Federal Register Vol. 83, No.115,
Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 115 (June 14, 2018)
Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 115 (June 14, 2018)
| Page Range | 27681-27888 | |
| FR Document |
Document Created: 2017-12-29 23:38:13
Document Modified: 2017-12-29 23:38:13
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 83 FR 27887 - Flag Day and National Flag Week, 2018 | |
| 83 FR 27802 - Temporary Emergency Committee of the Board of Governors; Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 83 FR 27797 - Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
| 83 FR 27758 - Applications for New Awards; Indian Education Discretionary Grants Programs-Professional Development Grants Program | |
| 83 FR 27763 - Privacy Act of 1974; Matching Program | |
| 83 FR 27816 - Social Security Rulings (SSRs) 96-3p and 96-4p; Rescission of SSRs 96-3p and 96-4p | |
| 83 FR 27728 - Social Security Administration Violence Evaluation and Reporting System | |
| 83 FR 27816 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records | |
| 83 FR 27716 - Pacific Island Fisheries; 5-Year Extension of Moratorium on Harvest of Gold Corals | |
| 83 FR 27750 - First Responder Network Authority Combined Committee and Board Meeting | |
| 83 FR 27765 - Difenacoum; Notice of Receipt of Requests to Voluntarily Cancel Certain Pesticide Registrations | |
| 83 FR 27820 - Notice of Request To Release Airport Property | |
| 83 FR 27771 - Pesticide Product Registration; Receipt of Applications for New Active Ingredients | |
| 83 FR 27734 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; West Virginia; Regional Haze Plan and Visibility Requirements for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide and the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter Standards | |
| 83 FR 27768 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Pre-Manufacture Review Reporting and Exemption Requirements for New Chemical Substances and Significant New Use Reporting Requirements for Chemical Substances; Emergency Processing Request Submitted to OMB | |
| 83 FR 27711 - Extract of Swinglea glutinosa; | |
| 83 FR 27740 - Relaxation of the Federal Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) Gasoline Volatility Standard for Baton Rouge, Louisiana | |
| 83 FR 27744 - Receipt of Several Pesticide Petitions Filed for Residues of Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various Commodities | |
| 83 FR 27769 - Approval of the Application by the State of Idaho To Administer the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and Electronic Reporting | |
| 83 FR 27795 - Request for Nominations of Members To Serve on the Bureau of Indian Education Advisory Board for Exceptional Children | |
| 83 FR 27704 - Safety Zone, Festival of the Fish, Vermillion River, Vermillion, OH | |
| 83 FR 27766 - Ortho-Phthalaldehyde; Receipt of Application for Emergency Exemption, Solicitation of Public Comment | |
| 83 FR 27795 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Secretarial Elections | |
| 83 FR 27743 - Receipt of Several Pesticide Petitions Filed for Residues of Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various Commodities | |
| 83 FR 27822 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of a Revision to an Approval of an Existing Information Collection: Operating Requirements: Commuter and On-Demand Operation | |
| 83 FR 27820 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Pilot Schools-FAR 141 | |
| 83 FR 27821 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Certification: Pilots, Flight Instructors, and Ground Instructors | |
| 83 FR 27823 - Solving for Safety Visualization Challenge Solver Solicitation | |
| 83 FR 27702 - Medical Devices; Gastroenterology-Urology Devices; Classification of the Endoscopic Electrosurgical Clip Cutting System | |
| 83 FR 27797 - Availability of Rural Water Supply Program Approved Appraisal Reports | |
| 83 FR 27800 - Asbestos in Construction Standard; Extension of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork) Requirements | |
| 83 FR 27801 - Advisory Committee on the Records of Congress | |
| 83 FR 27772 - Information Collections Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority | |
| 83 FR 27774 - Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and Budget | |
| 83 FR 27746 - Petitions for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding | |
| 83 FR 27773 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission | |
| 83 FR 27831 - Notice of OFAC Sanctions Actions | |
| 83 FR 27797 - Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public Interest | |
| 83 FR 27784 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Public Comment Request; Zika Virus Pilot Project, OMB No. 0906-xxxx-NEW | |
| 83 FR 27764 - International Energy Agency Meetings | |
| 83 FR 27713 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; 2018-2020 Small-Mesh Multispecies Specifications | |
| 83 FR 27799 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Report of Multiple Sale or Other Disposition of Pistols and Revolvers-ATF F 3310.4 | |
| 83 FR 27704 - Policy on Technical Surveillance Countermeasures | |
| 83 FR 27747 - Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act Provisions; American Lobster Fishery; Consideration of Expanded Harvester and Biological Sampling Requirements for American Lobster | |
| 83 FR 27763 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; U.S. Department of Education Pre-Authorized Debit Account Brochure and Application | |
| 83 FR 27704 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Newark Bay, Newark, NJ | |
| 83 FR 27836 - Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed 2019-20 Migratory Game Bird Hunting Regulations (Preliminary) With Requests for Indian Tribal Proposals; Notice of Meetings | |
| 83 FR 27750 - Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2015 | |
| 83 FR 27754 - Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016 | |
| 83 FR 27768 - Proposed Information Collection Request; Extension of Comment Period; Cross-State Air Pollution Rule and Texas SO2 | |
