Systems and processing; (2) reconciliation; and (3) reporting. With respect to systems and processing, the CRM Policy provides, among other things, that OCC's collateral management system has controls intended to ensure that no Clearing Member goes into collateral deficit and that it is designed to report the excess/deficit status for each account in real-time. OCC also stress tests the system annually to ensure that it can accommodate a large number of automated transactions. With respect to reconciliation, the CRM Policy provides that OCC performs daily balancing of collateral against activity and inventory data from custodial banks and depositories. The CRM Policy further provides that OCC regularly reviews collateral deposited pursuant to a letter of credit or depository receipt, and the escrow deposit banks, to ensure that acceptable and sufficient collateral is maintained. With respect to reporting, the CRM Policy provides that OCC systematically delivers end-of-day activity and inventory reports to Clearing Members and custody banks and that reports regarding intraday activity can also be obtained.
Finally, the CRM Policy provides an overview of OCC's collateral re-investment options, collateral re-hypothecation and substitution ability, existing cross-margining agreements and margin offsets, which are detailed separately in OCC's Cash and Investment Management Policy.
The CRM Policy provides that the CLRWG reviews the policy's performance and adequacy on at least an annual basis, including with respect to collateral eligibility, concentration limits, collateral haircuts and monitoring processes. Recommendations for changes are presented to OCC's Management Committee and then the Risk Committee. The CRM Policy also specifies that collateral haircuts and concentration limits are reviewed on an annual basis by persons who are independent of OCC management and that adding a new asset class as acceptable collateral requires approval from OCC's Management Committee, Board of Directors and the Commission.
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(5)
The proposed rule change is not inconsistent with the existing rules of OCC, including any other rules proposed to be amended.
Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Act
For the foregoing reasons, OCC believes that the proposed rule change is in the public interest, would be consistent with the requirements of the Act applicable to clearing agencies, and would not impact or impose a burden on competition.
Written comments on the proposed rule change were not and are not intended to be solicited with respect to the proposed rule change and none have been received.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) by order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated Authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 1080(p)(2) to enhance anti-internalization functionality.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to enhance the anti-internalization (“AIQ”) functionality
Currently, the Exchange provides mandatory AIQ functionality whereby quotes and orders entered by market makers using the same Phlx badge are not executed against quotes and orders entered on the opposite side of the market using the same badge.
Today, this protection prevents market makers from trading against their own quotes and orders at the badge level. The proposed enhancement to this functionality would allow members to choose to have this protection applied at the badge level as implemented today, at the Exchange account level, or at the member firm level. If members choose to have this protection applied at the Exchange account level, AIQ would prohibit quotes and orders from different badges associated with the same Exchange account from trading against one another. Similarly, if the members choose to have this protection applied at the member firm level, AIQ would prohibit quotes and orders from different badges within the member firm from trading against one another. Members that do not select to have this protection applied at the Exchange account level or member firm level will have their AIQ protection defaulted to the badge level protection applied today. The Exchange believes that the proposed AIQ enhancement will provide members with more tailored self-trade functionality that allows them to manage their trading as appropriate based on the members' business needs. While the Exchange believes that some firms will want to restrict AIQ to trading against interest from the same badge—
The examples below illustrate how AIQ would operate based on the badge level protection, the Exchange account level, or for members that choose to apply AIQ at the member firm level:
1. Member ABC (badge 123A & 555B) with AIQ configured at the badge level.
2. 123A Quote: $1.00 (5) × $1.10 (20).
3. 555B Buy Order entered for 10 contracts at $1.10.
4. 555B Buy Order executes 10 contracts against 123A Quote. 123A and 555B are permitted trade against one another because Member ABC has configured AIQ to apply at the badge level. This is the same as existing functionality.
1. Member ABC (Account 999 with badges 123A and 555B, and Account 888 with badge 789A) with AIQ configured at the Exchange account level.
2. 123A Quote: $1.00 (5) × $1.10 (20).
3. 789A Quote: $1.05(10) × $1.10 (20).
4. 555B Buy Order entered for 30 contracts at $1.10.
5. 555B Buy Order executes against 789A Quote but 555B Buy Order does not execute against 123A Quote. AIQ purges the 123A Quote and the remaining contracts of the 555B Buy Order rests on the book at $1.10. 123A and 555B are not permitted trade against one another because Member ABC has configured AIQ to apply at the Exchange account level. This is new functionality as the member has opted to have AIQ operate at the Exchange account level.
1. Same as Example 2 above but Member ABC has AIQ configured at the member level.
2. AIQ purges the 123A Quote and the 789A Quote and the 555B Buy Order rests on the book at $1.10. This is new functionality as the member has opted to have AIQ operate at the member level.
The Exchange proposes to launch the AIQ functionality described in this proposed rule change in either Q4 2017 or Q1 2018. The Exchange will announce the implementation date of this functionality in an Options Trader Alert issued to members prior to the launch date.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest as it is designed to provide Phlx market makers with additional flexibility with respect to how to implement self-trade protections provided by AIQ. Currently, all market makers are provided functionality that prevents quotes and orders from one badge from trading with quotes and orders from the same badge. This allows market makers to better manage their order flow and prevent undesirable executions where the market maker, using the same badge, would be on both sides of the trade. While this functionality is helpful to our members, some members would prefer not to trade
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's Pricing Schedule at Section IV, entitled “Other Transaction Fees.” Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend its subsidy program, the Market Access and Routing Subsidy or “MARS,” for Phlx members that provide certain order routing functionalities
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Phlx proposes to amend its subsidy program, MARS, which pays a subsidy to Phlx members that provide certain order routing functionalities to other Phlx members and/or use such functionalities themselves. Generally, under MARS, Phlx pays participating Phlx members to subsidize their costs of providing routing services to route orders to Phlx. The Exchange believes that MARS will continue to attract higher volumes of electronic equity and ETF options volume to the Exchange from non-Phlx market participants as well as Phlx members with the proposed amendments.
Today, to qualify for MARS, a Phlx member's order routing functionality would be required to meet certain criteria.
Today, a MARS Payment would be made to Phlx members that have System Eligibility and have routed the requisite number of Eligible Contracts daily in a month, which were executed on Phlx. For the purpose of qualifying for the MARS Payment, Eligible Contracts include Firm,
Phlx members that have System Eligibility and have executed the requisite number of Eligible Contracts in a month are paid rebates today as follows:
With respect to the MARS program, the Exchange proposes two sets of changes. First, the Exchange proposes to change the eligibility criteria for the program so that, instead of requiring the member's System to designate Phlx to
Second, the Exchange proposes to replace the existing MARS Payment schedule in its entirety with a new schedule that will include all new ADV tiers as well as different rebate amounts that depend upon whether the Eligible Contracts that a member executes at a particular ADV tier are in Standard and Poor's Depositary Receipts/SPDRs (“SPY”)
As is the case today, no payment will be made with respect to orders that are routed to Phlx, but not executed.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
Likewise, in
Further, “[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker dealers'. . . .”
The Exchange believes that its proposal is reasonable to relax its MARS eligibility criteria so that members' Systems need only designate Phlx to be among their top five (rather than top three) default destination exchanges for individually executed marketable orders. The Exchange recognizes that the number of options trading venues has increased over the last few years and that members may desire or require flexibility to route orders to these venues. The proposal accommodates members in this respect without compromising their ability to participate in the MARS program. The proposal is not unfairly discriminatory in that the relaxed criteria will apply equally to all those who participate in the MARS program.
The Exchange also believes that its proposal is reasonable to replace the existing MARS Payment schedule with a new schedule comprising new ADV tiers. The proposed schedule is designed to attract higher volumes of electronic equity and ETF options orders to the Exchange, which will, in turn, benefit all Phlx members by offering greater price discovery, increased transparency, and an increased opportunity to trade on the Exchange. The Exchange intends for the proposed schedule to achieve these results by increasing the number of ADV tiers in the schedule from four to six and, at each tier, paying a rebate that will be roughly the same as or greater than that which it pays now.
The proposed tier structure will also allow Phlx members to price their services at a level that will enable them to attract order flow from market participants who would otherwise utilize an existing front-end order entry mechanism offered by the Exchange's competitors instead of incurring the cost in time and money to develop their own internal systems to be able to deliver orders directly to the Exchange's System.
The proposed MARS Payment schedule is not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange will uniformly pay all Phlx members the rebates specified in the proposed MARS Payment tiers provided that the Phlx member has executed the requisite number of Eligible Contracts. Moreover, the Exchange believes that the proposed MARS Payments offered by the Exchange are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because any qualifying Phlx member that offers market access and connectivity to the Exchange and/or utilize such functionality themselves may earn the MARS Payment for all Eligible Contracts.
Although the Exchange proposes to offer different rebates for executions of Eligible Contracts in SPY and those in other options, the Exchange does not
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. In terms of inter-market competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited. In sum, if the changes proposed herein are unattractive to market participants, it is likely that the Exchange will lose market share as a result. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of members or competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
In terms of intra-market competition, the Exchange believes that its proposed rebate schedule will be highly competitive, both with respect to SPY, which is the most actively traded options class, as well as non-SPY options. Indeed, the proposed rebates under the new schedule will in most instances be the same, if not higher, as they are under the existing schedule.
Likewise, the proposed change to the MARS eligibility criteria is pro-competitive because it will make it easier for members to qualify for the program while routing orders to venues other than Phlx.
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.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 1.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of South Carolina (FEMA-4346-DR), dated 10/16/2017.
Issued on 11/01/2017.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration,
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of South Carolina, dated 10/16/2017, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
The Social Security Administration (SSA) publishes a list of information collection packages requiring clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with Public Law 104-13, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, effective October 1, 1995. This notice includes revisions of OMB-approved information collections.
SSA is soliciting comments on the accuracy of the agency's burden estimate; the need for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility, and clarity; and ways to minimize burden on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Mail, email, or fax your comments and recommendations on the information collection(s) to the OMB Desk Officer and SSA Reports Clearance Officer at the following addresses or fax numbers.
Or you may submit your comments online through
I. The information collections below are pending at SSA. SSA will submit them to OMB within 60 days from the date of this notice. To be sure we consider your comments, we must receive them no later than January 8, 2018. Individuals can obtain copies of the collection instruments by writing to the above email address.
II. SSA submitted the information collections below to OMB for clearance. Your comments regarding these information collections would be most useful if OMB and SSA receive them 30 days from the date of this publication. To be sure we consider your comments, we must receive them no later than December 11, 2017. Individuals can obtain copies of the OMB clearance packages by writing to
Department of State.
Initial publication of list of entities; notice.
The Department of State is publishing a List of Restricted Entities and Subentities Associated with Cuba (Cuba Restricted List) with which direct financial transactions will be generally prohibited under the Cuban Assets Control Regulations (CACR). This list will also be considered during review of license applications submitted to the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) pursuant to
Effective on November 9, 2017.
Benjamin Barron, Office of Economic Sanctions Policy and Implementation, tel.: 202-647-7489; Robert Haas, Office of the Coordinator for Cuban Affairs, tel.: 202-647-9273, Department of State, Washington, DC 20520.
On June 16, 2017, the President signed the National Security Presidential Memorandum on Strengthening the Policy of the United States Toward Cuba (NSPM). As required by the NSPM, on November 9, 2017 the Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing a final rule in the
The publication of the Cuba Restricted List implements the directive in paragraph 3(a)(i) of the NSPM for the Secretary of State to identify the entities or subentities, as appropriate, that are under the control of, or act for or on behalf of, the Cuban military, intelligence, or security services or personnel, and publish a list of those identified entities and subentities with which direct financial transactions would disproportionately benefit such services or personnel at the expense of the Cuban people or private enterprise in Cuba.
This document and additional information concerning the Cuba Restricted List are available from the Department of State's Web site (
Below is the U.S. Department of State's list of entities and subentities under the control of, or acting for or on behalf of, the Cuban military, intelligence, or security services or personnel with which direct financial transactions would disproportionately benefit such services or personnel at the expense of the Cuban people or private enterprise in Cuba. For information regarding the prohibition on direct financial transactions with these entities, please see section 515.209 of the Cuban Assets Control Regulations (31 CFR 515).
Surface Transportation Board.
Notice tentatively approving and authorizing finance transaction.
On October 13, 2017, National Express LLC (National Express or Applicant), a noncarrier, filed an application under to acquire control of Queen City Transportation, LLC (Queen
Comments must be filed by December 26, 2017. Applicant may file a reply by January 8, 2018. If no opposing comments are filed by December 26, 2017, this notice shall be effective on December 27, 2017.
Send an original and 10 copies of any comments referring to Docket No. MCF 21078 to: Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, send one copy of comments to Applicant's representative: Andrew K. Light, Scopelitis, Garvin, Light, Hanson & Feary, P.C., 10 W. Market Street, Suite 1400, Indianapolis, IN 46204.
Nathaniel Bawcombe (202) 245-0376. Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) for the hearing impaired: 1-800-877-8339.
Applicant, a noncarrier, states that it is a holding company organized under the laws of the state of Delaware that is indirectly controlled by a British corporation, National Express Group, PLC (Express Group). Applicant states that Express Group indirectly controls the following passenger motor carriers (collectively, National Express Affiliated Carriers): Beck Bus Transportation Corp. (Beck); Carrier Management Corporation, d/b/a Matthews Bus Company (CMI); Diamond Transportation Services, Inc. (Diamond); Durham School Services, L.P. (Durham); MV Student Transportation, Inc. (MV); National Express Transit Corporation (NETC); National Express Transit Services Corporation (NETSC); National Express Transit—Yuma (NETY); Petermann Ltd. (Petermann); Petermann Northeast LLC (Northeast); Petermann Northwest LLC (Northwest); Petermann Southwest LLC (Southwest); Petermann STSA, LLC (STSA); The Provider Enterprises, Inc. (Provider); Rainbow Management Service Inc. (Rainbow); Robertson Transit, Inc. (Robertson); Safeway Training and Transportation Services Inc. (Safeway); Septran, Inc. (Septran); Smith Bus Service, Inc. (Smith); Suburban Paratransit Service, Inc. (Suburban Paratransit); Trans Express, Inc. (Trans Express); Trinity, Inc. (Trinity); Trinity Cars, Inc. (Trinity Cars); Trinity Coach LLC (Trinity Coach); Trinity Student Delivery LLC (Trinity Student); and White Plains Bus Company, Inc., d/b/a Suburban Charters (White Plains).
Applicant asserts the following facts regarding the National Express Affiliated Carriers held by Express Group:
• Beck is a passenger motor carrier primarily engaged in providing student school bus transportation services in the state of Illinois under contracts with regional and local school jurisdictions. Beck also provides charter passenger services to the public. It holds interstate carrier authority from Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) under MC-143528.
• CMI is a passenger motor carrier doing business as Matthews Bus Company and is primarily engaged in providing student school bus transportation services in the state of Pennsylvania under contracts with regional and local school jurisdictions. CMI also provides intrastate charter passenger services to the public. CMI does not have interstate carrier authority as it is not required for the operations conducted by CMI.
• Diamond is a passenger motor carrier providing exempt interstate and regulated intrastate paratransit and shuttle services in the District of Columbia metropolitan area. It does not have interstate carrier authority.
• Durham is a passenger motor carrier primarily engaged in providing student school bus transportation services in several states under contracts with regional and local school jurisdictions. Durham also provides charter passenger services to the public. It holds interstate carrier authority under MC-163066.
• MV is a passenger motor carrier primarily engaged in providing student school bus transportation services in the state of Illinois under contracts with regional and local school jurisdictions. MV also provides charter passenger services to the public. It holds interstate carrier authority under MC-148934.
• NETC is an intrastate passenger motor carrier with its principal place of business in Cincinnati, Ohio. NETC does not have interstate carrier authority.
• NETSC is a passenger motor carrier engaged primarily in providing intrastate transit services in the areas of Westmoreland, Pa.; Arlington, Va.; Greensboro, N.C.; Jackson, Miss.; Orlando, Fla.; and Vallejo, Cal. NETSC does not have interstate carrier authority as it is not required for the operations conducted by NETSC.
• NETY is a passenger motor carrier primarily engaged in providing interstate paratransit services in the area of Yuma, Ariz. It holds interstate carrier authority under FMCSA Docket No. 960629.
• Petermann is a passenger motor carrier primarily engaged in providing non-regulated school bus transportation services in the state of Ohio under contracts with regional and local school jurisdictions. Petermann also provides charter passenger services to the public. It holds interstate carrier authority under MC-364668.
• Northeast is a passenger motor carrier primarily engaged in providing student school bus transportation services, primarily in the states of Ohio and Pennsylvania under contracts with regional and local school jurisdictions. Northeast also provides charter passenger services to the public. It holds interstate carrier authority under MC-723926.
• Northwest is a passenger motor carrier primarily engaged in providing non-regulated school bus transportation services under contracts with regional and local school jurisdictions. Northwest does not have interstate carrier authority as it is not required for the operations conducted by Northwest.
• Southwest is a passenger motor carrier primarily engaged in providing student school bus transportation services in the state of Texas under contracts with regional and local school jurisdictions. Southwest also provides charter passenger services to the public. It holds interstate carrier authority under MC-644996.
• STSA is a passenger motor carrier primarily engaged in providing student school bus transportation services, primarily in the state of Kansas under contracts with regional and local school jurisdictions. STSA also provides charter passenger services to the public. It holds interstate carrier authority under MC-749360.
• Provider is a passenger motor carrier doing business as Provider Bus, and is primarily engaged in providing non-regulated school bus transportation services in the state of New Hampshire under contracts with regional and local school jurisdictions. Provider does not have interstate carrier authority as it is not required for the operations conducted by Provider.
• Rainbow provides interstate and intrastate charter and special party passenger transportation services in the state of New York. It holds interstate carrier authority under MC-490015.
• Robertson is a passenger motor carrier primarily engaged in providing non-regulated school bus transportation services in the state of New Hampshire under contracts with regional and local school jurisdictions. Robertson also provides charter passenger service to the public. It does not have active interstate
• Safeway is a passenger motor carrier primarily engaged in providing non-regulated school bus transportation services in the state of New Hampshire under contracts with regional and local school jurisdictions. It does not have active interstate carrier authority, though MC-522039 is assigned to it.
• Septran is a passenger motor carrier primarily engaged in providing non-regulated school bus transportation services in the state of Illinois under contracts with regional and local school jurisdictions. It does not have active interstate carrier authority, though MC-795208 is assigned to it.
• Smith is a passenger motor carrier primarily engaged in providing non-regulated school bus transportation services in the state of Maryland and surrounding areas under contracts with regional and local school jurisdictions. Smith does not have interstate carrier authority as it is not required for the operations conducted by Smith.
• Suburban Paratransit is a motor carrier providing paratransit services primarily in Westchester County and Bronx, N.Y. Suburban Paratransit does not have interstate carrier authority as it is not required for the operations conducted by Suburban Paratransit.
• Trans Express provides interstate and intrastate passenger transportation services in the state of New York. It holds interstate carrier authority under MC-187819.
• Trinity is passenger motor carrier engaged in providing non-regulated school bus transportation services in southeastern Michigan, and also operates charter service to the public. Trinity holds interstate carrier authority under MC-364003.
• Trinity Cars is an intrastate passenger motor carrier providing for-hire sedan and van service in southeastern Michigan. It does not have active interstate carrier authority, though MC-632139 is assigned to it.
• Trinity Coach is a passenger motor carrier providing intrastate private and charter motor coach services in the state of Michigan. It does not have active interstate carrier authority, though MC-537169 is assigned to it.
• Trinity Student is a passenger motor carrier primarily engaged in providing non-regulated school bus transportation services in the areas of Toledo and Cleveland, Ohio. Trinity Student also provides charter passenger services. It holds interstate carrier authority under MC-836335.
• White Plains is a passenger motor carrier doing business as Suburban Charters, and it operates primarily as a provider of non-regulated school bus transportation services in the state of New York. White Plains also operates as a motor passenger carrier providing charter service to the public. It holds interstate carrier authority under MC-160624.
Applicant asserts the following facts about Queen City:
• Queen City is an Ohio limited liability company. It operates primarily as a provider of non-regulated school bus transportation services in the area of Cincinnati, Ohio. Queen City also provides interstate and intrastate charter services under the assumed names, Charter Bus Services and Klug Bus Services. For purposes of its interstate passenger operations, it holds interstate carrier authority under MC-163846.
Applicant states that all of the issued and outstanding membership interest of Queen City is owned and held by Haid Acquisitions LLC (Seller), an Ohio limited liability company, of which Aaron M. Haid, an individual, is the sole member. Applicant further states that neither the Seller nor Mr. Haid has any direct or indirect ownership interest in any other interstate passenger motor carrier and that Queen City is not affiliated with any other passenger carriers that have interstate operating authority.
Applicant asserts that National Express would acquire all of the outstanding membership interest in Queen City, resulting in 100% control of Queen City through the membership acquisition. Applicant further states that, other than the National Express Affiliated Carriers and Queen City, there are no other affiliated carriers with regulated interstate operations that are involved in this application.
Under 49 U.S.C. 14303(b), the Board must approve and authorize a transaction that it finds consistent with the public interest, taking into consideration at least: (1) The effect of the proposed transaction on the adequacy of transportation to the public; (2) the total fixed charges that result; and (3) the interest of affected carrier employees. Applicant submitted information, as required by 49 CFR 1182.2, including information to demonstrate that the proposed transaction is consistent with the public interest under 49 U.S.C. 14303(b), see 49 CFR 1182.2(a)(7), and a statement that the aggregate gross operating revenues of the National Express Affiliated Carriers and Queen City exceeded $2 million for the preceding 12-month period consistent with 49 U.S.C. 14303(g),
Applicant submits that the proposed transaction would have no material impact on the adequacy of transportation services to the public, as Queen City would continue to provide the services it currently provides using the same names. Applicant states that Queen City “will continue to operate, but going forward, will be operating within the National Express corporate family, an organization already thoroughly experienced in passenger transportation operations.” (Appl. 14.)
According to Applicant, “[t]he addition of Queen City to the carriers held by National Express is consistent with the practices within the passenger motor carrier industry of strong, well-managed transportation organizations adapting their corporate structure to operate several different passenger carriers within the same market, but in different geographic areas.” (
Applicant also claims that neither competition nor the public interest would be adversely affected by the contemplated transaction. Applicant states that Queen City is “a relatively small carrier in the overall markets in which it competes: unregulated metropolitan school bus operations and regulated motor coach passenger charter services.” (
Applicant asserts that there are no significant fixed charges associated with the contemplated transaction. Applicant also states that it does not anticipate a measurable reduction in force or changes in compensation levels or benefits to employees. Applicant submits, however, that staffing redundancies could result in limited downsizing of back-office or managerial level personnel.
The Board finds that the acquisition proposed in the application is consistent with the public interest and should be tentatively approved and authorized. If any opposing comments are timely filed, these findings will be deemed vacated, and, unless a final decision can be made on the record as developed, a procedural schedule will be adopted to reconsider the application.
This action is categorically excluded from environmental review under 49 CFR 1105.6(c).
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at “
1. The proposed transaction is approved and authorized, subject to the filing of opposing comments.
2. If opposing comments are timely filed, the findings made in this notice will be deemed vacated.
3. This notice will be effective December 27, 2017, unless opposing comments are filed by December 26, 2017.
4. A copy of this notice will be served on: (1) The U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; (2) the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, 10th Street & Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20530; and (3) the U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of the General Counsel, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
By the Board, Board Members Begeman and Miller.
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, this aspect of the FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number involved and must be received on or before November 29, 2017.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2012-1137 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Deana Stedman, AIR-673, Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356, email
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is requesting public comment on a request by the Laurinburg-Maxton Airport Commission, on behalf of the airport Sponsor (the City of Laurinburg and the Town of Maxton), to change a portion of airport property from aeronautical to non-aeronautical use at the Laurinburg-Maxton Airport. The request consists of release of approximately 10.66 acres to Scotland County Economic
Comments must be received on or before December 11, 2017.
Comments on this notice may be mailed or delivered in triplicate to the FAA at the following address: Memphis Airports District Office, Attn: Koty Brown, Program Manager, 2600 Thousand Oaks Boulevard, Suite 2250, Memphis, TN 38118.
In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to Ms. Joanne Gentry, Executive Director for Laurinburg-Maxton Airport Commission at the following address: 16701 Airport Road, Maxton, NC 28364.
Koty Brown, Program Manager, Federal Aviation Administration, Memphis Airports District Office, 2600 Thousand Oaks Boulevard, Suite 2250, Memphis, TN 38118-2482.
The application may be reviewed in person at this same location, by appointment.
The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the request to release property for non-aeronautical purposes at Laurinburg-Maxton Airport, Maxton, NC under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 47107(h)(2). The FAA determined that the request to release property at Laurinburg-Maxton Airport (MEB) submitted by the Laurinburg-Maxton Airport Commission on behalf of the City of Laurinburg and the Town of Maxton meets the procedural requirements of the FAA and the release of the property does not and will not impact future aviation needs at the airport. The FAA may approve the request, in whole or in part, no sooner than thirty days after the publication of this notice.
The following is a brief overview of the request:
The Laurinburg-Maxton Airport Commission on behalf of the City of Laurinburg and the Town of Maxton is proposing the release of approximately 10.66 acres to Scotland County Economic Development Corporation (SCEDC) to be used for future economic development. This property is located along SR 1434 Airport Road in Scotland County, NC. The property is separated from the majority of airport property by SR 1434 Airport Road. The proposed use of this property is compatible with airport operations.
Any person may inspect, by appointment, the request in person at the FAA office listed above under
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), DOT.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of Transportation's (DOT) Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) announce the selection of projects for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 Positive Train Control (PTC) Grant Program. A total of $197.01 million in the PTC grant funding, authorized under the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, will be provided to 17 projects in 13 states. On July 29, 2016, FTA and FRA published a Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) announcing the availability of Federal funding for the PTC Grant Program. These funds will provide financial assistance to states, local governments, and public agencies for the implementation of positive train control systems to improve safety. Funds allocated in this announcement must be obligated in a grant by September 30, 2018.
Recipients selected for competitive funding in Table 1 should contact the appropriate FTA Regional Office for information regarding applying for the funds or program-specific information. A list of FTA's Regional Offices can be found at
In response to the NOFO, FTA and FRA received 27 proposals from 16 states requesting $455 million in Federal funds, indicating significant demand for funding to expedite the implementation of PTC systems. Project proposals were evaluated based on each applicant's responses to the program evaluation criteria outlined in the NOFO.
FTA is funding the 17 projects shown in Table 1 for a total of $197.01 million. Recipients selected for competitive funding should work with their FTA Regional Office to submit a grant application in FTA's transit award management system (TrAMS) for the projects identified in the attached table to quickly obligate funds. As funds must be obligated by September 30, 2018, all grant applications must be submitted to FTA by June 30, 2018. Grant applications must include the eligible activities applied for in the original project application. Funds must be used consistent with the competitive proposal and for the eligible capital purposes established in the NOFO.
In cases where the award amount is less than the proposer's total requested amount, recipients must submit grant applications to fund the scalable project option as described in the project's application. If the award amount does not correspond to the scalable option, for example due to a cap on the award amount, the recipient should work with the FTA Regional Office to reduce scope or scale the project so that a complete phase or project is accomplished. Recipients are reminded that program requirements such as cost sharing or local match can be found in the NOFO. A discretionary project identification number has been assigned to each project for tracking purposes and must be used in the TrAMS application.
On October 16, 2008, Congress enacted the Railroad Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (RSIA), which required Class 1 railroad main lines and commuter railroad passenger service to fully implement positive train control by December 31, 2015. In the Positive Train Control Enforcement and Implementation Act of 2015, Congress extended the deadline for implementing positive train control to December 31, 2018. FTA will streamline the grant application process to help commuter railroads meet the approaching deadline. FTA is providing pre-award authority and will reimburse eligible project costs on successful projects consistent with the selected project proposals. The eligibility for reimbursement using pre-award authority is contingent upon the project meeting other Federal requirements, such as environmental requirements, prior to costs being incurred. FTA is not applying its regulation, 49 CFR part 633 Project Management Oversight to this program. Furthermore, FTA waives the requirement that projects be listed in the
Post-award reporting requirements include submission of the Federal financial report and milestone progress reports in TrAMS as appropriate (see FTA Circular 5010.1E, Award Management Requirements). Unless specifically waived, recipients must comply with all applicable Federal statutes, regulations, executive orders, FTA circulars, and other Federal requirements in carrying out the project supported by the FTA grant, including FTA's Buy America requirements.
Recipients must follow all third-party procurement guidance as described in FTA Circular 4220.1F Third Party Contracting Guidance.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before December 11, 2017.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2017-0179. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel DOS HOMBRES is:
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts these comments, without edit, to
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before December 11, 2017.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2017-0177. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel LADY DEENA II is:
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts these comments, without edit, to
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before December 11, 2017.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2017-0180. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel VESTA is:
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts these comments, without edit, to
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before December 11, 2017.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2017-0181. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel ANDIAMO is:
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts these comments, without edit, to
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before December 11, 2017.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2017-0176. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel SAMADHI is:
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts these comments, without edit, to
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before December 11, 2017.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2017-0178. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel PUDDLE JUMPER is:
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts these comments, without edit, to
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 this notice announces the Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. A
Comments must be received on or before December 11, 2017.
You may submit comments, within 30 days, to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention NHTSA Desk Officer.
Dr. Kathy Sifrit, Office of Behavioral Safety Research (NPD-320), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W46-472, Washington, DC 20590. Dr. Sifrit's phone number is (202) 366-0868 and her email address is
The visual scanning training protocol that is the focus of this study was designed to be delivered in one-on-one sessions by a generalist occupational therapist (OT) in a clinical setting, targeting visual field expansion, simultaneous processing of multiple visual stimuli, and ocular skill (visual search routine) exercises.
A preliminary analysis of the training's effectiveness was provided through performance of the NHTSA study, “Validation of Rehabilitation Training Programs for Older Drivers” (See DOT HS 811 749, April 2013). While these results were encouraging, the sample size was small and the research team, program developer and NHTSA all agreed that additional evidence was needed before widespread promotion of this intervention might be warranted. That is the focus of the proposed research.
Study staff will invite drivers 70 and older from a continuing care retirement community to a public meeting to describe the opportunity including inclusion and exclusion criteria. The project plans to recruit a total of 90 participants for the study. Participants will be randomly assigned to either a visual scanning training program (a series of four one-hour one-on-one training sessions) or to a control (placebo) activity for the same number of hours as the visual training protocol. All participants will undergo three, one-hour on-road evaluations by a Certified Driver Rehabilitation Specialist (CDRS) over the course of the study: One before training, one immediately after training, and a final evaluation three months after training. The CDRS will provide instructions about what route to follow and will score how safely the participant drives using standard procedures and criteria that are broadly accepted in the profession. The CDRS scores will be used to determine the effectiveness of the training protocol relative to the control (placebo) group.
Following training, the 45 study participants enrolled in the visual scanning training group will complete a brief questionnaire to determine whether they believe the training will help them to be a safer driver, whether they would recommend the training to friends or relatives, and what they would pay for such training. The training feedback, as well as the CDRS road test scores, will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the training. Following the second and third evaluations, each study participant will receive a $100 gift card as compensation for his/her participation.
Findings will provide information about whether this training program improves the driving performance of drivers 70 and older, and whether they find the training acceptable. NHTSA will use the information to inform recommendations to the public, and particularly to the OT community, regarding this training program.
(i) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(ii) the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection;
(iii) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(iv) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
A comment to OMB is most effective if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication of this notice.
44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A).
Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Civilian Personnel Policy) (DASD (CPP)), DoD.
Notice of consolidation, modification, and republication as amended of a personnel demonstration project plan.
The DoD, with the approval of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), received authority to conduct a personnel demonstration project within DoD's civilian acquisition workforce and among those supporting personnel assigned to work directly with it. The purpose of this notice is to publish the approval of the consolidation of the original AcqDemo project plan and, as appropriate, the still relevant interventions described in the six subsequent amendments and one notice of intent as listed in Appendix A into a single document for better understanding and ease of use; record the modifications made to existing demonstration project initiatives as a result of experience gained from their use; describe additional personnel management initiatives undertaken to generate further improvement of and increased efficiencies in support for the DoD acquisition workforce; and republish the AcqDemo Project Plan as amended and as updated for corrections, deletions, additions, and clarifications.
Implementation of this demonstration project plan will begin no earlier than November 1, 2017.
DoD: Scott Wortman, Program Manager, Civilian Acquisition Workforce Personnel Demonstration Project, 9820 Belvoir Road, Ft. Belvoir, VA 22060, 703-805-5050; DoD: Ms. Megan Maciejewski, Defense Civilian Personnel Advisory Service, Human Resources Operational Programs and Advisory Services, Staffing Policy Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite 05F16, Alexandria, VA 22350-1100, 571-372-1538.
The AcqDemo Project was established under the authority of the Secretary of Defense, with the approval of OPM. Subject to the authority, direction, and control of the Secretary, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD(AT&L)) carries out the powers, functions, and duties of the Secretary concerning the DoD acquisition workforce (AWF). Title 10 United States Code (U.S.C.) chapter 87 describes general authorities and responsibilities, defense acquisition positions, Acquisition Corps, education and training, and general management provisions applicable to the Defense AWF. The purpose of the AcqDemo, as stated in 10 U.S.C. chapter 87, section 1762, is “to determine the feasibility or desirability of one or more proposals for improving the personnel management policies or procedures that apply with respect to the acquisition workforce of the [DoD] and supporting personnel assigned to work directly with the acquisition workforce.”
This demonstration project was originally authorized under Section 4308 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 1996 (Public Law 104-106, 110 Stat. 669; 10 United States Code Annotated (U.S.C.A.) 1701 note), as amended by section 845 of NDAA for FY 1998 (Pub. L. 105-85, 111 Stat.1845); Section 813 of NDAA for FY 2003 (Pub. L. 107-314, 116 Stat. 2609); and Section 1112 of NDAA for FY 2004 (Pub. L. 108-136, 117 Stat. 1634). The NDAA for FY 2004 authorized the National Security Personnel System (NSPS) and most AcqDemo employees converted to the NSPS in 2006. Section 1113 of NDAA for FY 2010 (Pub. L. 111-84, 123 Stat. 2190) repealed the NSPS and directed conversion of all NSPS employees to their previous pay system by January 1, 2012. All NSPS employees formerly in AcqDemo were transitioned back to AcqDemo during the month of May 2011. On January 7, 2011, the original demonstration project authority was repealed and codified at 10 U.S.C. 1762 pursuant to Section 872 of the Ike Skelton NDAA for FY 2011 (Pub. L. 111-383, 124 Stat. 4300, 4302). With the enactment of Section 872 of the Ike Skelton NDAA for Fiscal Year (FY) 2011, Public Law 111-383, Congress extended the authority for AcqDemo until September 30, 2017, and increased the total number of persons who may participate in the project from 95,000 to 120,000. Congress further extended the authority for AcqDemo to December 31, 2020, in Section 846 of NDAA for FY 2016 (Pub. L. 114-92). Through Section 867 of NDAA for FY 2017 (Pub. L. 114-328), Congress provided that the Secretary of Defense shall exercise the authorities granted to the OPM under 5 U.S.C. 4703 for purposes of the demonstration project.
OPM approved and published the final project plan for the AcqDemo on January 8, 1999, in 64
DoD recently published a seventh amendment under the Secretary's authority on July 11, 2017, in 82 FR 32056-32121, providing notice of the intent to consolidate, enhance, and clarify the provisions of the original FRN project plan. This amendment announced a 30-day public comment period during which comments would be accepted on the modifications to the demonstration project plan. DoD received comments from 35 individuals during the comment period which closed on August 10, 2017. Most commenters addressed several topics which in some cases were duplicated by other commenters so the total number of comments exceeds the number of individuals cited above. A number of comments provided insight and encouragement for the project; some requested clarification of policy and purpose of several interventions; many addressed procedural aspects of the flexibilities; and still others noted various places in the notice where formatting, grammatical, and/or typographical errors were found. All comments were carefully considered and adjudicated. In addition, relevant administrative edits were made as a result of further coordination throughout the Department. The following summary addresses the pertinent comments received, provides responses, and notes resultant changes to the original AcqDemo project plan.
Two commenters addressed the necessity of implementing a personnel demonstration project for the Department's acquisition workforce and the supporting personnel assigned to work directly with the acquisition workforce. Another commenter touted that AcqDemo is intended to improve the evaluation process for Government employees, especially high performers constantly contributing above their position's expectations.
Five commenters had varying recommendations and suggestions pertaining to classification:
Five commenters had a variety of concerns and proposed changes, as follows:
(1) AcqDemo Employees. A promotion occurs when an AcqDemo employee moves from his/her current broadband level to a higher broadband level within the same career path (
(2) Non-AcqDemo Employee Entering the Demo. A promotion action occurs:
(a) When a current non-AcqDemo employee in a graded system is selected for an AcqDemo position in a broadband
(b) When a current non-AcqDemo employee in a paybanded system is selected for a position in an AcqDemo broadband level which includes referenced GS grade(s) with higher basic pay than the highest referenced grade included in the current payband from which the selectee is moving.
Three comments were submitted with varying remarks and propositions:
There were thirteen comments, as follows:
The project was initially designed in the 1997-1999 timeframe by a Process Action Team under the authority of then-Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics with the participation of and review by DoD and the OPM. The purpose of the project is to enhance the quality, professionalism, and management of the DoD acquisition workforce through improvements in the efficiency and effectiveness of the human resources management system. The project interventions strive to support DoD's efforts to “create a professional, agile, and motivated workforce that consistently makes smart business decisions, acts in an ethical manner, and delivers timely and affordable capabilities to the warfighter.”