| 83 FR 27749 - Notice of Intent To Request Revision and Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection | |
| 83 FR 27828 - Notice of OFAC Sanctions Actions | |
| 83 FR 27778 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 27775 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
| 83 FR 27793 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection: Nonimmigrant Petition Based on Blanket L Petition | |
| 83 FR 27794 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection: Identity, Credential, and Access Management (ICAM) | |
| 83 FR 27707 - Safety Zone; Hope Chest Buffalo Niagara Dragon Boat Festival, Buffalo River, Buffalo, NY | |
| 83 FR 27784 - Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Withdrawal of Approval of Two Abbreviated New Drug Applications | |
| 83 FR 27782 - Human Immunodeficiency Virus-1 Infection: Developing Systemic Drug Products for Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
| 83 FR 27699 - Medical Devices; Immunology and Microbiology Devices; Classification of the Brain Trauma Assessment Test | |
| 83 FR 27819 - Indexing the Annual Operating Revenues of Railroads | |
| 83 FR 27799 - Notice of Extension of Public Comment Period for Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act | |
| 83 FR 27706 - Safety Zones; Annual Events in the Captain of the Port Detroit Zone | |
| 83 FR 27709 - Safety Zone; Grosse Ile Yacht Club Fireworks, Detroit River, Grosse Ile, MI | |
| 83 FR 27812 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fee Structure of the Government Securities Division Rulebook | |
| 83 FR 27807 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change To Establish a Second Trade Reporting Facility in Conjunction With Nasdaq, Inc. | |
| 83 FR 27802 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Clarify and Enhance Rules Related to Comparison and Recording of CMU Securities | |
| 83 FR 27807 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fee Schedule on the BOX Market LLC (“BOX”) Options Facility To Amend Fees and Rebates for Non-Auction Transactions | |
| 83 FR 27776 - Northrop Grumman Corporation and Orbital ATK, Inc.; Analysis To Aid Public Comment | |
| 83 FR 27787 - Virgin Islands; Amendment No. 7 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
| 83 FR 27846 - Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2018 | |
| 83 FR 27802 - Product Change-Priority Mail Express and Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement | |
| 83 FR 27802 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement | |
| 83 FR 27801 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement | |
| 83 FR 27730 - Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Tchefuncta River, Madisonville, LA | |
| 83 FR 27788 - Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 83 FR 27791 - Maine; Major Disaster and Related Determinations | |
| 83 FR 27789 - Virgin Islands; Amendment No. 6 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
| 83 FR 27791 - Final Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 83 FR 27790 - Final Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 83 FR 27778 - Request for Nominations for the Physician-Focused Payment Model Technical Advisory Committee (PTAC) | |
| 83 FR 27786 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 83 FR 27756 - Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Issuing Annual Catch Limits to the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission | |
| 83 FR 27724 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 27721 - Airworthiness Directives; BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 27683 - Peanut Promotion, Research, and Information Order; Change in Assessment Rate Computation | |
| 83 FR 27785 - National Cancer Institute; Notice of Meeting | |
| 83 FR 27786 - National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health; Notice of Meeting | |
| 83 FR 27787 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 83 FR 27785 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 83 FR 27833 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Suspension of Monthly Check | |
| 83 FR 27832 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Interest Rate Reduction Refinancing Loan Worksheet | |
| 83 FR 27819 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Iraqi Citizens and Nationals Employed by U.S. Federal Contractors and Grantees | |
| 83 FR 27681 - Rules of Practice and Procedure Governing Marketing Orders and Marketing Agreements, and Research, Promotion, and Information Programs | |
| 83 FR 27686 - Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments | |
| 83 FR 27738 - Approval of Air Plan Revisions; Approvals and Promulgations: California; Placer County Air Pollution Control District; Stationary Source Permits | |
| 83 FR 27688 - Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments | |
| 83 FR 27732 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter Standard | |
| 83 FR 27781 - Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement, Public Scoping Meeting, and Request for Comments; Acquisition of Site for Development of a Replacement Underground Safety Research Program Facility for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (CDC/NIOSH) in Mace, West Virginia | |
| 83 FR 27718 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
| 83 FR 27746 - Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations for Iron County, Utah and Incorporated Areas | |
| 83 FR 27745 - Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations for Assumption Parish, Louisiana and Incorporated Areas | |
| 83 FR 27690 - Black Lung Benefits Act: Medical Benefit Payments |
Issue
Agricultural Marketing Service
National Agricultural Statistics Service
First Responder Network Authority
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Fish and Wildlife Service
Indian Affairs Bureau
Reclamation Bureau
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Workers Compensation Programs Office
Federal Aviation Administration
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.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Final rule.
This rule amends the Rules of Practice governing Marketing Orders and Marketing Agreements (MOMA), and Research, Promotion, and Information (R&P) programs overseen by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) to include a definition of the term “mail”. It also modifies an authority citation to ensure all appropriate authorities are included.
Stacy Jones King, Agricultural Marketing Specialist, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, STOP 0244, Washington, DC 20250-0244; Telephone: (202) 720-9915, Fax: (202) 205-2800; or email:
This final rule is issued under the Rules of Practice governing MOMA (7 CFR part 900) and R&P (7 CFR part 1200) overseen by USDA's AMS to include a definition of the term “mail”. Currently, MOMA and R&P regulations generally use the term “mail” but do not define it. This action creates a definition of “mail” that clarifies that it includes not only transmittal of information through a postal or other delivery system, but also through electronic mail. Without this broader definition of mail, the business activities of the boards, councils, and committees that administer the programs under AMS oversight, as well as federal milk marketing order administrative activities, will be restricted to using the traditional system of physical transportation of letters and parcels.
USDA believes that an expansive definition of “mail” will create greater effectiveness and cost savings for MOMA and R&P programs. This aligns with the Secretary's goal for greater use of technology in the Department to deliver the most effective, efficient and customer-focused programs. For this reason, USDA is amending the regulations at 7 CFR part 900 and 7 CFR part 1200 to reflect “mail” as both electronic mail and postal (or otherwise delivered) mail. One of the first initiatives under this amendment is to allow for electronic voting as an option in required implementation and continuance referenda on R&P programs.
In addition, this rule will further modify authority citations for 7 CFR part 1200 to correct the current citations as some authority cites are not currently included.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 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, reducing costs, harmonizing rules and promoting flexibility. This action falls within a category of regulatory actions that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) exempted from Executive Order 12866 review. Additionally, because this rule does not meet the definition of a significant regulatory action it does not trigger the requirements contained in Executive Order 13771.
This action has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. The review reveals that this regulation will not have substantial and direct effects on Tribal governments and will not have significant Tribal implications.
This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. It is not intended to have retroactive effect. This rule will not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule.
Section 11 of the Beef Promotion and Research Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 2910) provides that it shall not preempt or supersede any other program relating to beef promotion organized and operated under the laws of the United States or any State. Section 524 of the Commodity Promotion, Research, and Information Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7423) provides that it shall not affect or preempt any other Federal or State law authorizing promotion or research relating to an agricultural commodity.
Section 121 of the Dairy Production Stabilization Act of 1983 (7 U.S.C. 4512(a)) provides that nothing in this Act may be construed to preempt or supersede any other program relating to dairy product promotion organized and operated under the laws of the United States or any State.
Section 1212(c) of the Hass Avocado Promotion, Research and Information Act of 2000 (7 U.S.C. 7811) provides that nothing in this Act may be construed to preempt or supersede any program relating to Hass avocado promotion, research, industry information, and consumer information organized and operated under the laws of the United States or of a State.
Section 1930 of the Mushroom Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 6109) provides that nothing in this Act may be construed to preempt or supersede any other program relating to mushroom promotion, research, consumer information or industry information organized and operated under the laws of the United States or any State.
Section 580 of the Popcorn Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Act (7 U.S.C. 7489) provides that nothing in this Act preempts or supersedes any other program relating to popcorn promotion organized and operated under the laws of the United States or any State.
Section 1628 of the Pork Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 4817) states that the statute is intended to occupy the field of promotion and consumer education involving pork and pork products and of obtaining funds thereof from pork producers. The regulation of such activity (other than a regulation or requirement relating to a matter of public health or the provision of State or local funds for such activity) that is in addition to or different from the Pork Act may not be imposed by a State.