The original AcqDemo Project Plan included streamlined hiring and appointment authorities; a Voluntary Emeritus Program; broadbanding; simplified classification; combined classification and appraisal criteria into six factors; revised reduction-in-force procedures; a contribution-based compensation and appraisal system; academic degree and certification training; and sabbaticals. A number of new initiatives have been added and clarifications made to this updated project plan based on experience gained with the original processes and procedures since implementation in January 1999; feedback from participants at all AcqDemo organizational levels; changes in title 5 U.S.C. and title 5 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR); changes in legislative language impacting AcqDemo employee/organization coverage and project evaluation; environmental conditions such as a weak economy, government downsizing, and sequestration; and concerns with the relationship between position management, Contribution-based Compensation and Appraisal System (CCAS) scoring; compensation management; and appropriate pay. The new or modified initiatives and/or topics include target broadband level; reduction of the six classification and appraisal factors to three factors; direct hire authority; modified expedited hiring authority; rule of many; expanded supervisory probationary period; expanded detail and temporary promotion authority; revised reduction-in-force procedures basing order of retention primarily on individual employee performance; compensation management; clarification of various pay setting procedures for conversions, new hires, employee movement within AcqDemo, and employees voluntarily joining AcqDemo; supervisory and team
Since its implementation in early 1999, the AcqDemo interventions have confirmed that a human resources system tailored to the mission and needs of the AWF increases workforce satisfaction with the personnel management system, while providing quality acquisition products to DoD customers as evidenced by the 2006 AcqDemo Summative Evaluation
The June 2006 Summative Evaluation Report stated: “AcqDemo had a positive impact on overall workforce quality by enabling managers to compete with the private sector for the best talent available and make timely job offers to potential employees. When AcqDemo procedures were fully implemented, hiring timeliness was significantly improved. AcqDemo succeeded in retaining `high contributors' and increasing the separation rates of `low contributors' without damaging employees' overall sense of fairness. AcqDemo resulted in high levels of customer satisfaction, and both employees and supervisors realized the benefits of AcqDemo flexibilities in responding to customer requirements quickly. Finally, a variety of data indicated that there was a positive shift in workforce satisfaction with the AcqDemo personnel management system.”
Since the return of employees from NSPS in May 2011, there continues to be strong evidence that the initiatives implemented under the AcqDemo are effective:
(1) Component acquisition leaders' feedback on effectiveness of AcqDemo programs on recruitment and retention has been positive.
(2) Senior Leader interviews were positive on the outcomes of programs but suggested processes may need to be tweaked,
(3) Additional organizations are seeking to join AcqDemo.
(4) Analysis
(5) Results from the 2015 OPM Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) indicated that 87% of the 2015 AcqDemo FEVS responses were better than the 2014 AcqDemo FEVS responses.
(6) Interview and survey data suggest that many aspects of AcqDemo are positively perceived,
(7) Survey respondents reported being more optimistic about opportunities for promotion and were more likely to believe that their organization is retaining the highest-performing employees among their peers in the organizations selected for comparison.
(8) A 2016 independent research report
(9) The 2016 OPM FEVS Employee Engagement Index questions, which best exemplify “an employee's sense of purpose,” and the New Inclusive Intelligence (IQ) Index questions, which “center on behaviors that help create an inclusive environment,” show continued year after year improvement from 2014 through 2016 and consistently higher positive responses than the DoD and overall Federal workforce across all subcomponents. The top three AcqDemo 2016 positive items reflect a sense of pride in work and are shown below with their respective percentage of positive responses:
This information is a testament to the success of AcqDemo as a valuable human resources management tool in the efforts of the USD(AT&L) to emphasize and achieve broader and stronger workforce professional and technical qualifications, abilities, and
The DoD AcqDemo Program Office will post this amendment on the Program Office's Web site at
AcqDemo is an acquisition-based alternative human resource management pay and personnel system that provides managers and organizations with increased flexibilities in recruitment, staffing, classification, performance management, compensation, and employee development. The purpose of the project is to enhance the quality, professionalism, and management of the DoD AWF through improvements in the efficiency, effectiveness, and agility of the human resources management system. This project not only provides a system that retains, recognizes, and rewards employees for their contributions, but also supports their personal and professional growth as acquisition specialists and professionals. In addition, this demonstration project provides managers, at the lowest practical level, the authority, control, and flexibility they need to achieve effective workforce management, quality acquisition processes, and superior products.
The AcqDemo Project was established under the authority of the Secretary of Defense (SECDEF), with the approval of OPM. Subject to the authority, direction, and control of the SECDEF, the USD(AT&L) carries out the powers, functions, and duties of the SECDEF concerning the DoD AWF. The USD(AT&L) is authorized to establish policies and procedures, in coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (USD(P&R)), for the effective management of the acquisition, technology, and logistics workforce in the DoD, which includes management and oversight of the DoD AcqDemo. To assist in this endeavor, the USD(AT&L) chartered the DoD Civilian Acquisition Workforce Personnel Demonstration Project Program Office in September 1999. The Office of Human Capital Initiatives was chartered by the USD(AT&L) in November 2015, and the Director designated as the senior official responsible for the AcqDemo program. The Director, Human Capital Initiatives, is responsible for oversight, policy, direction, design and centralized management of the AcqDemo. Subject to the authority, direction, and control of the Director, Human Capital Initiatives, the AcqDemo Program Manager is responsible for the centralized management of the DoD AcqDemo Project. The Program Manager also has authority to establish and chair an Executive Council comprised of a representative from each DoD Component, Agency, and Field Activity with organizations and/or teams participating in the AcqDemo Project (hereafter referred to as Participating Organizations) plus USD(P&R) and/or USD(AT&L) representatives serving in an advisory role as appropriate. Each Participating Organization has authority to manage and oversee AcqDemo implementation and operation within overarching USD(AT&L), HCI, and/or AcqDemo Program Office policy and guidance.
It is envisioned that each Participating Organization, to include subordinate AcqDemo participating organizations and/or teams, shall establish a Personnel Policy Board (PPB). The PPB is the body to manage, evaluate, and make policy and procedural changes for its respective organization within the parameters of the AcqDemo Project Plan published in the Federal Register notice 64 FR 1426-1492, DoD AcqDemo Program Office guidance, and Department of Defense Instructions (DoDIs). The Executive Director, members, and staff of the Board are designated by the Head of the Participating Organization. Should any Participating Organization elect not to establish a PPB, the charter of an existing group within the respective organization must be modified to include the duties detailed in Section I.B.2(a) through (i). In either case, the Board is tasked, at a minimum, with the following:
(a) Overseeing the civilian pay budget;
(b) Addressing issues associated with two or more pay systems (
(c) Determining the composition of the CCAS pay pool in accordance with the established guidelines and statutory constraints;
(d) Reviewing operation of the organization's CCAS pay pools;
(e) Providing guidance to pay pool managers;
(f) Administering funds to CCAS pay pool managers;
(g) Reviewing hiring and promotion salaries;
(h) Monitoring award pool distribution by organization and acquisition workforce (AWF) employees vs. non-AWF employees; and
(i) Assessing the need for and making changes to local demonstration project procedures and policies when needed to further define specific interventions to ensure standard application across the participating AcqDemo organization(s) and/or team(s).
Modifications to the AcqDemo Project Plan must be made from time to time as experience is gained, results are analyzed, and conclusions are reached on how the various flexibilities are working individually and within the overall project. Minor policy and procedural modifications of this published AcqDemo project plan within already existing waivers may be made by the Director, Human Capital Initiatives, with delegation to the Program Manager, and published in internal issuances and AcqDemo Memorandums and/or at
The DoD AcqDemo Program Office is responsible for preparing and/or issuing implementation, operational, sustainment, and other internal guidance such as AcqDemo Memoranda, Operating Procedures, and/or DoDIs regarding the AcqDemo provisions to Participating Organizations. This internal guidance, which can be found at
For actions taken under the auspices of the demonstration project, the legal authority code Z2W, Public Law 111-383, will be used. For all other actions, the nature of action codes (NOAC) and legal authority codes prescribed by OPM and/or DoD will continue to be used unless revised or new codes are developed for specific AcqDemo interventions. Information and guidance on codes specific to AcqDemo will be published in internal implementing issuances.
1. Scope of Acquisition Organizations. The DoD has numerous civilian acquisition organizations and teams in the Departments of the Army, the Navy (including the Marine Corps), and the Air Force as well as several Defense agencies and field activities. These organizations and teams are located not only across the United States but also in various foreign countries. Various elements of these organizations may be included in AcqDemo if they request to participate in AcqDemo, meet the eligibility requirements, are coordinated with the USD(P&R), and approved by the USD(AT&L).
2. Request to Participate in AcqDemo. As a demonstration project, AcqDemo is subject to audit, evaluation, and reporting requirements as Department leaders consider expanding participation in AcqDemo and the merits of undertaking modified and installing new initiatives. Therefore, to
3. Calls for Additional Participation. The AcqDemo Program Office may establish a regular schedule or periodically announce opportunities for interested acquisition organizations to apply for approval to participate in AcqDemo. Out-of-cycle participation requests will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. During the demonstration project authority period, limited expansion of the project may be determined valuable by the USD(AT&L). In these cases, plans for such expansion will be coordinated with the USD(P&R) prior to execution.
4. Eligibility Requirements. Organizational and team participation in AcqDemo is voluntary. For an interested organization or team to be approved to participate, the following conditions must be met:
(a) At least one-third of the workforce selected to participate in the demonstration project consists of members of the acquisition workforce (civilian employees occupying positions coded as meeting the requirements of the Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act (DAWIA) of 1990 as amended);
(b) At least two-thirds of the workforce participating in the demonstration project consists of members of the acquisition workforce and supporting personnel assigned to work directly with the acquisition workforce;
(c) Positions are classified to an approved occupational series; and
(d) The organization or team request is coordinated through the chain of command, to include the USD(P&R), for approval by USD(AT&L) for participation in the AcqDemo Project. Following receipt of appropriate coordination and approvals for the requesting organization to participate in AcqDemo, the AcqDemo Program Office staff will initiate appropriate notification to the requesting Military Department or DoD Component and USD(P&R). In addition, any organization approved to participate will notify affected employees, labor organizations, and other appropriate stakeholders.
5. Application Process. The organization or team seeking approval to participate in AcqDemo would follow the process steps listed below:
(a) Complete the following preliminary activities:
(1) Review the AcqDemo design with the Participating Organization's DoD AcqDemo Executive Council Representative, if applicable, and DoD AcqDemo Program Office officials;
(2) Informally coordinate concurrence of their participation within its component leadership for any enterprise planning impacts; and
(3) Assess the acceptance level of the workforce with participation, views of stakeholders such as local bargaining union leadership (if applicable), and consider any other local climate and/or operational issues that would impact effective implementation of the project.
(b) Gather and include the required information described below in an application packet:
(1) Complete DoD Component, DoD Agency, or DoD Field Activity address.
(2) Identification of the acquisition-related mission of the population requesting participation, including a brief discussion of the major functions performed.
(3) Requesting organizations are encouraged to provide any applicable local workforce challenges being encountered that are not covered in 64 FR 1426-1492 and indicate how it is anticipated that AcqDemo could help address such challenges.
(4) Workforce Demographic Data.
(5) Identification of occupational series that need to be added.
(6) A statement of confirmation that applicable Within-Grade Increase (WGI) buy-in conversion costs, if applicable, have been estimated and do not present an adverse financial impact on payroll budgeting and execution.
(7) Communication plan, as available.
(8) Desired conversion date for candidate population.
(c) Route the application package through its command channels to the Service Acquisition Executive and the Assistant Secretary for Manpower and Reserve Affairs (M&RA) for the Military Departments or the appropriate equivalent authority for other DoD components for appropriate review and endorsement to the DoD AcqDemo Program Manager. The AcqDemo Program Office staff will review the application package for compliance with required information and eligibility requirements and facilitate coordination of eligibility with USD(P&R), Defense Civilian Personnel Advisory Services (DCPAS) and participation approval with USD(AT&L). The AcqDemo Program Manager will then ensure the approval decisions are implemented, with quarterly updates provided to USD(P&R) and USD(AT&L).
Appendix B provides two tables containing lists of organizations that have been determined to be eligible to participate. Table 1 of Appendix B provides a list of those organizations that were determined to be eligible to participate as of July 1, 2002. Table 1A of Appendix B contains a list of new or realigned organizations whose eligibility to participate in AcqDemo was approved by the DoD in calendar year 2014 and by OPM in calendar year 2015.
1. Covered Workforce. Section 872 of the Ike Skelton NDAA for FY 2011 increased the number of employees who may participate in AcqDemo from 95,000 to 120,000 at any one time. The scope of AcqDemo workforce coverage for the DoD-wide critical acquisition function gives primary consideration to the number and diversity of occupations within (1) the acquisition workforce; and (2) the supporting personnel assigned to work directly with the acquisition workforce. This coverage encompasses acquisition-related duties and positions in fifteen acquisition career fields and one career path: auditing; business-cost estimating; business-financial management; contracting; facilities engineering; information technology; life cycle logistics; production, quality, and manufacturing; program management; industrial property; purchasing; science and technology management; engineering; test and evaluation; small business; and the career path of international acquisition, with all but two career fields considered critical acquisition career fields. This position management structure reflects the structure described in Appendix 1 of the April 2010 DoD Strategic Human Capital Plan (SHCP) Update for the Defense Acquisition Workforce as well as in the Defense Acquisition Workforce update for the 2016 DoD SHCP. The occupational series for this collection of duties and associated positions included in the AcqDemo are listed in Appendix C.
Additionally, in determining the scope of the demonstration project, DoD human resources management design goals and priorities for the entire civilian workforce were considered.
2. Current Participating Employees. Table 1 provides a breakout of the AcqDemo actual population as of July 29, 2016, by Participating Organizations including number of employees by career path, broadband level, and bargaining unit representation. Of the 33,639 employees, 6.45% or 2,171 are represented by labor unions. The American Federation of Government Employees and the National Federation of Federal Employees represent the largest number of employees. The International Association of Fire Fighters, International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, and Laborers' International Union of North America represent the remainder of AcqDemo bargaining unit employees.
1. Written Agreements. Employees within a unit to which a labor organization is accorded exclusive recognition under chapter 71 of title 5, U.S.C., shall not be included as part of the demonstration project unless the exclusive representative and the agency have entered into a written agreement covering participation in and implementation of this project. In order to ensure that the integrity of the acquisition demonstration project is maintained, parties may not change the design and intent of any of the project initiatives during negotiations. DoD has authority to operate only ONE project with the initiatives applying to all Participating Organizations. Revisions to initiatives may only be made in accordance with Section I.B.3 of this project plan.
The parties may use mediation or any other mutually acceptable means to resolve disputes over the implementation of the project with respect to unit employees. Neither party may request the assistance of the Federal Service Impasses Panel to resolve such disputes. Either labor or management may unilaterally withdraw from negotiations over the application of this demonstration project to bargaining unit members at any time up until final agreement approval, without such action being considered an unfair labor practice under Section 7116 of title 5, U.S.C., for refusing to negotiate in good faith.
Written agreements addressing the initial implementation of the demonstration project to bargaining unit members of Participating Organizations are subject to agency head review and approval within DoD prior to implementation. Thus, agreements will be reviewed as provided in 5 U.S.C. 7114(c).
2. Subsequent Negotiations. Once a written agreement is reached and approved allowing for the local implementation of the project, all subsequent negotiations during the life of the project shall be subject to binding impasse procedures under Section 7119 of title 5, U.S.C.
a. The broadbanding system replaces the current GS fifteen-grade structure. The fifteen GS grades are arranged into three or four broadband levels within a career path in accordance with recognized advancement expected within the occupations assigned to the career path. Broadband level pay ranges were derived from base pay rates under 5 U.S.C. 5303 of the banded GS grades. The lowest basic pay rate of any given broadband level is that for step 1 of the lowest GS grade in that broadband level. Likewise, the highest basic pay rate of any given broadband level is that for step 10 of the highest GS grade in that broadband level. There is a natural overlap in basic pay ranges in the GS grades that also occurs in the broadband system. Once employees move into the demonstration project, GS grades as well as WGIs and quality step increases will no longer apply and promotions will be less frequent. Movement through a broadband level will be based on employee appraisals under the CCAS; movement to a higher broadband level will be by competitive or non-competitive promotion; and voluntary or involuntary movement to a lower broadband level by a change to a lower broadband level personnel action.
b. There are three distinct career paths where AcqDemo occupations with similar characteristics are grouped together to facilitate advancement, pay progression, and more competitive recruitment of quality candidates at differing rates. The career paths are designated as Business Management and Technical Management Professional, Pay Plan NH; Technical Management Support, Pay Plan NJ; and Administrative Support, Pay Plan NK. The occupations placed within each of these career paths are listed in Appendix C. The three career paths and their associated broadband levels compared to GS grades are shown in Figure 1, Career Paths and Broadband Structure.
c. The broadband levels represent basic pay only and will be labeled I, II, III, or IV. Comparison to the GS base pay table is used in setting the minimum and maximum basic pay limits of the broadband levels. As the rates of the GS are increased for any annual across-the-board GS pay increase, the minimum and maximum basic pay rates of the broadband levels will also increase. Basic pay rates for employees are established within the minimum and maximum basic pay range for their position's broadband level. Section C, Pay Administration, offers more detail on how to set pay within a broadband level.
Since employees' pay progression through a broadband level depends on their contribution to the organization's mission and accomplishment of higher level, broader scope, and/or more difficult work assignments, there will be no scheduled WGIs or scheduled across-the-board GS increases for employees covered by the broadbanding system. Advancement to a higher broadband level is typically through merit promotion or competitive recruitment procedures. Movement to a lower broadband level may be voluntary or involuntary. Special salary rates will no longer be applicable to demonstration project employees. Employees will be eligible for the locality pay of their geographical area with the exception of those employees stationed at an overseas location.
The AcqDemo Project will continue to use the occupational series designators and position titles consistent with those authorized by DoD and/or OPM to identify positions. The current AcqDemo occupational series will be placed into appropriate career paths as shown in Appendix C. Appendix C has been updated to remove those series cancelled by OPM, to provide current series titles, to include additional series, and to move existing series to different or additional career paths. Other occupational series may be added or current series revised or deleted as a result of fluctuations in mission requirements or future DoD or OPM modifications to occupational series. Titling practices consistent with those
a.
b.
c.
(1)
(2) Discriminators. The discriminators refine the descriptors. For example, the Communication and/or Teamwork factor has four discriminators (oral, written, contribution to team, and effectiveness), which are the same for all broadband levels. The discriminators help to define the type and complexity of work; degree of responsibility; and scope of contributions that need to be ultimately accomplished to reach the highest basic pay potential within a broadband level for an employee's position and contributions. The discriminators are often times included in the duties portion of the Position Requirements Document to clarify the generic descriptors as to type and level of work, and in contribution expectations, standards, goals, and/or objectives included in an employee's contribution plan to foster contributions at the appropriate level and value for the position within its broadband level and to support the organization's strategic goals and objectives needed to meet its mission.
(3) Summary. The three factor evaluations when taken as a whole result in either a classification determination of the broadband level for the position or an OCS and performance appraisal for an employee's contribution assessment depending on the action being addressed. This structure in turn would be used to set the stage for determination of position classification, contribution assessment, and ultimately compensation decisions. The definitions for the career paths and corresponding broadband levels within them are found in Appendix D. The classification levels with descriptors, discriminators, and appraisal factors can be found in Appendix E.
Under the AcqDemo, Heads of Participating Organizations (or equivalent) will have delegated classification authority and may re-delegate this authority to subordinate management levels to a level not lower than one management level above the first-line supervisor of the position under review, except in the case of those employees reporting directly to the Head of the Participating Organization or equivalent. First-line supervisors will provide classification recommendations. Individuals knowledgeable and experienced in classification methodology, to include Human Resources Specialists, may provide ongoing consultation and guidance to managers and supervisors throughout the classification process.