Additionally, section 1974 of the Soybean Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Act (7 U.S.C. 6309) provides, with certain exceptions, that nothing in the Soybean Act may be construed to preempt or supersede any other program relating to soybean promotion, research, consumer information, or industry information organized under the laws of the United States or any State.
According to the following authorizing acts, administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court: Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 (7 U.S.C. 601-674); Commodity Promotion, Research, and Information Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7411-7425); Cotton Research and Promotion Act of 1966 (7 U.S.C. 2101-2118); Dairy Production Stabilization Act of 1983 (7 U.S.C. 4501-4514); Egg Research and Consumer Information Act of 1974 (7 U.S.C. 2701-2718); Fluid Milk Promotion Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 6401-6417); Hass Avocado Promotion, Research, and Information Act of 2000 (7 U.S.C. 7801-7813); Mushroom Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 6101-6112); Popcorn Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7481-7491); Pork Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 4801-4819); Potato Research and Promotion Act of 1971 (7 U.S.C. 2611-2627); Soybean Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Act (7 U.S.C. 6301-6311); and Watermelon Research and Promotion Act (7 U.S.C. 4901-4916).
Under those acts, any person subject to an order may file a petition with the Secretary stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. The petitioner is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, the Secretary will make a ruling on the petition. The acts provide that the district courts of the United States in any district in which the person is an inhabitant, or has his principal place of business, has the jurisdiction to review the Secretary's rule, provided a complaint is filed within 20 days from the date of the entry of the ruling. There are no administrative proceedings that must be exhausted prior to any judicial challenge under the provision of the Beef Promotion and Research Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 2901-2911).
This final rule establishes agency rules of practice and procedure. Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), prior notice and opportunity for comment are not required for the promulgation of agency rules of practice and procedure. 5 U.S.C. 553 (b)(3)(A). Only substantive rules require publication 30 days prior to their effective date. 5 U.S.C. 553 (d). Therefore, this final rule is effective upon publication in the
Under 5 U.S.C. 804, this rule is not subject to Congressional review under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121. In addition, because prior notice and opportunity for comment are not required to be provided for this final rule, this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
Administrative practice and procedure, Freedom of information, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural research, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 7 CFR parts 900 and 1200 are amended as follows:
Sec. 10, 48 Stat. 37, as amended; 7 U.S.C. 610.
(f) The term
7 U.S.C. 2101-2119, 2611-2627, 2701-2718, 2901-2911, 4501-4514, 4801-4819, 4901-4916, 6101-6112, 6301-6311, 6401-6417, 7411-7425, 7481-7491, and 7801-7813.
7 U.S.C. 2114, 2616, 2716, 2904, 4503, 4803, 4905, 6112, 6311, 6406, 7490, 7424 and 7812.
The terms defined/specified in this subpart shall apply to all research and promotion programs authorized under the Act.
(a)
(b)
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Final rule.
This rule changes the assessment rate computation under the Agricultural Marketing Service's (AMS) regulations regarding a national research and promotion program (program) for U.S. peanuts. This rule changes the basis for assessment under the regulations from value to volume (per ton). Two rates of assessment are established instead of using the formula currently specified in the regulations. This rule also updates the definition for “fiscal year” specified in the regulations to reflect current practices.
Jeanette Palmer, Marketing Specialist, Promotion and Economics Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, Stop 0244, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Room 1406-S, Washington, DC 20250-0244; telephone: (202) 720-9915; facsimile: (202) 205-2800; or electronic mail:
This final rule affecting the Peanut Promotion, Research, and Information Order (order) at 7 CFR part 1216 is authorized under the Commodity Promotion, Research, and Information Act of 1996 (1996 Act)(7 U.S.C. 7411-7425).
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 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, reducing costs, harmonizing rules and promoting flexibility. This action falls within a category of regulatory actions that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) exempted from Executive Order 12866 review. Additionally, because this rule does not meet the definition of a significant regulatory action it does not trigger the requirements contained in Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017, titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' ” (February 2, 2017).
This final rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. The review reveals that this rule will not have substantial and direct effects on Tribal governments and will not have significant Tribal implications.
In addition, this final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. It is not intended to have retroactive effect. Section 524 of the 1996 Act (7 U.S.C. 7423) provides that it shall not affect or preempt any other Federal or State law authorizing promotion or research relating to an agricultural commodity.