Under the demonstration project's classification system, a PRD combines the position information; staffing requirements; factors, descriptors, and discriminators; expected contribution criteria for the assigned broadband level; critical acquisition position indicator; appropriate acquisition career field and certification level for an acquisition position; and position evaluation statement into a single document. The information contained in the PRD is mandatory and must be provided. The AcqDemo Program Office has developed fillable templates for each career path broadband level to aid supervisors in producing a PRD. These templates may be found on the AcqDemo Web site at:
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) exemption or non-exemption determinations will be made consistent with criteria found in 5 CFR part 551. All employees are covered by the FLSA unless they meet criteria for exemption. Positions will be evaluated as needed by comparing the duties and responsibilities assigned, the broadband level descriptors for each broadband level, and the 5 CFR part 551 FLSA criteria.
Each position under the demonstration project will have a designated maximum broadband level. This maximum broadband level will be identified as the top broadband level within a career path for a particular position and the broadband level to which an incumbent, selected competitively or through merit promotion for a lower broadband level, may be advanced without further competition,
An employee may appeal the occupational series, title, or broadband level of his or her own position at any time. An employee may not appeal the accuracy of the position requirements document; the demonstration project classification criteria; the pay-setting criteria; the propriety of a salary schedule; or matters grievable under an administrative or negotiated grievance procedure or an alternative dispute resolution procedure.
An employee must formally raise the areas of concern to supervisors in the immediate chain of command, either orally or in writing. If an employee is not satisfied with the supervisory response, he/she may appeal to the Head of his/her organization. If the employee is not satisfied with the supervisory response, he/she may then appeal to his/her organization's Component or Agency level in accordance with their instructions. If the employee is not satisfied with the Component or Agency decision, the employee may appeal to the DoD appellate level. Appellate decisions rendered by DoD will be final and binding on all administrative, certifying, payroll, disbursing, and accounting officials of the Department. The evaluation of classification appeals under this demonstration project is based upon the demonstration project classification criteria. Case files will be forwarded for adjudication through the civilian personnel/human resources office providing personnel service and will include copies of appropriate demonstration project criteria. Time periods for case processing under 5 CFR 511.605 apply.
One of the goals of the DAWIA Program is to create well-trained, multi-skilled professionals who can effectively manage multi-million-dollar programs. Hiring restrictions and complex processes unduly increase hiring timelines, exhaust valuable resources, and unnecessarily detract attention from the acquisition mission. Managers must be able to compete with academia and the private sector for the best talent and be able to make timely job offers to potential employees who display the experience, education, competencies, knowledge, skills, abilities, and motivation to be successful in the highly dynamic DoD acquisition environment. The program has statutory and regulatory requirements necessitating substantial education, training and experience, special certifications, and continuous learning designed to create a cadre of highly skilled acquisition professionals ready for assignment to the DoD's most senior acquisition positions.
The position management structure for the DAWIA Program contains three categories of AWF members and positions that may be found in each of the acquisition career fields. The largest category is comprised of persons assigned to developmental and mid-level acquisition positions. The next category encompasses Critical Acquisition Positions which are senior acquisition positions with significant responsibility, primarily involving supervisory or management duties in acquisition systems. The top level of positions, Key Leadership Positions, require special USD(AT&L) attention, have significant leadership responsibilities, are held by personnel in the most demanding acquisition positions, and are critical to the success of the DoD acquisition program.
To maintain an adequate complement of trained AWF members in each of the position categories and career fields, the DoD establishes hiring strategies and goals that are published in its biennial Human Capital Strategic Workforce Plan. A recent Government Accountability Office (GAO)
a. Competitive and Excepted Appointing Authorities. Under this demonstration project, there are two primary tenure existing competitive service appointment options used in the competitive service and excepted service: Permanent and temporary time-limited (which includes temporary and term (or term-like in the excepted service)). The permanent option consists of the existing career-conditional and career appointments (and equivalent appointments in the excepted service). The temporary limited option may be used to fill a short-term position,
(1) The modified term option is based on the existing term appointment. A modified term appointment is expected to last longer than one year but not to exceed five years unless a one-year extension is locally approved for a total not to exceed six years when the need for an employee's service is not permanent. Reasons for making a modified term appointment include, but are not limited to, carrying out special project work; staffing new or existing programs of limited duration; filling a position in activities undergoing review for reduction or closure; replacing permanent employees who have been temporarily assigned to another position, are on extended leave, or have entered military service; and hiring college students for the Acquisition Student Intern Program. Most selections for modified term appointments will be made under the competitive examining processes or by using direct-hire procedures. However, an AcqDemo Participating Organization may give a noncompetitive modified term appointment to a selectee who is qualified for the position and is eligible for one of the categories listed in 5 CFR 316.302(b), items (1) through (8).
(2) Reassignment. A Participating Organization may place a modified term employee in any other modified term position provided the employee meets the qualifying requirements of that position. However, such reassignment will not serve to extend the appointment beyond the original term appointment time period. The minimum eligibility requirements for the position will be determined according to OPM's Operating Manual “
(3) Conversion to Career-Conditional Appointment. Employees hired under the modified term appointment authority are in a temporary status but may be eligible for conversion to career-conditional appointments or career appointments if applicable. To be converted, the employee must: (a) Have been selected for the term position under competitive procedures, with the announcement specifically stating that the individual(s) selected for the term positions(s) may be eligible for conversion to career-conditional appointment at a later date; (b) have served two years of continuous service in the term position; and (c) have been considered to have adequate contributions for two appraisal cycles (including the current appraisal cycle) immediately preceding conversion. Service under a modified term appointment immediately prior to a permanent appointment shall count toward the probationary period requirements described in 10 U.C.S. Section 1599e.
(4) Benefits and Appeal Rights. Benefits and appeal rights are the same as those currently afforded term employees.
Hiring managers of Participating Organizations are encouraged to use a variety of sources for their targeted recruitment and outreach efforts for both permanent and time-limited positions in the competitive and excepted services, including: Colleges/universities with degree programs that meet acquisition position requirements, job fairs, virtual career fairs, professional organizations, alumni associations, USAJOBS and non-Federal employment Web sites, employee referrals, contractors, and separating or retiring military members. Short-term or long-term job announcements may be posted for current and/or projected vacancies, multiple vacancies, broadband levels, and/or geographic locations as appropriate based upon the availability of qualified candidates and the type of position being filled. Hiring managers have, in consultation with their Human Resources Offices, the option of making on-the-spot tentative job offers at job fairs and other recruiting events when using a noncompetitive or direct hiring authority. These offers are contingent upon meeting appropriate public notice requirements, clearing local priorities to include Priority Placement Program, Reemployment Priority List, and Interagency Career Transition Assistance Plan, and meeting any other requirements (
An applicant's basic eligibility for a position will be determined using OPM's Operating Manual, “
a. Qualifications. Minimum eligibility requirements will be those corresponding to the lowest GS grade referenced in the broadband level of the position being filled. Qualifying experience is defined as one year at the next lower broadband level in AcqDemo or an equivalent career path and broadband level in a different pay banding system; or one GS grade or equivalent level lower than the lowest GS grade referenced in the AcqDemo broadband level of the position being filled; or a combination of both this AcqDemo and GS experience.
b. Assessments. For assessment purposes, selective placement factors may be established in accordance with OPM's Operating Manual “
a. General Principles. When exercising the AcqDemo external hiring authorities, Participating Organizations will adhere to all applicable authorities and the following principles:
(1) A highly qualified workforce is critical to the Department's acquisition mission.
(2) Recruitment efforts should be designed to attract diverse candidates who are representative of all segments of society.
(3) Merit factors shall be the basis for selecting individuals for positions. All personnel programs and practices shall be administered in accordance with DoD Directive 1020.02E, “Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity in the DoD”.
(4) The criteria in 5 U.S.C. 2108 and 5 U.S.C. 2108a for determining the preference eligibility of each applicant shall apply to AcqDemo without change. DoD AcqDemo Program Office and Participating Organizations' procedures shall ensure that, at a minimum:
(a) Selecting officials treat veterans' preference eligibility as a positive factor when making a selection from external recruitment sources or where veterans' preference is otherwise applicable. The detailed definition of “positive factor” rests with participating organizations and is expected to be described in internal issuances and on vacancy announcements. The AcqDemo Program Office guidance is stated generally to keep veterans' preference as a highlighted item to define how it will be addressed in external recruiting and to provide maximum flexibility to Participating Organizations in developing their policy.
(b) When making final selections, any candidates with veterans' preference should be considered for appointments if they are found to best meet mission requirements.
(c) If a non-preference eligible candidate is selected over a veteran considered to best meet mission requirements, the reasons for non-selection of any veteran considered to best meet mission requirements must be documented in writing. Non-selection documentation must be made part of the permanent selection record. Reasons for non-selection will be provided to the veteran candidate by the servicing human resources office if requested by the veteran. Participating Organizations may establish a higher level review and/or approval process above the selecting official if appropriate.
(5) Displaced employee procedures shall be adhered to when using this authority.
(6) Participating Organizations must ensure transparency, accountability, and auditability in hiring processes.
b. Direct Hire Appointments for the Business and Technical Management Professional Career Path. The Head of a Participating Organization may appoint qualified candidates possessing at least a baccalaureate degree required by OPM or DoD qualification standards covering acquisition positions and/or qualified candidates for those positions involving 51% or more of time in direct support of acquisition positions in a critical acquisition career field classified to the Business and Technical Management Professional, NH, career path, without regard to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. chapter 33, subchapter I (other than sections 3303, 3308, and 3328 of such title).
c. Veteran Direct Hire Appointments for the Business and Technical Management Professional and Technical Management Career Paths. The Head of a Participating Organization may appoint qualified veteran candidates to acquisition positions in a critical acquisition career field and to those positions involving 51% or more of time in direct support of an acquisition position classified to either the Business and Technical Management Professional, NH, career path or to the Technical Management Support, NJ, career path, without regard to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. chapter 33, subchapter I (other than sections 3303 and 3328 of such title). The term “veteran” has the meaning given that term in 38 U.S.C. 101.
d. Acquisition Student Intern Appointments. The Head of a Participating Organization, without regard to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. chapter 33, subchapter (other than sections 3303 and 3328 of such title), may appoint candidates enrolled in a program of undergraduate or graduate instruction at an institution of higher education leading to either:
(1) A baccalaureate degree in a course of study required by OPM or DoD qualification standards for an acquisition position in a critical acquisition career field; or
(2) A degree the completion of which (including any additional essential credit hours or related experience in an acquisition-related field as defined by DoD internal issuances) provides competencies, knowledge, skills, etc., directly linked to an acquisition position's requirements (selective placement or quality ranking factors) for one of the critical acquisition career fields.
An “institution of higher education” for this purpose has the same meaning as that term is defined in Section 101 and 102 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001). Appointments under this authority may be made using a term appointment authority or the Pathways appointment authority.
e. Scholastic Achievement Appointment. This demonstration project establishes a Scholastic Achievement Appointment that provides the authority to appoint candidates with degrees to acquisition positions with positive education requirements without regard to the provisions of subchapter I of chapter 33 of title 5, U.S.C. (other than sections 3303 and 3328 of such title). This authority allows for competitive appointment to acquisition positions classified to either the NH-II or NH-III broadband level of the Business and Technical Management Professional career path. Candidates may be appointed under this procedure if:
(1) They have at least a baccalaureate degree required by OPM or DoD qualification standards, or a degree the completion of which (including any additional essential credit hours or specialized experience in an acquisition-related field as identified by DoD internal issuances) provides competencies, knowledge, skills, etc., directly linked to an acquisition position's requirements for one of the critical acquisition career fields plus any selective factors, quality ranking factors, and/or DAWIA certification requirements stated in a vacancy announcement;
(2) the candidate has a cumulative grade point average (GPA) of 3.25 or better (on a 4.0 scale) in those courses in those fields of study that are specified in the OPM Qualification Standards for the occupational series and an overall undergraduate GPA of at least 3.0 on a 4.0 scale; and
(3) the appointment is into a permanent or term position at a pay level within the NH-II broadband level basic pay range. Appointments may also be made to the NH-III broadband level on the basis of graduate education and/or experience, but with the requirement of a GPA of at least 3.5 on a scale of 4.0 for graduate courses in the field of study required for the occupation.
f. Simplified Hiring Processes. The goal of the simplified hiring processes is to enable AcqDemo Participating Organizations to expedite the hiring and appointment of qualified persons to acquisition positions as well as to direct support positions in any of the fifteen acquisition career fields using the approaches described below:
(1) A name request may be submitted to expedite the appointment of a qualified candidate identified through a Participating Organization's targeted recruitment actions.
(2) A certificate of eligibles may be developed from qualified applicants to a vacancy announcement who have been evaluated or rated under an appropriate assessment methodology such as the Administrative Careers with America examination, USA Hire, or OPM category rating procedures.
(3) This demonstration project established a streamlined AcqDemo Delegated Examining-Category Rating process. This process may be used to fill both acquisition positions and those in direct support of acquisition positions covered by this demonstration project.
An applicant's basic eligibility will be determined using OPM's Operating Manual “
Candidates who meet the basic minimum eligibility qualifications will be further evaluated based on knowledge, skills, and abilities which are directly linked to the positions(s) to be filled. Based on this assessment, candidates will be placed in one of the quality groups,
Selecting officials should be provided with a reasonable number of qualified candidates from which to choose. All candidates in the highest group will be certified. If there is an insufficient number of candidates in the highest group, candidates in the next lower group may then be certified; should this process not yield a sufficient number, groups will be certified sequentially until a selection is made or the qualified pool is exhausted. When two or more groups are certified, candidates will be identified by quality group (
(4) Rule of Many. When there are no more than 25 applicants for an acquisition position or a direct support position in any career field, all eligible applicants regardless of veterans' preference may be referred. Veterans' preference eligibility will be determined when making final selections. When making final selections, any candidates with veterans' preference should be considered for appointments if they are found to best meet mission requirements.
(5) Voluntary Emeritus Program.
(a) Eligibility and Program Criteria. Under the demonstration project, Heads of Participating Organizations have the authority to offer voluntary assignments in Participating Organizations and to accept the gratuitous services of the following individuals:
1—AcqDemo retired or separated civilian employees who served in either DAWIA-covered positions or positions in direct support to DAWIA-coded positions (for the Voluntary Emeritus Program, hereinafter referred to as AcqDemo employees) and
2—Non-AcqDemo DoD retired or separated civilian employees and former military members who worked in DAWIA-covered positions.
Voluntary Emeritus Program assignments are not considered employment by the Federal Government (except as indicated below). Thus, such assignments do not affect a former civilian employee's entitlement to buy-outs or severance payments based on earlier separation from Federal Service. This program may not be used to replace or substitute for work performed by civilian employees occupying regular acquisition positions required to perform the mission of the Participating Organization.
The Voluntary Emeritus Program will ensure continued quality acquisition by allowing experienced, former civilian and military DoD acquisition professionals who served in DAWIA-covered positions and former AcqDemo employees to accept retirement incentives with the opportunity to retain a presence in the acquisition community. The program will be beneficial during manpower reductions as program managers, engineers, other skilled acquisition professionals and former AcqDemo employees who provided direct support to acquisition professionals to accept retirement and return to provide a continuing source of corporate knowledge and valuable on-the-job training or mentoring to less experienced employees.
To be accepted into the Voluntary Emeritus Program, a volunteer must be recommended to the decision-making authority by one or more acquisition managers familiar with the skills that the volunteer offers to the organization. Acquisition managers at any level may initiate the decision process, however the decision-making documentation must be routed through the senior acquisition manager of the organization where the volunteer will be assigned, enroute to the Head of the Participating Organization making the decision. No one who applies is entitled to an emeritus position. The decision-making authority must document the decision process for each applicant (whether accepted or rejected) and retain the documentation throughout the assignment. Documentation of rejections will be maintained for two years.
To ensure success and encourage participation, the volunteer's Federal retirement pay (whether the retirement pay is based upon military or civilian service) will not be affected while the volunteer is serving in emeritus status. Retired or separated AcqDemo employees, non-AcqDemo DoD civilian employees and military members who served in DAWIA-coded positions may accept an emeritus position without a “break in service” or mandatory waiting period.
Voluntary Emeritus Program volunteers will not be permitted to monitor contracts on behalf of the Government but may participate on any contract if no conflict of interest exists. The volunteer may be required to submit a financial disclosure form annually and will not be permitted to participate on any contracts where a conflict of interest exists. The same rules that currently apply to source selection members will apply to volunteers.
(b) Agreement Requirements. An agreement will be established among the volunteer, the decision-making authority, and the Human Resources Office. The agreement must be finalized
1—A statement that the service provided is gratuitous, does not constitute an appointment in the Civil Service, is without compensation or other benefits except as provided for in the agreement itself, and that, except as provided in the agreement regarding work-related injury compensation, any and all claims against the Government because of the service are waived by the volunteer;
2—A statement that the volunteer will be considered a Federal employee for the purposes of:
a—Subchapter I of 5 U.S.C. chapter 81 (using the formula established in 10 U.S.C. 1588 for determination of compensation) (work-related injury compensation);
b—28 U.S.C. chapter 171 (tort claims procedure);
c—5 U.S.C. 552a (records maintained on individuals); and
d—18 U.S.C. chapter 11 (conflicts of interest).
3—The volunteer's work schedule;
4—Length of agreement (defined by length of project or time defined by weeks, months, or years);
5—Support provided by the activity (travel, administrative, office space, supplies, etc.);
6—A one-page statement of duties and experience;
7—A statement specifying that no additional time will be added to a volunteer's service credit for such purposes as retirement, severance pay, and leave as a result of being a member of the Voluntary Emeritus Program;
8—A provision allowing either party to void the agreement with ten days' written notice; and
9—The level of security access required by the volunteer (any security clearance required by the position will be managed by the Participating Organization and may or may not result in a delay in setting the volunteer's reporting date).
5. Expanded Initial Probationary Period. The original AcqDemo expanded initial probationary period covering periods of training beyond 1 year has been eliminated and replaced by the provisions of 10 U.S.C. 1599e (NDAA 2016 (Pub. L. 114-92), section 1105, Required Probationary Period for New Employees of the Department of Defense). 10 U.S.C. 1599e requires a two-year probationary period for “. . . any individual appointed to a permanent position within the competitive service at the Department of Defense . . .” Use of this provision will be required for Participating Organizations.
6. Staffing Within AcqDemo.
a. Expanded Supervisory and/or Managerial Probationary Periods. New supervisors, that is, those who have not previously completed a civil service supervisory probationary period, will be required to complete a one-year probationary period for the initial appointment to a supervisory position. An additional supervisory probationary period of one year may be required when an employee is officially assigned to a different supervisory position that constitutes a major change in supervisory responsibilities from any previously held supervisory position,
b. Internal AcqDemo Assignment Process. Today's environment of downsizing and workforce transition mandates that the organization have maximum flexibility to assign individuals. The AcqDemo waivers to title 5 U.S.C. and title 5 CFR enable organizations to have the maximum flexibility under the broadbanding structure to assign an employee within broad descriptions, consistent with the needs of the organization and the individual's qualifications. Employees may receive subsequent organizational assignments to projects, tasks, or functions within their broadband level requiring the same occupational series, level and area of expertise, knowledge, skills, abilities, competencies, qualifications, and DAWIA certification, as appropriate, as their current position and typically without change in their rate of basic pay. For instance, a technical expert can be assigned to any project, task, or function requiring similar technical expertise. Likewise, a manager could be assigned to manage any similar function or organization consistent with that individual's qualifications. Assignments generally may be accomplished as Realignments using Nature of Action Code 790 and do not constitute a position change. However, if the assignment results in an occupational series change; broadband level change; change to competencies, knowledge, skills, or abilities; change in acquisition certification levels; change in official duty station; or change to a different agency, a different Nature of Action Code, an official SF-50, and/or Defense Civilian Personnel Data System (DCPDS) data field updates may be required by the OPM
c. Expanded Detail and Temporary Promotion Authority. Current regulations require that temporary promotions and details for more than 120 days to higher broadband level positions than an employee currently holds or previously held must be made competitively. Under the demonstration project, AcqDemo Participating Organizations would be able to effect temporary promotions and details to higher broadband level positions than AcqDemo employees currently hold or previously held without competition as long as the temporary promotion, detail, or a combination of a detail and temporary promotion does not exceed one year within a 24-month period to positions within the demonstration project. If any detail and/or temporary promotion is needed beyond one year, competition is required. In addition, renewing the detail or temporary promotion in 120-day or other short-term renewals is waived under this demonstration project.
d. Exceptions to Competition. The following actions are exceptions from competitive procedures:
(1) Non-competitive Movements Involving Promotion:
(a) Promotion, re-promotion, reassignment, change to a lower broadband level, transfer, or reinstatement to an AcqDemo position in a broadband level having a referenced GS grade or level of work and no greater promotion potential than the GS grade or level of work and promotion potential of the position a reinstatement candidate held or an employee currently holds or previously held on a permanent basis in the competitive service.
(b) Promotion without current competition when the employee was appointed through competitive procedures to a position with a documented GS career ladder position or target pay band/broadband level or promotion potential equivalent to a referenced GS grade or level of work in a higher broadband level than the employee's current position.
(c) A temporary promotion or detail of an AcqDemo employee to a position in
(d) A promotion resulting from the correction of an initial classification error or the issuance of a new classification standard.
(2) Other Non-Competitive Movements
(a) Movement of a graded employee to a broadband level containing a referenced grade the same as the employee's current grade or grade previously held and pay setting rules the same as upon initial conversion of an organization. The pay setting rules provide an adjustment to an employee's basic pay for a WGI Buy-in, if eligible. Competition is normally required to set pay at a higher rate than the WGI Buy-in. In any case, the employee's basic pay shall not exceed the basic pay range of the new broadband level.
(b) Movement is to a position in a broadband level having a referenced GS grade or level of work equal to that of the employee's current position and no promotion potential. For example: Employee's current position is a GS-318-7 without promotion potential and the employee is moving to an NK-318-II position which contains the GS-7 as the highest grade and offers no promotion potential; or
(c) Movement is to a position in a broadband level having a referenced range of GS grades or levels of work containing that of the employee's current position with no potential to a higher broadband level. For example: Employee's current position is a GS-1102-12 with potential to a full performance level of GS-1102-13 and the employee is moving to an NH-1102-III position which contains both the referenced GS-12 and the referenced full performance level of GS-13 without further promotion potential to a higher referenced GS grade found in the NH-IV broadband level; or
(d) Referenced GS grade or level of work or potential of the new position is no greater than the GS grade or level of work of a position previously held by the employee on a permanent basis in the competitive service. For example: Employee held a competitive service GS-855-7 position with potential to GS-855-11 from May 1, 2012 to April 30, 2014 and is returned to an NH-855-II position on July 6, 2015 which contains the range of referenced GS grades (GS-7 through 11) and levels of work without potential to a higher referenced GS grade found in the NH-III broadband level; or
(e) Movement is to an AcqDemo position from a different pay banded demonstration project with referenced GS grades of selectee's current payband position split between two AcqDemo broadband levels without further promotion potential. For example: Employee's current position is an Engineering Technician, Pay Band DT-IV (includes referenced GS grades 11 and 12). Candidate being considered for either an AcqDemo NJ-802-III position containing referenced GS grades 9 and 11 or an NJ-802-IV position containing referenced GS grades 12 and 13. Candidate could be placed non-competitively in the NJ-802-III position but would need to compete for the NJ-802-IV as this broadband level includes a referenced GS grade which is higher than the highest referenced GS grade included in the payband from which the candidate is moving.
(3) A position change permitted by demonstration project reduction-in-force procedures.
(4) Consideration of a candidate not given proper consideration in a prior competitive promotion action under the demonstration project.
(5) Conversion of an AcqDemo employee from a modified term appointment to a permanent appointment in the same broadband level and occupational family as the modified term position.
(6) Addition of supervisory duties within the assigned broadband level.
(7) Reclassification to include impact of person in the job or an accretion of duty promotion.
(8) Any other non-competitive action as authorized under 5 CFR 335.103.
(1) Employee Separations Primarily on the Basis of Performance. For any RIF of civilians covered by the AcqDemo within DoD, the determination as to which employees will be separated from employment will be made primarily on the basis of performance.
(2) Title 10 U.S.C. Section 1597. AcqDemo Participating Organizations, in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 1597, may not implement any involuntary reduction or furlough of civilians and may not implement any substantial reduction of contract operations or contract employment (involving 100 or more people) during a fiscal year, until the expiration of the 45-day period beginning on the date that the Component for the Participating Organization submits to Congress a report setting forth the reasons such reductions or furloughs are required and a description of any change in workload or position requirements that will result from same.
(3) Coordination with the Office of the USD(P&R). DoD Components of Participating Organizations will coordinate with the Office of the USD(P&R) (ATTN: Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Civilian Personnel Policy) regarding any proposed involuntary reduction or furlough of civilians or any substantial reduction of contract operations or contract employment (involving 100 or more people) during a fiscal year. The coordination process must occur before any notification to an employee or member of the public regarding such action, release of information to an employee or the public, or notification to a Member or Committee of Congress, or their staffs, or other executive branch agencies.
(4) Minimizing the need for RIF as a result of Workforce Reshaping. The Heads of Participating Organizations will consider and employ every reasonably available option, consistent with applicable policies and procedures, to mitigate the size of a proposed RIF, including job changes or retraining, the use of voluntary early retirement authority or voluntary separation incentive payments, hiring freezes, termination of temporary employees, reductions in work hours, curtailment of discretionary spending, and other pre-RIF placement activities for employees eligible for placement assistance and referral programs.
(5) RIF Procedures. If a RIF becomes necessary, RIF procedures will be used when an employee faces separation or downgrading due to lack of work, shortage of funds, reorganization, insufficient personnel ceiling, the exercise of re-employment or restoration rights, or furlough for more than 30 calendar or more than 22 discontinuous days. Generally, AcqDemo RIF shall be conducted according to the provisions of 5 CFR part 351, except as otherwise specified below:
(a) Competitive Areas. A competitive area establishes the boundaries within which employees compete for retention under AcqDemo RIF regulations. AcqDemo competitive areas may be refined beyond a given component or part of a component at a given geographic location. Generally, the geographic area of coverage will be the local commuting area. Once the geographic area is determined, additional factors will be introduced to ensure that there is sufficient flexibility within the competitive area to effect such reassignments and reallocations of work as necessary to carry out the mission of the organization with minimal disruptions. Typically, these additional factors could include such items as career path (pay plan), specific broadband level(s) within a career path,
(b) Master Retention List. Competitive service employees and excepted service employees are placed on separate Master Retention Lists which are established in accordance with this FRN. A Master Retention List contains the names and position information for all competing employees in the RIF competitive area ranked by tenure group category and within each category by three retention factors,
(c) Tenure Groups
1—Tenure Group Change. Tenure Groups I and II, as defined in 5 CFR 351.501(b) for competitive service and 5 CFR 351.502(b) for excepted service, have been combined into a new Tenure Group I for the competitive service and a new Tenure Group I for the excepted service. Tenure group III remains the same and will be listed below any Tenure Group I categories. Under AcqDemo, the conversion to permanent appointment of term employees (Tenure Group III) previously selected through competitive procedures, and who otherwise meet conditions required for such conversion, may be converted to permanent appointments (Tenure Group I), provided such conversions are effective not less than 90 days prior to the effective date of the RIF.
2—Tenure Group Categories
a—Competing employees within a competitive area are listed on a master retention list in one of two tenure groups: Tenure Group I includes all permanent career and career-conditional employees and Tenure Group III includes employees on Term Appointments. Tenure Group I is divided into three categories: Tenure Group I employees who have 12 months or more of assessed performance; Tenure Group I employees who have less than 12 months of assessed performance; and Tenure Group I employees who received an unacceptable performance appraisal as their most recent rating of record. Tenure Group III employees are also divided into three categories: Tenure Group III employees who have 12 months or more of assessed performance; Tenure Group III employees who have less than 12 months or more of assessed performance; and Tenure Group III employees who received an unacceptable performance appraisal as their most recent rating of record.
b—Periods of Assessed Performance. For purposes of AcqDemo RIF, employees are placed in one of two assessed performance categories: Employees with a period of assessed performance of less than 12 months and employees with a period of assessed performance of 12 months or more. An employee's period of assessed performance for RIF purposes will be the sum of the months of assessed performance associated with the employee's performance appraisals within the most recent four-year period preceding the “cutoff date” established for the RIF. Periods of time in a rating cycle for which an employee's performance was not assessed are not included in the employee's period of assessed performance. For example, if an employee receives a rating of record after serving 10 months of a 12-month appraisal cycle, the employee's period of assessed performance is “10 months” for that rating cycle.
(a) Retention Factors.
1—Average Annual Rating of Record. The average annual rating of record is the primary retention factor in determining which employees shall be separated from employment.
a—Rating of Record Criteria. A rating of record may be issued only in accordance with the AcqDemo appraisal cycle, other approved appraisal periods under AcqDemo, another DoD performance management program, or a performance management system used by another federal agency with which an employee was formerly employed. Ratings of record may not be issued solely for purposes of documenting performance in advance of a RIF. An employee's average annual rating of record for RIF purposes is the average of the ratings of record averages drawn from the two most recent annual CCAS ratings or other official ratings of record received by the employee within the four-year period preceding the “cutoff date” established for the RIF, except when the employee's most recent rating of record is “unacceptable.” When the most recent rating of record is “unacceptable,” only that rating of record will be considered for purposes of RIF. Other rating of record exceptions include the following situations:
i. Employees serving as fulltime union representatives or on a prolonged absence due to a work-related injury discussed in Section II.D.2(h)(5); and
ii. Employees who were absent for military service referred to in Section II.D.2(h)(6).
b—“Cutoff Date.” The “cutoff date” is the date after which no new rating of record will be considered for purposes of the RIF. The “cutoff date” established will be at least 60 days prior to the date of the issuance of RIF notices.
c—CCAS Ratings of Record. The CCAS average annual rating of record is the average of the averages obtained for each of the two most recent CCAS ratings of record (if less than two, the actual rating of record average) that determined the final performance appraisal level for each of the two most recent annual ratings of record in the four-year period preceding the “cutoff date” established for the RIF. The averages for the two CCAS ratings of record would be totaled and the sum divided by two to determine the average annual rating of record for RIF retention. The resulting quotient will be rounded to the nearest tenth of a decimal point. If the hundredths decimal is less than 0.05, the tenths decimal does not change. If the hundredths decimal is equal to or greater than 0.05, the tenths decimal is increased by “.1”.
d—Non-CCAS Ratings of Record. An employee may have a non-CCAS rating from another Federal organization as one or both of the two most recent
e—Employees without a Rating. Presumptive status ratings 1, 2, and 3 assigned pursuant to Section II.D.6.h will not be used for RIF purposes. In the event of a RIF, employees with less than 12 months of assessed performance within the most recent four-year period prior to a RIF “cutoff date” will be placed at the bottom of Tenure Group I—Less than 12 months of Assessed Performance.
f—CIP. Employees under a CIP are listed on the master retention list in their appropriate tenure group category until a decision is reached. If the decision is that the employees have improved to a fully successful level, the employees will continue to compete in their appropriate tenure group category with other employees whose average ratings of record are above unacceptable. If the decision results in an unacceptable rating of record, the employees are listed in Tenure Group 1—Current Unacceptable Rating of Record according to their retention standing and compete only within this tenure group
g—Unacceptable Ratings of Record. If an employee's most recent annual or other official rating of record,
2—Veterans' Preference. Competing employees are placed in a veterans' preference subgroup in accordance with the definitions in 5 CFR 351.501(c). The three veterans' preference subgroups are: AD (30% disabled veteran); A (a veteran who is eligible for veterans' preference for purposes of RIF, but is not eligible for placement in the AD category); and B (an employee not eligible for veterans' preference for purposes of RIF.)
3—Length of Service (DoD SCD-RIF). The DoD service computation date includes all creditable service under 5 CFR 351.503(a) and (b). Each AcqDemo Participating Organization is responsible for establishing the DoD SCD-RIF applicable to each employee competing for retention under this process. Additional service credit for outstanding and fully successful performance appraisals will not be calculated in the DoD SCD-RIF.
(e) Displacement. The AcqDemo RIF process has a single round of competition which replaces the traditional two-round (bump and retreat) process. Displacement is limited to an employee's current career path, broadband level, and one broadband level below that is within the employee's career path. Broadband level I employees would displace within their current broadband level I. Preference eligible employees with a compensable service connected disability of 30 percent or more may displace within the two broadband levels below their present broadband level within their career path not to exceed the equivalent of 5 GS grades below the employee's present GS grade-level equivalent. Broadband level I preference eligible employees with a compensable service connected disability of 30 percent or more can displace within their current broadband level. Offer of assignment shall be to the position that requires no reduction or the least possible reduction in broadband. Where more than one such position exists, the employee must be offered the position encumbered by the employee with the lowest retention standing.
(f) Qualifications for Assignment. An employee is qualified to displace another employee on the retention list if he or she meets the designated standards and requirements in 5 CFR 351.702, including DAWIA certification, if applicable, for the position. (However, statutory waivers shall continue to apply.) Recency of experience may be used, when appropriate, to determine an employee's proper placement. The “undue disruption” standard currently outlined in 5 CFR 351.203 will serve as the criteria to determine if an employee is fully qualified.
(g) Pay Retention. Employees covered by the demonstration are not eligible for grade retention. Pay retention will be granted to employees downgraded by reduction in force whose rate of basic pay exceeds the maximum basic pay range of the broadband level to which assigned. Such employees will be entitled to retain the rate of basic pay received immediately before the reduction, not to exceed 150% of the maximum salary of the lower broadband level.
(h) Appeals. Under the demonstration project, all employees affected by a reduction-in-force action, other than a reassignment, maintain the right to appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) if they believe the process/procedures were not properly applied.
(i) Vacant Positions. Prior to RIF, employees may be offered a vacant position in the same broadband as the highest broadband available by displacement. Employees may also be offered placement into vacant positions for which management has waived the qualifications requirements. When an AcqDemo Participating Organization chooses to fill a vacancy with an employee who will be released from his/her position, the organization must consider the relative retention standing of all released employees. The vacant position must be offered to the released employee with the highest retention standing before offering a position to a released employee with a lower retention standing. If the employee is not placed into a vacant position and cannot be made an offer of assignment via displacement, the employee shall be separated.
(j) Interim RIF Process. In the event a RIF is necessary after the final FRN is published but before a rating of record with an average score can be established for employees in the competitive area pursuant to this FRN, the USD(P&R) may approve an interim RIF process.
AcqDemo inspires the use of a compensation strategy that utilizes all available and appropriate compensation
The DoD AcqDemo Program Office will issue policy and guidance on pay setting. Participating Organizations are encouraged, through their Personnel Policy Boards to issue internal guidance and/or criteria to further define their compensation policy and processes based upon funding levels; qualifications and experience of selectees; market conditions; difficulty of position; and organizational level of position to ensure standard application.
Modifications to the AcqDemo pay administration guidance, processes, and/or procedures may be made by the DoD AcqDemo Program Manager as experience is gained, economic conditions change, results are analyzed, and conclusions are reached. Any supplemental policies, guidance, and procedures on pay setting (and modifications to those policies, guidance, and procedures) issued by the DoD AcqDemo Program Office and Participating Organizations will adhere to the pay administration provisions and waivers in this
A primary goal of AcqDemo is to compensate employees appropriately for their individual and organizational contribution to the mission of their organization and the value of their position. This goal promotes greater compensation for those who are the highest contributors; encouragement for the lowest contributors to improve; and appropriate compensation for all levels of contribution in between. Equal with the need to appropriately recognize and compensate employee contribution is the need to effectively manage the compensation levels of the AcqDemo organizational positions.
Upon initial mass conversion into the AcqDemo, an organization's position management structure rarely changes even though positions may be placed in a broadband level that indicates the availability of a higher maximum basic pay. For example, a GS-5 Mail Clerk full performance position may convert into the NK-II broadband level which contains referenced GS grades 5-7. However, depending upon an organization's position management structure and assessment of the difficulty, scope, and value of the position, the organization may develop a compensation strategy (
Although each position contained within a broadband level could have access to the complete range of pay options, it does not mean that all jobs within that broadband level should be compensated at the top rate of basic pay of the broadband level. Instead, management decisions should be made about the appropriate compensation value of the organization's position management structure, based on factors such as level of effort, required skills and/or certifications, and labor market conditions. Once made, management should seek to maintain that level of compensation, unless changes occur in the stated compensation factors. Total pay set above or below the target basic pay is contingent upon the employee's overall contribution to the mission. This approach challenges the organization to consider the value identified for each position when determining an appropriate level and means of compensation (basic pay adjustment and/or award) for individual compensation.
Although broadbanding makes available a broader range of compensation choices, basic pay adjustments known within AcqDemo as Contribution Rating Increase (CRI) adjustments, are not the sole means to compensate employees, and in some cases are not the recommended means. As the compensation value of organizational positions are identified, managers should consider utilizing appropriate means to preserve those values. Compensation methodologies include the assignment of a maximum OCS, to coincide with the identified compensation value. A CRI resulting from the assignment of an OCS assumes the level of contribution, and associated basic pay, is expected to continue at least at that level and will be reflected in the employee's Contribution Plan for future assessment cycles. These scores or values should be identified against PRDs, and then considered during hiring actions and in determining compensation means to recognize contribution assessments. Means to preserve the identified compensation values may include the establishment of control points or pay ranges within a broadband level. When compared to their counterparts in other compensation systems,
The calendar year aggregate limitation on pay under 5 U.S.C. 5307 and 5 CFR part 530, subpart B, of the rate payable for level I of the Executive Schedule applies to employees. In addition, the maximum rate of basic pay for each broadband level will be limited to the maximum rate of basic pay for the highest referenced grade covered by the
AcqDemo will not utilize OPM derived special rates. Employees on special rates at the time of conversion of their organization into AcqDemo will have their pay protected under the provisions of Section II.F of this notice. New hires, reinstatement eligibles, and non-AcqDemo Federal civilian employees entering an AcqDemo position not as the result of a conversion will have pay set in accordance with Section II.C.9 of this notice.
a. Definitions.
(1) AcqDemo Employees. A promotion occurs when an AcqDemo employee moves from his/her current broadband level to a higher broadband level within the same career path (
(2) Non-AcqDemo Employee Entering the Demo. A promotion action occurs:
(a) When a current non-AcqDemo employee in a graded system is selected for an AcqDemo position in a broadband level which includes referenced grades with higher basic pay than the selectee's current grade, or
(b) When a current non-AcqDemo employee in a paybanded system is selected for a position in an AcqDemo broadband level which includes referenced GS grade(s) with higher basic pay than the highest referenced grade included in the current payband from which the selectee is moving.
b. Setting Pay. When setting pay for a promotion action, either permanent or temporary, consideration must be given to both the value of the position and the selectee's expected level of contribution in the new position. The basic pay for a permanent or temporary promotion action will be set within the broadband level for the employee's new position, starting at 0% and not to exceed 20% of the employee's current basic pay. However, if the minimum rate of the employee's new broadband level is more than 20 percent greater than his/her current basic pay, then the minimum rate of the new broadband level is the new basic pay. The employee's basic pay shall not exceed the maximum basic pay range of the new broadband level.
c. Temporary Promotion Basic Pay Adjustment Guidelines.
(1) Upon Termination. When a temporary promotion is terminated, an employee's pay entitlements will be re-determined based on the employee's permanent position of record with appropriate adjustments to reflect any CCAS ratings,
(2) When Made Permanent. If a temporary promotion is made permanent immediately after the temporary promotion ends, the temporary promotion is converted to a permanent promotion without a change in basic pay. If there is any period of time between the end of an employee's temporary promotion and the beginning of a permanent promotion, the employee must be returned to his/her permanent position and his/her permanent position's rate of basic pay recomputed as if the employee had never been temporarily promoted. Also, at the organization's discretion and if eligible, pay may be set in the permanent position based on a rate received under the temporary promotion if that would yield a higher basic pay rate. However, the higher basic pay rate may not exceed the basic pay range of the new broadband level. Whatever method is used, the resulting rate is the basis for any subsequent promotion.
a. Calculation. Retained pay under AcqDemo is the combined basic pay and locality pay compared to the maximum rate of the highest applicable rate range that applies to the highest referenced GS grade included in the broadband level of an employee's new position. If the retained rate is greater than the maximum rate of the highest applicable rate range for the new position, an employee continues to be entitled to the existing retained rate. If the retained rate is equal to or less than the maximum rate of the highest applicable rate range for the new position, the payable rate of basic pay is converted to the employee's new AcqDemo basic pay rate and appropriate locality pay, and retained pay terminates.
b. Pay Adjustments. Employees on retained pay in the demonstration project are to be treated as GS employees and will receive pay adjustments in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 5363 and 5 CFR part 536 except under the following provisions: (1) Pay retention provisions do not apply to conversions from General Schedule special rates to demonstration project pay, as long as total pay is not reduced; (2) pay retention provisions do not apply to movements to a lower broadband level as a result of not receiving the general increase due to a contribution assessment, either annual or interim, of “Unacceptable” for the most recent contribution appraisal cycle; and (3) an employee on pay retention whose most recent annual or interim contribution assessment is “Unacceptable” may have the 50 percent of the amount of the increase in the maximum rate of basic pay payable for the broadband level of the employee's position reduced or denied. An employee receiving retained pay is not eligible for a CCAS contribution rating increase, since such increases are limited by the maximum basic pay rate for the employee's broadband level. Depending upon the employee's CCAS assessment, employees on retained pay may be eligible to receive a CCAS contribution award.
c. Promotion from Retained Pay. When an employee on retained pay is promoted to a higher broadband level, the employee's basic pay upon promotion will be set in the higher broadband level: (1) Not to exceed 20 percent of the maximum basic pay of the employee's existing broadband level as determined by AcqDemo internal policies, or (2) at the employee's existing retained rate, whichever is greater. The final basic pay should align with the position's value (its target basic pay) and the employee's expected contribution in the position.
d. Adverse Action or Contribution-based Reduction in Pay to Include Change to Lower Broadband Level and/or Change in Career Path. An employee may receive an involuntary reduction in broadband level with or without a reduction in basic pay; an involuntary reduction in basic pay within his/her existing broadband level and career path; and/or an involuntary move to a new position in a different career path due to an adverse or contribution-based
e. Change to Lower Broadband Level/Change in Career Path, Other Than by Adverse or Contribution-Based Action. If an employee is subject to an involuntary change to a lower broadband level/change in career path by other than an adverse or contribution-based action, such as a reclassification of his/her position, the employee is entitled to pay retention if all conditions in title 5 U.S.C. 5363 and 5 CFR part 536, subparts A and C are met.
f. Reduction-in-Force (RIF) Action (Including Employees Who are Offered and Accept a Vacancy at a Lower Broadband Level or in a Different Career Path). The employee is entitled to pay retention in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 5363 and 5 CFR part 536, subpart A.
The GS base rates may be adjusted each January under the provisions in 5 U.S.C. 5303. Under AcqDemo, the minimum and maximum basic pay rate of each broadband level will be adjusted at the same time as this GPI. The amount of the increase calculated for an organization's AcqDemo employees will be based on the amount of any GPI and is allocated for use in that organization's pay pool fund and disbursed to employees based upon their contribution assessments under the CCAS as described in Section II.D.2.d(2).
All employees will be entitled to the locality pay authorized for their official worksite in accordance with 5 CFR part 531, subpart F, if eligible. In addition, the locality-adjusted pay of any employee may not exceed the rate for Executive Level IV. Geographic movement within the demonstration project will result in the employee's locality pay being recomputed using the newly applicable locality pay percentage, which may result in a higher or lower locality pay and thus, a higher or lower adjusted basic pay. This adjustment is not an adverse action.
a. New Hires. For new hires who are receiving their first Federal government appointment as a civilian employee, initial basic pay will be set within the basic pay range for the broadband level of the position for which hired at a level consistent with the individual's qualifications and the level of work and contribution expected for the position at the time of hire. Other considerations in determining starting basic pay are available labor market conditions relative to special qualifications requirements, scarcity of qualified applicants, programmatic urgency, and education/experience of new selectees.
b. Reinstatement Eligible Hires. For reinstatement eligibles, initial basic pay will be set within the basic pay range for the broadband level of the position for which hired giving consideration to the various criteria mentioned for new hires from outside the AcqDemo. AcqDemo Highest Previous Rate (HPR) as defined in Section II.C.13 and AcqDemo internal guidance may provide an appropriate tool for establishing basic pay in this instance. Reinstatement eligibility refers to the ability for those individuals who previously held a career or career-conditional appointment to apply for jobs in the competitive Federal service open to status applicants.
c. Non-AcqDemo Federal Civilian Employees Voluntarily Joining AcqDemo. Federal employees entering into the AcqDemo from a graded system,
(1) Lateral Transfers, Reassignments, and Realignments
(a) Employees in Graded Systems. Individual employees in graded systems, (
(b) Non-GS Employees. Federal employees in other pay systems,
(2) Temporary Reassignments Not To Exceed (NTE)
Current AcqDemo authorities do not provide authority for Temporary Reassignments NTE to, from, or within AcqDemo. However, if a Component or agency has established a Temporary Reassignment NTE Nature of Action Code, it may be used to move non-AcqDemo employees into AcqDemo, move AcqDemo employees out of AcqDemo to a non-AcqDemo organization, and move AcqDemo employees within AcqDemo, but no WGI Buy-in or Career Ladder Promotion Buy-in is authorized for any of these personnel actions.
a. Movement within a Broadband Level. The movement of an employee's basic pay in relation to the minimum and maximum basic pay range for his/her position's broadband level is determined by the assessment of the employee's contributions through the CCAS, Section II.D, or Accelerated Compensation for Developmental Positions (ACDP), Section II.C.11.
b. Change to Lower Broadband Level or Different Career Path. When an employee accepts a voluntary change to a lower broadband level or a different career path, basic pay may be set at any point within the broadband level to which assigned, except that the new basic pay will not exceed the employee's current basic pay or the maximum basic pay of the broadband level to which assigned, whichever is lower. Upon request for or acceptance of a change to a lower broadband level or different career path, the employee will be required to provide a written
a. AcqDemo will implement ACDP to provide recognition for employees in DAWIA-coded positions and those in positions requiring 51% or more of time in direct support of acquisition positions in a critical acquisition career field classified to Broadband Levels I, II, and III of the Business and Technical Management Professional Career Path who:
(1) Are participating in formal training programs, internships, or other developmental capacities; and
(2) Have demonstrated successful or better growth and development in the attainment of job-related competencies; and
(3) Have demonstrated effective accomplishment of a level of work higher than that represented by an AcqDemo employee's Expected Overall Contribution Score (set by current basic pay) under CCAS.
b. Standards by which ACDP increases will be provided and development criteria by which additional basic pay increases may be given will be established in combination with the CCAS and documented in internal business rules, policies, and procedures.
c. ACDPs may be awarded twice per CCAS appraisal cycle but not sooner than six months after the effective date of an ACDP for a basic pay increase ranging from 0% not to exceed a 10% increase and a growth in the employee's Overall Contribution Score. The amount of the ACDP increase may not cause the employee's basic pay to exceed the top of the employee's broadband level, the target pay for the employee's maximum broadband level, or compensation strategy set by internal business rules, policies, or procedures for both the position's value and employee contributions.
d. ACDPs will not be funded from pay pool allocations. A general O&M budget allocation or equivalent for civilian salaries, as appropriate, would be used to cover ACDP basic pay increases.
a. Supervisory and team leader cash differentials may be used by Heads of Participating Organizations as an additional tool to incentivize and compensate supervisors and team leaders as defined by the OPM
(1) Organizational level and scope, difficulty, and value of position warrants additional compensation;
(2) Supervisory and/or team leader positions are extremely difficult to fill; or
(3) Salary inequities may exist between the supervisor's or team leader's and non-supervisory/non-team leader subordinates' basic pay.
b. A supervisory cash differential may not exceed 10 percent of basic pay and a team leader cash differential may not exceed 5 percent of basic pay. A cash differential is not paid from pay pool funds; is not included as part of basic pay for entitlement calculations (
c. Payment criteria to be considered in determining the amount of the cash differential will be outlined in internal implementing issuances and will contain considerations such as the needs of the organization to attract, retain, and motivate high-quality supervisors and team leaders; budgetary constraints; years and quality of related experience and current level of compensation; length of the assignment and difficulty of the supervisory or team leader duties; organizational level of the position; and impact on the organization.
d. The cash differentials are not automatic by virtue of holding a supervisory or team leader position. They will be used selectively, not routinely, to compensate only those supervisors and/or team leaders who fully meet the criteria. The contribution of supervisors and team leaders to the mission of their organization will be assessed separately under the CCAS.
AcqDemo HPR may be considered in setting pay in placement actions authorized under rules that are consistent with those found in 5 CFR 531.221 through 531.223 as described in AcqDemo internal policy and guidance. Use of AcqDemo HPR will be at the discretion of the Head of the Participating Organization and subject to policies established by the organization's senior leaders and/or Personnel Policy Board. AcqDemo HPR allows a Participating Organization to set pay for an AcqDemo employee at a rate above the rate that would be established using normal AcqDemo rules, based on a higher rate of basic pay the employee received previously in another Federal job. The AcqDemo HPR may be used for reemployment, transfer, reassignment, promotion, demotion, change in type of appointment, termination of a critical position pay authority under 5 CFR part 535, movement from a non-GS pay system, or termination of grade or pay retention under 5 CFR part 536.
The participating AcqDemo organizations may make full use of the recruitment, retention, and relocation incentive payments under 5 U.S.C. 5753 and 5754; OPM's regulations at 5 CFR part 575, subparts A through C; and any supplemental policy guidance.
To provide additional flexibility in motivating and rewarding individuals and groups, some portion of a Participating Organization's award budget will be reserved for special acts and other categories as they occur. Awards may include, but are not limited to, special acts, patents, invention awards, suggestions, and on-the-spot. The funds available to be used for these traditional title 5 U.S.C. awards are separately allocated within the constraints of the organization's budget. The Service Acquisition Executives of AcqDemo Participating Organizations will have the authority to grant special act awards to covered employees not to exceed $25,000 in accordance with the criteria established by DoD, Component, or Agency instructions.
The purpose of the CCAS is to provide an equitable and flexible method for appraising and compensating the DoD civilian
CCAS is a contribution-based appraisal system that goes beyond a performance-based rating system. That is, it emphasizes and measures the value and effectiveness of the employee's contribution to the mission and goals of the organization, rather than merely how well the employee performed a job as defined by a set of standards for the work to be accomplished. Past experience with the existing civilian performance appraisal system indicates that standards in performance plans are often tailored to the individual's level of previous performance. Hence, an employee may have been rewarded by basic pay step increases meeting standards of performance beneath those actually needed to achieve the expected organizational mission outcomes. Under CCAS, an employee's performance is a component of contribution that influences the employee's ultimate overall expectations and contribution assessment. CCAS promotes basic pay adjustment decisions made on the basis of an individual's overall annual contribution to the mission of the organization when compared to the classification and appraisal factors and an employee's contribution plan, expected results, and the scope, level of difficulty, and value of the employee's position. The three key components of CCAS are the appraisal process, the Integrated Pay Schedule as a mechanism to relate contribution to pay, and the compensation adjustment results.
a.
b.
c.
d.
(2)
1—Is based on the organizational structure and should include a range of salaries and contribution levels;
2—Should be large enough to constitute a reasonable size,
3—Should be large enough to include a second level of supervision, since the CCAS process uses a group of supervisors in the pay pool to determine OCS and recommended basic pay adjustments; and
4—May have the pay pool manager as a member of the pay pool. However, the pay pool manager shall not directly influence or participate in the determination of his/her own contribution assessments, recommend his/her own individual basic pay levels, or establish the amount of his/her own individual basic pay levels. Also, the supervisors within the pay pool shall not directly influence or participate in the determination of their own contribution assessments, recommend their own individual basic pay levels, or establish the amount of their own individual basic pay levels.
(b)
(c)
1—General Pay Increase (GPI). The GPI is the across-the-board basic pay increase authorized by law or the President for the GS under 5 U.S.C. 5303. The funds allocated for the GPI that are not awarded may be transferred to either the CRI Fund or the Contribution Award (CA) Fund or divided among them barring any higher authority restrictions.
2—CRI Fund. The CRI fund includes what are WGIs, quality step increases, and promotions between grades encompassed in the same broadband level. The maximum CRI funding allocation will be set each year by the DoD AcqDemo Program Manager with a minimum funding of not less than 2.0 percent of the activity's total basic pay budget. This figure will be adjusted by the DoD AcqDemo Program Manager as necessary to maintain cost discipline over the life of the demonstration project. The amount of funding available to each pay pool is determined annually by the Personnel Policy Board, or equivalent. CRI funds not awarded may be transferred to the CA fund based on DoD AcqDemo Program Office Guidance. In the event of an out-of-cycle payout, this funding floor may be suspended.
3—CA Fund. The CA Fund includes what were formerly performance awards and will be used for awards given under the CCAS process. The CA funding allocation will be set at not less than 1.0 percent of an activity's total adjusted basic pay budget. A minimum of 10% of the CA fund is withheld to be used for other awards not related to the CCAS process,
e. Feedback during the Appraisal Cycle. Ongoing supervisor (or designated rating official) and employee discussion during the appraisal cycle of specific work assignments, objectives, contribution expectations, strengths, weaknesses, and the employee's contribution results, and assessment of the quality of performance within the CCAS framework is essential. This must include discussion of any inadequate contribution and quality of performance in one or more of the factors. Approximately midway through each appraisal cycle, a midpoint assessment is conducted. The supervisor and employee will meet to discuss progress. The employee is highly encouraged to complete a midpoint assessment and the supervisor will complete a midpoint assessment. CAS2Net will contain a function to capture the midpoint assessments of both the employee (if provided) and supervisor.
f. Evaluation at the Conclusion of the Appraisal Cycle. The CCAS, using a holistic approach, provides a process that evaluates the scope of work, level of difficulty, value of position and contributions, performance rating levels, and quality of an employee's efforts in achieving contribution results. This methodology fosters consistency and equity in contribution assessments. It also offers the employee and supervisor an opportunity to address accomplishments from an all-inclusive approach. Employees are highly encouraged to complete an annual self-assessment. The supervisor will complete an annual assessment.
(a) Contribution Scores. Rating officials use the Integrated Pay Schedule design to assess the contribution level of work against the employee's current compensation level indicated by the employee's EOCS. Each factor will receive two types of scores, the categorical score and a numerical score. At the end of the annual appraisal period, the rating official determines preliminary categorical and numerical scores. The categorical score is determined by comparing an employee's
(b) Contribution Scoring Process. The process for scoring a factor begins by assessing an employee's contributions and his/her results during the appraisal cycle in relation to his/her contribution plan, the factor descriptors, discriminators, and expected contribution criteria for the broadband level of the employee's position; and the assessment of quality of performance. At the end of the appraisal cycle, the rating official meets with his/her employees, requesting them to summarize the impact and quality of their contributions against the factor descriptions, expected contribution criteria, and the objectives and expectations described in their contribution plans. From employee input, customer feedback, his/her own knowledge, and other sources, the rating official assigns, from the appropriate career path broadband or very high score level for the employee's position, a preliminary categorical score. This step is repeated for each of the three factors.
During the pay pool panel process, panel members will assign a numerical score (or validate the preliminary numerical score) from the numerical score range appropriate for the chosen categorical score for each factor by considering contributions (documented and addressed by panel members) against the factor level descriptors and discriminators, expected contribution criteria, the contribution plan, the quality of performance criteria, and the impact of the contributions on the organization. If the employee's contributions are awarded a very high score, the score must be one of the three numerical scores assigned to the very high score level for the employee's career path. At the discretion of the Pay Pool Manager, different weights may be applied to the factors to produce a weighted average, provided that the weights are applied uniformly across the pay pool and employees are advised in advance,
(a) Appraisal Criteria. 10 U.S.C. 1597(f) requires the determination of which DoD employees shall be separated from employment in a reduction in force to be made primarily on the basis of performance. In order to comply with 10 U.S.C. 1597(f), the CCAS has been modified to embrace the quality of performance an employee demonstrates in achieving his/her expected contribution results through an assessment of performance under each of the three contribution factors. Three performance appraisal levels are provided as shown in Table 3 below together with generic quality criteria. The performance level to be assigned to
(b) Performance Appraisal Process. The quality of performance appraisal is conducted in conjunction with the contribution scoring process. As the rating official considers such items as the employee's self-assessment, feedback, and personal observations in preparation for assigning preliminary CCAS categorical scores, he/she will also assess the quality of the employee's performance in achieving his/her contribution results under each of the three contribution factors. A preliminary performance appraisal level of either Level 5—Outstanding, Level 3—Fully Successful, or Level 1—Unacceptable from Table 3 will be assigned by the rating official to each of the three contribution factors. The three performance appraisal levels are averaged to calculate the annual rating of record. The resulting quotient will be rounded to the nearest tenth of a decimal point. If the hundredths and thousandths places of the decimal reflect forty-nine or less, they are dropped and the tenths place does not change. If the hundredths and thousandths places of the decimal is fifty or more, they are dropped and the tenths place is increased by “.1”. The final average will then reflect the employee's overall job performance during the appraisal cycle based on the rating criteria outlined in Table 4.
During the pay pool panel process, panel members will review the preliminary performance appraisal level justifications for the contribution factors and rating of record for all pay pool members for consistency and equity of application within the pay pool population before final approval. The average raw score of the three appraisal levels and the approved annual rating of record will be recorded in the DCPDS. The annual rating of record will be recorded as a Level 5—Outstanding, Level 3—Fully Successful, or Level 1—Unacceptable.
g. Pay Pool Panel Responsibilities. The pay pool panel meets at key points in the assessment process,
The pay pool panel members are encouraged to include initial rating officials in the process to ensure equity and consistency in the scoring, ranking, and appraisal of all employees and establish local policies and procedures to guide the inclusion of these officials in a uniform manner. Together, with the Pay Pool Manager, the pay pool panel members determine a consistent approach to involving initial rating officials in the process.
Final approval of OCS, compensation adjustments, and ratings of record rests with the Pay Pool Manager, the individual within the organization responsible for managing the CCAS process. Rating officials will communicate the supervisor assessment, factor scores, OCS, quality
h. Special Circumstances affecting a CCAS Assessment. When an employee cannot be evaluated readily by the normal CCAS appraisal process due to special circumstances that take the individual away from normal duties or duty station (
(1) Use available observations and documentation to prepare an assessment and determine a recommended OCS and an appropriate CCAS quality of performance appraisal level; or
(2) Assign a Presumptive—Status 1: New AcqDemo hires with less than the necessary time to receive an actual CCAS contribution assessment.
(3) Assign a Presumptive—Status 2: Presume the employee is contributing consistently with his/her EOCS representative of his/her basic pay level by recommending the EOCS for the OCS and Level 3—Fully Successful rating of record; or
(4) Assign a Presumptive—Status 3: Recommend the pay pool panel re-certify the employee's last contribution assessment OCS if greater than the current EOCS and the last CCAS rating of record if higher than the expected rating of record performance appraisal level. [Option (3) is not available (a) for first year AcqDemo assessments and/or (b) for employees who have changed broadband levels during the assessment period.]
(5) Assign a Presumptive—Status 4: Prolonged Absence Due to Work-related Injury or Fulltime Union Representation Duties. A Presumptive—Status 4 may be used as a rating of record for purposes of RIF for those periods in which an employee did not receive a performance appraisal due to a prolonged absence resulting from a work-related injury approved for compensation pursuant to an Office of Workers' Compensation Program or while performing the duties of a fulltime union representative. Presumptive—Status 4 is limited to only periods of time for which the employee has no rating of record under any performance management system within the four-year period preceding the “cutoff date” established for the RIF. A Presumptive—Status 4 presumes the employee is contributing consistently with his/her EOCS representative of his/her basic pay level by recommending the EOCS for the OCS and an overall Level 3—Fully Successful rating of record.
(6) Assign a Presumptive—Status 5: Employees Absent for Military Service. Employees who are absent for military service will receive a CCAS assessment and be assigned a rating of record provided they have performed work in an AcqDemo position under an approved CCAS contribution plan for a minimum of 90 calendar days. If an employee absent for military service has not performed work under an approved contribution plan for a minimum of 90 days and has no rating of record under any performance management system within the previous four-year period, the employee will be presumed to be contributing consistently with his/her EOCS representative of his/her basic pay level and will receive the rating of record most frequently given among the actual ratings of record in the same competitive area. Employees performing military service who do not meet the 90-calendar day requirement but have a rating of record under any performance management system within the four-year period preceding the RIF “cutoff date” will receive a CCAS rating of record consistent with this previous rating of record and will be assigned their most recent rating of record as the new CCAS rating of record for the appraisal cycle.
3. Integrated Pay Schedule. The CCAS Integrated Pay Schedule (IPS), Figure 2, is the foundation for the basic pay structure under the demonstration project. It provides a direct link between increasing levels of contribution and increasing basic pay. The IPS covers basic pay only and is the same for all AcqDemo employees, career paths, and positions regardless of geographical location. The appropriate locality pay is added following the determination of basic pay.
a. IPS Horizontal Axis. The horizontal axis of the IPS represents the OCS available through contribution appraisals. The OCS span from a score of zero to the maximum OCS of 100, with a notional “very high score” level containing three scores to accommodate “very high scores” as appropriate for those employees in the top broadband level of their respective career paths. The “very high scores” of 105, 110, and 115 are provided for employees in Broadband Level IV of the Business and Technical Management Professional career path; “very high scores” of 87, 91, and 95 are provided for employees in Broadband Level IV of the Technical Management Support career path; and “very high scores” of 64, 67, and 70 are provided for employees in Broadband Level III of the Administrative Support career path.
b. IPS Vertical Axis. The vertical axis of the IPS spans from the highest basic pay of GS-15, step 10. This encompasses the full basic pay range (excluding locality pay) available under AcqDemo.
c. Normal Pay Region (NPR). The goal of CCAS is to make basic pay consistent with the scope, level, and difficulty of an employee's position and the value of his/her contributions to the mission of the organization. Within the full basic pay range embodied in the IPS vertical axis, an NPR was developed around a Standard Pay Line (SPL) to provide a mechanism to determine appropriate compensation. The NPR represents the area of the IPS where basic pay and value and level of contributions and position are assumed to be properly related and appropriately compensated. This relationship is represented by the marker where an employee's basic pay and OCS intersect in relation to the NPR and the SPL, the reference line for OCS.
(1) SPL. The SPL begins at an OCS of zero and the basic pay of a GS-1, Step 1, and terminates at an OCS of 100 and the basic pay of a GS-15, Step 10. Changes in OCS correspond to a constant percentage change in basic pay along the SPL. The constant percentage change (or SPL factor) used to arrange OCS evenly along the SPL in 100 increments, where 100 is the range of OCS points can be thought of as approximately a +2 percentage change in basic pay associated with a one score change in the OCS. The SPL factor for calendar year 2017 can be computed from the GS-15, Step 10 pay and the GS-1, Step 1 pay. The SPL factor for calendar year 2017 is 1.0200426. The SPL factor normally changes on an annual basis with any General Schedule base pay increase granted to the Federal civilian workforce.
(2) NPR. Employees whose annual OCS plotted against their basic pay falls on or within the upper and lower rails of the NPR are considered to be in the “Normal Pay” Region for basic pay adjustments. The upper and lower rails encompass an area of approximately 8 scores, or +/−8.0% from the SPL in terms of basic pay or approximately+/−4.0 in terms of scores, relative to the SPL. Given these constraints, the formulae for the NPR SPL and upper and lower rails found in Figure 2 are:
d. Overcompensated Region. Employees whose annual OCS when plotted against their basic pay falls above the upper rail of the NPR into the “overcompensated” region are considered overpaid for their level of contribution and compensation adjustments, and “unacceptable” for their contribution assessment. Typically, employees who are scored above the upper rail into the overcompensated region are not meeting contribution and performance expectations and will be placed on a CIP.
e. Undercompensated Region. Employees whose annual OCS when plotted against their basic pay falls below the lower rail of the NPR into the “undercompensated” region are considered underpaid for their level of contribution and position, in the “Undercompensated” Category for compensation adjustments, and have either a Level 5—Outstanding or Level 3—Fully Successful rating of record as part of their contribution assessment. These employees may expect to receive greater basic pay increases than those eligible employees who fall within the normal pay region.
f. Relation to Career Paths. The IPS and the NPR are the same for all the career paths. What varies among the career paths are the beginnings and endings of the broadband levels. The minimum and maximum numerical OCS values and associated basic pay for each broadband level by career path are provided in Table 5. These minimum and maximum breakpoints represent the lowest and highest GS base pay for the grades banded together and, therefore, the minimum and maximum basic pay possible under AcqDemo for each broadband level.
4. Compensation Adjustments. After the initial assignment into the CCAS, employees' yearly contributions and performance will be determined by the CCAS contribution assessment process described above, and their OCS versus their current rate of basic pay will be plotted on the IPS graph (Figure 3) to determine their compensation category. The marker at the intersection of the OCS vertical straight line with the current basic pay horizontal straight line respective to the Participating Organization's choice of target line,
a. Compensation Categories. Employees fall into one of the three compensation categories: Overcompensated, appropriately compensated, or undercompensated.
Depending on the category into which an employee's marker falls, he/she may be eligible for one to three forms of additional compensation. The pay pool panel has the option of awarding the employee up to and including the full General Pay Increase (as authorized by law or the President), a CRI (an increase in basic pay and/or a CRI carryover lump sum payment for the CRI basic pay amount that exceeds a control point in or the maximum basic pay of an employee's broadband level) and/or a contribution award (a lump sum payment that does not affect basic pay). In general, those employees whose marker plots in the undercompensated region of the IPS may receive greater percentage basic pay increases than those whose marker plots in the overcompensated region of the IPS. Employees on retained rate in the demonstration project will generally receive pay adjustments in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 5363 and 5 CFR part 536; however, the normal retained rate increase granted in connection with a general pay increase may be reduced or denied for an employee with an OCS above the upper rail and a performance appraisal of Level 1—Unacceptable. An employee receiving a retained rate is not eligible for a contribution rating increase, since such increases are limited by the maximum salary rate for the employee's broadband level. Over
b. Local Policy. Each Pay Pool Manager will set the necessary guidelines for pay adjustments in the pay pool based on guidance received from the organization's Personnel Policy Board, Head of the Participating Organization, and/or Component. Decisions will be consistent within the pay pool, reflect cost discipline over the life of the demonstration project, and be subject to review by Components and the DoD AcqDemo Project Office.
c. Documentation. Basic pay adjustments and cash awards will be documented by a SF-50, Notification of Personnel Action. The performance appraisal level is uploaded into DCPDS at the same time as the pay adjustments and cash awards. For historical and analytical purposes, the CCAS Appraisal Form, to include the contribution plan, employee self-assessment, supervisor annual assessment, effective date of CCAS assessments, annual performance appraisal level, contribution rating level, actual basic pay increases, and applicable “bonus” amounts, will be maintained for each demonstration project employee. Each Participating Organization shall provide for maintenance of contribution-related records for their employees for a minimum of four years, as required in 5 CFR 293.402 and 404.
a. Regulatory Coverage. This section applies to reassignment, reduction in broadband level with or without a reduction in pay; reduction in pay with or without a reduction in broadband level; or removal of demonstration project employees based solely on inadequate contribution. Inadequate contribution is identified by the employee's annual CCAS contribution assessment resulting in an OCS falling above the upper rail of the NPR (which normally occurs at either a −3 or −4 OCS or greater negative number) and an unacceptable rating of record, or the deterioration of an employee's contribution during the appraisal year such that, if rated, the employee would receive an OCS score above the upper rail of the NPR and an unacceptable performance appraisal level on at least one of the three contribution appraisal factors; or by a combination of these results. An inadequate contribution assessment in any one contribution factor at any time during the appraisal period is considered grounds for the initiation of a CIP that may result in reassignment, reduction in broadband level, reduction in pay, or removal action, hereafter referred to as contribution-based actions. The following procedures replace those established in 5 U.S.C. 4303 pertaining to reductions in grade or removal for unacceptable contribution except with respect to appeals of such actions. As is currently the situation for contribution-based actions taken under 5 U.S.C. 4303, inadequate contribution-based actions shall be sustained if the decision is supported by substantial evidence and the Merit Systems Protection Board shall not have mitigation authority with respect to such actions. The separate statutory authority to take inadequate contribution-based actions under 5 U.S.C. chapter 75, as modified in the waiver section of this notice (Section VII), remains unchanged by these procedures.
b. CIP. When a supervisor determines during or at the end of the appraisal period that an employee is not completing work assignments adequately, the supervisor must make a determination as to whether the employee is contributing inadequately in one or more of the contribution factors and/or quality of performance levels. All contribution factors are considered critical elements. A determination of inadequate contribution must be made by comparing the employee's contribution to the expected contribution criteria in the appraisal factors as well as the contribution expectations established in the employee's CCAS Contribution Plan covering the factors and fully successful performance.
If an employee's annual CCAS assessment or a contribution assessment during the appraisal year results in the need for a CIP, the supervisor must inform the employee, in writing, that he/she will be placed on a CIP and that, unless the employee's contribution increases such that the OCS would be scored in the NPR, contribution would be considered fully successful, and this level of effort is sustained, he/she may be subject to one of the previously listed contribution-based actions. If an employee is placed on a CIP near the end of the appraisal cycle, the CIP may not extend past October 31, with a decision rendered no later than November 15.
When the rating official informs the employee of possible contribution-based actions that may occur, the rating official will afford the employee a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate acceptable contribution and/or performance with regard to identifiable factors. A CIP must provide the employee this opportunity to demonstrate adequate contribution. The CIP will state the preliminary factor scores above the upper rail, how the employee's contribution and/or performance are inadequate, what improvements are required, recommendations on how to achieve adequate contribution and/or performance, assistance that the agency shall offer to the employee in improving inadequate contribution, and consequences of failure to improve.
Once an employee has been afforded a reasonable CIP opportunity to demonstrate adequate contribution and/or performance but fails to do so and receives an unacceptable rating of record based on the CIP, a reassignment, reduction in broadband level with or without a reduction in pay, reduction in pay with or without a reduction in broadband level, or removal action may be proposed in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 4303 and related OPM regulations under 5 CFR part 432. This unacceptable rating of record will be considered an official rating of record for RIF purposes whether it is issued during an appraisal cycle or as an annual rating of record. If it is an employee's most recent/current rating of record in the four-year period preceding a RIF, the employee would be listed on the Master Retention List in the category Tenure Group I—Current Unacceptable Performance Appraisal.
If the employee's contribution increases to an adequate level and is again determined to deteriorate in any factor within two years from the beginning of the opportunity period, actions may be initiated to effect a contribution-based action with no additional opportunity to improve. If an employee has contributed adequately for two years from the beginning of a CIP opportunity period, and the employee's overall contribution once again declines to an inadequate level, the employee will be afforded an additional opportunity to demonstrate adequate contribution before it is determined whether or not to propose a contribution-based action.
An employee who is subject to a proposed contribution-based action is entitled to a 30-day advance notice of the proposed action that identifies specific instances of inadequate contribution by the employee on which the action is based. The employee will be afforded a reasonable time to answer the notice of proposed action orally and/or in writing.
A decision to pursue a contribution-based action on an employee for inadequate contribution may be based only on those instances of inadequate contribution that occurred during the two-year period ending on the date of issuance of the proposed action. The employee will be issued written notice at or before the time the action will be effective. Such notice will specify the instances of inadequate contribution by the employee on which the action is based and will inform the employee of any applicable appeal or grievance rights.
c. Inadequate Contribution under 5 U.S.C. 7512. Employees may also be removed or reduced in broadband level based on inadequate contribution (which inherently addresses performance) under the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 7512.
d. Procedural and Appeal Rights. All procedural and appeal rights set forth in the applicable statute and related OPM regulations will be afforded to demonstration project employees reassigned, removed, reduced in pay or reduced in level for inadequate contribution.
e. Documentation. All relevant documentation concerning a contribution-based action that is based on a determination of inadequate contribution will be preserved and made available for review by the affected employee or a designated representative in accordance with the employee's DoD Component policy for records management. At a minimum, the records, in accordance with 5 CFR 432.107, will consist of a copy of the notice of proposed action; the written answer of the employee or a summary when the employee makes an oral reply; and the written notice of decision and the reasons thereof, along with any supporting material including documentation regarding the opportunity afforded the employee to demonstrate adequate contribution.
a. Bargaining Unit Employees. Bargaining unit employees who are covered under a collective bargaining agreement may grieve the contribution assessment which includes the OCS and performance appraisal level received under the CCAS and supervisor assessment under the grievance-arbitration provisions of the applicable collective bargaining agreement. The negotiated grievance procedure shall be the sole and exclusive procedure for resolving such grievances. If an employee is in a bargaining unit in which grievances over appraisal scores have been excluded from the negotiated grievance procedure, the employee may use the administrative grievance procedure (5 CFR part 771) with supplemental instructions described in paragraph b below.
b. Administrative Grievance Procedures. Employees not included in a bargaining unit may grieve the contribution assessment which includes the OCS and performance appraisal level received under the CCAS and supervisor assessment using procedures established under the appropriate Administrative Grievance Procedures (5 CFR part 771). Under these procedures, the employee's grievance will first be considered by the rating official who reviews and submits a recommendation to the pay pool panel. The pay pool panel may accept the rating official's recommendation or reach an independent decision. In the event that the pay pool panel's decision is different from the rating official's recommendation, appropriate justification will be provided. The pay pool panel's decision is final unless the employee requests reconsideration by the next higher official to the Pay Pool Manager. That official would then render the final decision on the grievance.
Trained and educated personnel are a critical resource in an acquisition organization. This demonstration supports the concept that well-developed training and development programs are essential to improving the performance of AWF individuals and those employees in direct support positions to the AWF, thus raising the overall level of performance of the AWF as well as serving as a valuable tool for recruiting and retaining motivated employees. AWF members have a continuous learning (CL) requirement to ensure maintenance of currency in their career field. They must earn a minimum of 80 CL points every two years. Some have specific education and/or statutory requirements depending on their career field. In addition, all acquisition positions have certification requirements whereby AWF members must become certified in their primary career field at the level required within 24 months of assignment. Currently, DAWIA authorizes degree and certificate training for acquisition-coded positions. This demonstration extends that authority and expands its coverage to the acquisition direct support positions included in the project. It also provides authorization at the local level to administer and pay for these degree and certificate training programs. This authorization will facilitate continuous attainment of advanced, specialized knowledge essential to the AWF and its direct support employees. It also provides a capability to assist in the recruiting and retaining of personnel critical to the present and future requirements of the AWF.
A Participating Organization may require an employee who participates in training to continue to work in that organization for at least three times the length of the training period. The service obligation begins when the training is completed. Funding for this training, while potentially available from numerous sources (including the Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Fund) for employees in acquisition-coded positions), is the responsibility of the Participating Organization.
Organizations participating in the acquisition demonstration project will have the authority to grant sabbaticals without application to higher levels of authority. These sabbaticals will permit employees to engage in study or work experience that contributes to their development and effectiveness. The sabbatical provides opportunities for employees to acquire knowledge and expertise that cannot be acquired in the standard working environment. These opportunities should result in enhanced employee contribution. The spectrum of available activities under this program is limited only by the constraint that the activity contribute to the organization's mission and to the employee's development. The program can be used for training with industry or on-the-job work experience with public, private, or nonprofit organizations. It enables an employee to spend time in an academic or industrial environment or to take advantage of the opportunity to devote fulltime effort to technical or managerial research.
The acquisition demonstration project sabbatical program will be available to all demonstration project employees who have seven or more years of Federal service. Each sabbatical will be of three to twelve months' duration and must result in a product, service, report, or study that will benefit the acquisition community as well as increase the employee's individual effectiveness. Requests for a sabbatical must be made by the employee through the chain of command to the Participating Organization's management official, who has final approval authority and who must ensure that the program benefits both the acquisition workforce and the individual employee. Funding for the employee's salary and other expenses of the sabbatical is the responsibility of the Participating Organization.
Employees approved for a paid sabbatical must sign a service obligation agreement to continue in service in the covered organizations for a period of three times the length of the sabbatical. The service obligation begins when the training is completed. Sabbaticals approved prior to the effective date of this FRN are not subject to the service obligation requirement. If an employee voluntarily leaves the covered organizations before the service obligation is completed he/she is liable for repayment of expenses incurred by the covered organizations that are associated with training during the sabbatical. Expenses do not include salary costs. The delegated sabbatical approving management official of the Participating Organization has the authority to waive this requirement.
3. Student Intern Relocation Incentive. Recruitment of students is often limited to the local commuting area of the employing organization as college students frequently cannot afford to relocate to accept student intern job offers in a commuting area different from that of the college/university they are attending or their permanent home residence. To alleviate this barrier and to further Better Buying Power 3.0 initiatives to recruit the next generation of high performers to sustain and promote professionalism in the acquisition workforce, the Head of the Participating Organization may approve relocation incentives for new student interns and relocation incentives to student interns whose worksite is in a different geographic location than that of the college/university enrolled or their permanent home residence each time the student interns return to duty at their official worksites.
a. Conversion from the GS Pay System. An employee who is converted into AcqDemo with his/her organization will have an automatic conversion from his/her permanent GS grade rate of pay of record at time of conversion into the new broadband system. Initial entry into the AcqDemo for covered employees will occur through a full employee protection approach that ensures each employee's initial placement into a broadband level without loss of pay.
(1) WGI Buy-Ins. Rules governing WGIs within each Participating Organization will remain in effect until an employee's conversion date. Implementation of the AcqDemo broadbanding pay structure eliminates the WGI increments of the current GS pay structure. To facilitate conversion and employee acceptance of the new system, eligible employees will receive a basic pay increase for that portion of their next WGI corresponding to the weeks of service in-step they have completed up to the effective date of their conversion so that they will not feel they are losing pay or a pay entitlement accrued under the GS system.
Employees on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) will remain in their current system until the conclusion of the PIP and a decision is rendered. If the PIP results in a current rating of record of satisfactory performance or better, the employees will be eligible for a WGI buy-in upon conversion. Employees will not be eligible for the WGI buy-in if their current rating of record is unacceptable at the time of conversion. Employees at step 10, or receiving retained pay at the time of conversion will not be eligible for a WGI buy-in.
(2) Career-Ladder Promotion Buy-Ins. For those GS employees in career-ladder promotion programs who are scheduled to be promoted to a higher grade and whose performance is at least fully successful, basic pay will be increased by a prorated share of the current value of the next scheduled promotion increase based upon the actual number of weeks the employee has completed towards the next scheduled promotion as of the employee's conversion date. No WGI buy-in will be made if the employee's pay is adjusted for a promotion that would be effective before the next scheduled WGI.
(3) Special salary rates. Special salary rates will no longer be applicable to demonstration project employees. Employees on special salary rates at the time of conversion will receive a new basic rate of pay computed by dividing their highest adjusted rate of basic pay (
(4) Employees on Term and Temporary Appointments. (a) Employees serving under term appointments at the time of conversion to the demonstration project will be converted to a modified term appointment provided they were hired for their current positions under
1—Have served two years of continuous service in the term position;
2—Were selected for the term position under competitive procedures; and
3—Are contributing at an adequate contribution level, or meeting fully successful performance objectives, or their equivalent, in non-AcqDemo performance management systems.
Converted term employees who do not meet these criteria may continue on their term appointment up to the not-to-exceed date established under their current appointment. Extensions of term appointments for employees who do not meet the above criteria may be granted after conversion in accordance with the provision of this regulation.
(b) Employees serving under temporary appointments when their organization converts to the demonstration project will be converted and may continue on their temporary appointment up to their established, current not-to-exceed date. Extensions of temporary appointments after conversion not-to exceed a total of 3 years may be granted in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 9902.
(5) Probationary Periods.
(a) Initial Probationary Period. Employees who have completed an initial probationary period prior to conversion to AcqDemo will not be required to serve a new initial probationary period. Employees who are serving an initial probationary period upon conversion to AcqDemo will serve the time remaining on their initial probationary period and may have their initial probationary period extended in accordance with DoD and demonstration project regulations and implementing issuances.
(b) Supervisory Probationary Periods. Employees transitioning to AcqDemo who are serving a supervisory probationary period upon conversion to AcqDemo will serve the time remaining on their supervisory probationary period. Converting employees who have completed a supervisory probationary period in their current position prior to conversion to AcqDemo will not be required to serve a new supervisory probationary period in that position. However, an additional supervisory probationary period of one year may be required if the employee is officially assigned to a different supervisory position that constitutes a major change in supervisory responsibilities from any previously held supervisory position.
(6) Retained Pay. If the employee's rate of basic pay exceeds the maximum rate of basic pay for the broadband level corresponding to the employee's GS grade, the employee will remain at that broadband level and will receive a retained rate. The retained rate will be the total of the employee's basic pay and locality or special pay.
b. Conversion from Other Personnel Pay Systems. Employees who enter this demonstration project from other personnel pay systems (
2. Non-AcqDemo Federal Employees Voluntarily Joining AcqDemo. Federal employees entering into the AcqDemo from the GS or other pay systems not as the result of a conversion will be moved into a career path and broadband level with basic pay set in accordance with AcqDemo guidance and reflective of the duties and responsibilities of the AcqDemo position and an individual's qualifications. Highest previous rate as defined in Section II.C.13 and AcqDemo internal guidance may provide an appropriate tool for establishing basic pay in this instance. The move will be described using the appropriate nature of action,
a. Effect of Reorganizations. 10 U.S.C. 1762(d) provides that an AcqDemo organization that loses, due to reorganization, the one-third, two-thirds personnel demographic eligibility required for continued inclusion in AcqDemo may continue to participate in the AcqDemo project. Continued participation may be contingent upon such items as the amount of reduction in the number and/or kinds of positions to be counted for the one-third, two-thirds demographic eligibility requirement; degree of personnel involvement in an organization with an acquisition mission to acquire necessary supplies, equipment, and services to support the warfighter and DoD support staff; scope of direct support to an acquisition workforce organization or closely related functional area; and/or the primary personnel system utilized by the gaining organization.
AcqDemo organizations affected by reorganization, realignment, consolidation, or other organizational changes that may impact the one-third, two-thirds personnel demographic eligibility requirement are to contact the AcqDemo Program Manager expeditiously to discuss the workforce changes in relation to continued AcqDemo participation. The AcqDemo Program Manager will decide the additional information that needs to be included in the organization's request for continued participation. The organization will submit a request for continued participation in accordance with the DoD AcqDemo Program Office's internal implementing guidance. The AcqDemo Program Office will review the rationale for and the data supplied in support of continued participation; conduct periodic audits of the participating organizations' populations as appropriate; and request additional details or formal documentation as needed. Based on an assessment of the information provided, the AcqDemo Program Manager will approve or disapprove the participation including any pertinent comments.
b. Conversion to a Different Pay and/or Personnel System. Prior to a management directed conversion of any AcqDemo organization and its employees to a different pay and/or personnel system, a CCAS closeout appraisal may be accomplished and an out-of-cycle payout may be made. CCAS closeout and payout procedures would be followed except that funding levels for out-of-cycle payouts may be reduced on a pro rata basis if the period between the previous CCAS payout and the out-of-cycle payout was less than one year. Funding that corresponds to the general pay increase shall not form part of the pay pools for any out-of-cycle payouts. After making the out-of-cycle payout, conversion of employees covered by this demonstration project to another pay and/or personnel system shall be accomplished in accordance with the gaining system's implementing issuances.
c. Employee returns to the GS System. If a demonstration project employee is moving to a GS position, or if the project ends and each project employee must be converted back to the GS system, the
d. Employee moves to a Non-GS System. An equivalent GS grade and pay rate is determined for an employee who leaves AcqDemo for a position in a non-GS system by the gaining organization using the same calculation in Section F.3.e below as when an employee moves to a GS position. The losing organization will provide an employee's equivalent GS grade and pay rate to the gaining organization upon request or on receipt of the SF-75, Request for Preliminary Employment Data, by inserting the information in Part 1, Item 9, Additional Data Requested, and returning the form to the gaining organization. It is the responsibility of the gaining organization to establish the level of the employee's new position and the appropriate pay under the pay system for that organization. The equivalent GS grade and pay information provided may assist in this process.
e. Determining an Equivalent GS Grade. Each broadband level in this demonstration project encompasses two or more grades. An employee is determined to have a GS-equivalent grade corresponding to one of those grades according to the following rules:
(1) The employee's adjusted rate of basic pay under the demonstration project, which includes any locality payment, is compared with the step four rate in the highest applicable GS rate range. For this purpose, a GS rate range includes a rate range in:
(a) The GS base schedule;
(b) The locality rate schedule for the locality pay area in which the position is located; or
(c) The appropriate special rate schedule for the employee's occupational series, as applicable. If the series is a two-grade-interval series, only odd-numbered grades are considered below GS-11.
(2) If the employee's adjusted demonstration project rate of pay equals or exceeds the applicable step four rate of the highest GS grade in the broadband, the employee is converted to that grade.
(3) If the employee's adjusted demonstration project rate of pay is lower than the applicable step four rate of the highest grade, the adjusted rate is compared with the step four rate of the second-highest grade in the employee's broadband. If the employee's adjusted rate equals or exceeds the step four rate of the second-highest grade, the employee is converted to that grade.
(4) This process is repeated for each successively lower grade in the broadband until a grade is found in which the employee's adjusted demonstration project rate of pay equals or exceeds the applicable step four rate of the grade. The employee is then converted at that grade. If the employee's adjusted rate of pay is below the step four rate of the lowest grade in the broadband, the employee is converted to the lowest grade.
(5)
(6)
f.
(1) The pay conversion is done before any geographic movement or other pay-related action that coincides with the employee's movement or conversion out of the demonstration project.
(2) An employee's adjusted rate of basic pay under the demonstration project (including any locality payment) is converted to a GS rate on the highest applicable rate range for the converted GS grade. For this purpose, a GS rate range includes a rate range in:
(a) The GS base schedule,
(b) An applicable locality rate schedule, or
(c) An applicable special rate schedule.
(3) If the highest applicable GS rate range is a locality pay rate range, the employee's adjusted demonstration project rate is converted to a GS locality rate of pay. If this rate falls between two steps in the locality-adjusted schedule, the rate of pay must be set at the higher step. The converted GS unadjusted rate of basic pay would be the GS base rate corresponding to the converted GS locality rate (
(4) If the highest applicable GS rate range is a special rate range, the employee's adjusted demonstration project rate is converted to a special rate. If this rate falls between two steps in the special rate schedule, the rate must be set at the higher step. The converted GS unadjusted rate of basic pay will be the GS rate corresponding to the converted special rate (
g.
h.
Service under the demonstration project is potentially creditable for WGI waiting period purposes under 5 CFR 531.405(b) upon conversion back to the GS pay system. An equivalent increase under 5 CFR 531.407(b) is considered to occur at the time of an AcqDemo:
(1) Promotion to a higher broadband level, including a zero basic pay increase (unless the promotion is cancelled and the employee's rate of basic pay is re-determined as if the promotion had not occurred),
(2) CCAS basic pay increase (including a zero increase). The date of
(3) WGI buy-in and/or Career Ladder promotion buy-in granted immediately upon movement to the AcqDemo from another pay system.
(4) ACDP basic pay adjustment.
(5) Use of HPR when basic pay is set at a rate above the rate that would be established using normal AcqDemo pay setting rules.
i.
The key to the success or failure of the proposed demonstration project will be the training provided. This training provides not only the necessary knowledge and skills to carry out the proposed changes, but will also lead to participant commitment to the program.
a.
b.
a.
(1) A description of the personnel system;
(2) How employees are converted into and out of the system;
(3) The pay adjustment and/or bonus process;
(4) The new position requirements document;
(5) The new classification system; and
(6) The Contribution-based Compensation and Appraisal System.
b.
(1)
(2) Human Resources/Pay Pool Administrative Staff. Human Resources Specialists and Pay Pool Administrative Officers will play a key role in advising, training, and coaching supervisors and employees in implementing the demonstration project. This staff will receive training in the procedural and technical aspects of the project.
(3) Employees. In the months prior to implementation, the demonstration project team and Participating Organization training and career development offices will provide workforce training through various media. This training is intended to inform the workforce of project features and to prompt the development of local procedures and processes to implement the changes.
Demonstration-authorizing legislation (5 U.S.C. 4703) mandates evaluation of the demonstration project to assess the effects of project features and outcomes. In addition, the project will be evaluated to determine the feasibility of application to other Federal Agencies. The overall Program Management evaluation will consist of two components—internal and external evaluation. The internal evaluation will be ongoing and accomplished by the staff of the AcqDemo Program Office, to include contracted resources, and the results reviewed by the Executive Council. The main purpose of the internal evaluation is to determine the effectiveness of the personnel system in meeting the needs of the Defense Acquisition Workforce.
External evaluations will be conducted on a regular basis as prescribed by the Secretary. The Secretary may designate an independent evaluator to conduct the external assessments with the results overseen by the Undersecretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology & Logistics)/Human Capital Initiatives; and the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Civilian Personnel Policy).
The evaluations are conducted to determine the effectiveness of the personnel system changes implemented. To the extent possible, strong direct or indirect relationships will be established between the demonstration project features, outcomes, mission-related changes, and personnel system effectiveness criteria. The evaluation approach uses an intervention impact model that specifies each personnel system change as an intervention, the expected effects of each intervention, the corresponding measures, and the data sources for obtaining the measures. Appendix F presents the Intervention Impact Evaluation Model to be used for this demonstration project for initiatives affecting title 5 U.S.C. and title 5 CFR.
The Demonstration Project has been extended by statute three times as indicated below:
1. Section 813 of the Bob Stump NDAA for FY 2003 (Pub. L. 107-314, 116 Stat. 2609) extended the authority to conduct the AcqDemo until September 30, 2012;
2. Section 872 of the Ike Skelton NDAA for FY 2011 (Pub. L. 111-383, 124 Stat. 4300, 4302) extended the authority to conduct the AcqDemo Program until September 30, 2017; and
3. Section 846 of the NDAA for FY 2016 (Pub. L. 114-92) extended the termination date for the AcqDemo Project to December 31, 2020.
The AcqDemo Project requires a cost-disciplined approach to maintain cost control. While this approach does not require cost neutrality, it does require a continued comparison with the Government-wide system to ensure an effective balance between cost, and personnel management benefits such as improved organizational communication, and greater recognition of higher contributors, leading to increased retention rates and savings in turnover costs and loss of skills. This cost-disciplined approach also requires Participating Organizations to consider and implement a logical and effective compensation management strategy, aimed at providing the appropriate level of compensation for the contribution expended in accomplishing work at an assigned level.
To promote cost accountability, project and pay pool managers are required to consider both the short-and long-term implications of pay-related decisions on payroll and benefit costs, including decisions regarding the size of
The funding parameters for contribution increases in the out-years will be determined as part of the annual project evaluation process, as well as giving consideration to any funding limitations impacting the Department. Annual funding guidance will then be reported by the Program Manager to the AcqDemo Executive Council. As part of the evaluation of the project by Participating Organizations, the AcqDemo Program Management Office, and DoD, the basic pay costs (including average basic pay, average starting salaries, overall and by employee subcategories) under the demonstration project will be tracked and compared to the basic pay costs under similar demonstration projects and under a simulation model that replicates GS spending. These evaluations will balance costs incurred against benefits gained, so that both fiscal responsibility and project success are given appropriate weight.
One of the major goals of the demonstration project is to streamline the personnel processes to increase efficiency, effectiveness, agility, and cost discipline. Automation must play an integral role in achieving that goal. Without the necessary automation to support the interventions proposed for the demonstration project, optimal benefits cannot be realized. In addition, adequate information to support decision making must be available to managers if line management is to assume greater authority and responsibility for human resources management. Automation to support the demonstration project is required at the DoD level to facilitate processing and reporting of demonstration project personnel actions, and may be ultimately required by the Participating Organizations to assist in processing a variety of personnel-related actions in order to facilitate management processes, evaluation of interventions, and decision making. The DCPDS is the DoD's authoritative personnel data system of record and will be the primary system for personnel data used in dedicated electronic applications needed to process and evaluate a variety of actions associated with AcqDemo initiatives such as streamlined hiring and movement of employees; contribution-based appraisal compensation; accelerated compensation for developmental positions; supervisory and team leader cash differentials; staffing supplements; and sabbaticals.
In addition to the authorities granted by 10 U.S.C. 1762 and 5 U.S.C. 4703, the following are waivers of law and regulation that will be necessary for implementation and sustainment of the demonstration project. In due course, additional laws and regulations may be identified for a waiver request. The following waivers and adaptations of certain title 5 U.S.C. and title 5 CFR provisions are required only to the extent that these statutory and regulatory provisions limit or are inconsistent with the actions contemplated under this demonstration project. Nothing in this plan is intended to preclude the demonstration project from adopting or incorporating any law or regulation enacted, adopted, or amended after the original effective date, January 8, 1999, of this demonstration project.
Chapter 71, to the extent its provisions (
This demonstration project was originally authorized under section 4308 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 1996 (Public Law (Pub. L.) 104-106, 110 Stat. 669; 10 United States Code Annotated (U.S.C.A.) 1701 note), as amended by section 845 of NDAA for FY 1998 (Pub. L. 105-85, 111 Stat.1845); section 813 of NDAA for FY 2003 (Pub. L. 107-314, 116 Stat. 2609); section 1112 of NDAA for FY 2004 (Pub. L. 108-136, 117 Stat.1634); and section 1113 of NDAA for FY 2010 (Pub. L. 111-84, 123 Stat. 2190) repealed the National Security Personnel System and directed conversion of all NSPS employees to their previous pay system by January 1, 2012. All NSPS employees formerly in AcqDemo were transitioned back to AcqDemo during the month of May 2011. On January 7, 2011, the original demonstration project authority was repealed and codified at 10 U.S.C. 1762 pursuant to section 872 of the Ike Skelton NDAA for FY 2011 (Pub. L. 111-383, 124 Stat. 4300, 4302). Through Section 867 of NDAA for FY 2017 (Pub. L. 114-328), Congress provided that the Secretary of Defense shall exercise the authorities granted to the OPM under 5 U.S.C. 4703 for purposes of the demonstration project.
OPM approved and published the final project plan for the AcqDemo on January 8, 1999, in 64 FR 1426-1492. Since that time, six amendments have been approved and published, and one notice of intent to amend published by OPM:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
As a result of the success of the AcqDemo classification, contribution appraisal, and compensation strategies and the desire of the USD(AT&L) to increase participation to more evenly balance the workforce among Participating Organizations for evaluation, the organizations listed in Table 1A either applied in calendar year 2014 and have been approved to participate in the AcqDemo, or are currently in Table 1 but require an update to their listed organizational alignment.
Includes professional and management positions in science, engineering, medicine, and business management. These positions often have positive degree requirements.
Includes nonprofessional positions that support science and engineering activities through application of various skills in areas such as the following: engineering, physical, chemical, biological, medical, and mathematical sciences.
Includes clerical, secretarial and assistant work in nonscientific/engineering occupations.
AcqDemo has three distinct career paths where AcqDemo occupations with similar characteristics are grouped together to facilitate classification of positions, contribution appraisal assessments, and compensation decisions. The career paths are designated as Business Management and Technical Management Professional, Pay Plan NH; Technical Management Support, Pay Plan NJ; and Administrative Support, Pay Plan NK.
AcqDemo provides definitions for each of the career paths and corresponding broadband levels within them. Classification factors comprised of expected contribution criteria and broadband level descriptors and discriminators, as aligned to the three career paths and broadband levels, will be used for both classification of a position and assessment of an employee's contribution. While the descriptors indicate the level, scope, complexity, and difficulty of the duties and type of contribution appropriate at the upper end of each broadband level, a broadband may actually contain an array of positions with varying levels of work, responsibilities, and value. These attributes range from just above the upper end on the next lower broadband level to an employee's position to the upper end of the employee's position as defined by an organization's position management structure needed to accomplish its mission. This structure in turn
Descriptors are not to be used individually to determine position classification or assess contributions, but rather are to be taken as a group to derive a single evaluation of each factor. The three factor evaluations when taken as a whole result in either a classification determination of broadband level for the position or an OCS and performance appraisal for contribution assessment depending on the action being addressed. The career paths and their associated broadband levels, referenced General Schedule grades, and Overall Contribution Score range are shown in the figure below as a reference tool.
| 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 |