Under section 519 of the 1996 Act (7 U.S.C. 7418), a person subject to an order may file a written petition with USDA stating that an order, any provision of an order, or any obligation imposed in connection with an order, is not established in accordance with the law, and request a modification of an order or an exemption from an order. Any petition filed challenging an order, any provision of an order, or any obligation imposed in connection with an order, shall be filed within two years after the effective date of an order, provision, or obligation subject to challenge in the petition. The petitioner will have the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. Thereafter, USDA will issue a ruling on the petition. The 1996 Act provides that the district court of the United States for any district in which the petitioner resides or conducts business shall have the jurisdiction to review a final ruling on the petition, if the petitioner files a complaint for that purpose not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of USDA's final ruling.
This rule changes the assessment rate computation under the Peanut Promotion, Research, and Information Order. Part 1216 is administered by the Board with oversight by USDA. This rule changes the basis for assessment under the program from value to volume (per ton). Two rates of assessment are established instead of using the formula currently specified in this part. The assessment rates will be $3.55 per ton for Segregation 1 peanuts and $1.25 per ton for lower quality Segregation 2 and 3 peanuts. This action was unanimously recommended by the National Peanut Board (Board) and will help facilitate program operations by providing a more predictable revenue stream for the Board. This rule also updates the definition for fiscal year specified in the part to reflect current practices.
The Peanut Promotion, Research, and Information Order regulations took effect in 1999. Under the regulations, the Board administers a nationally-coordinated program of promotion, research, and information designed to strengthen the position of peanuts in the market place and to develop, maintain, and expand the demand for U.S. peanuts.
Section 1216.48(m) provides authority for the Board to recommend to the Secretary amendments to the regulations as the Board considers appropriate.
Section 1216.51 specifies that the funds necessary to pay for programs and other authorized costs shall be acquired by levying assessments upon producers in a manner prescribed by the Secretary. The assessments are collected by first handlers from producers and remitted to the Board no later than 60 days after the last day of the month in which the peanuts were marketed. Paragraph (c) of that section currently states that assessments shall be levied based on
For producers who place their peanuts in a USDA loan program,
Over the three year period (2014-2016), about $8.6 million in assessments has been collected under the program annually. Assessments collections totaled $7,284,050
In recent years, the Board has discussed the merits of modifying the formula for calculating assessments in order to receive a more predictable revenue stream for the program. A reduction in value (producer price or the loan rate) could reduce Board revenue to the point where the Board would have to drastically curtail its promotional and research activities. Producer prices declined 24 percent from 2013-2016 while production increased. According to USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), the producer price was $0.249 per pound (or $498 per ton) in 2013
The Board met on April 4, 2017, and unanimously recommended changing the basis for assessment under the order from value to volume (per ton). Two rates of assessments will be established for farmers stock peanuts, depending upon their quality as defined in the Minimum Quality and Handling Standards for Domestic and Imported Peanuts Marketed in the United States (Standards) codified in 7 CFR part 996.
Pursuant to § 996.13(b) of the Standards, “Segregation l peanuts” means farmers stock peanuts with not more than 3.49 percent damaged kernels nor more than l.00 percent concealed damage caused by rancidity, mold, or decay and which are free from visible
This action will help facilitate program operations by providing a more predictable revenue stream for the Board to carry out its mission. Section 1216.51 is revised accordingly.
This rule references §§ 996.13(b), 996.13(c) and 996.13(d) of the Standards which define the terms Segregation 1 peanuts, Segregation 2 peanuts, and Segregation 3 peanuts, respectively.
Further, this rule revises § 1216.11 regarding the term `fiscal year' from the 12-month period beginning August 1 of any year and ending July 31 of the following year to the 12-month period beginning November 1 of any year and ending October 31 of the following year to reflect current industry practices. That section also defines the term crop year to mean the same as fiscal year. The term crop year is not referenced elsewhere in part 1216 and is thus not necessary. This rule removes that term from § 1216.11. Section 1216.11 is revised accordingly.
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), AMS is required to examine the impact of the final rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has considered the economic impact of this action on such entities.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions so that small businesses will not be disproportionately burdened. The Small Business Administration (SBA) defines, in 13 CFR part 121, small agricultural producers as those having annual receipts of no more than $750,000 and small agricultural service firms (handlers) as those having annual receipts of no more than $7.5 million.
According to the Board, there are approximately 7,600 producers and 33 handlers of peanuts who are required to pay assessments under the program.
Most producers would be classified as small businesses under the criteria established by the SBA. USDA's NASS reports that the farm value of the peanuts produced in the top 11 States in 2016 was $1.077 billion.
Dividing the 2016 crop value by 33 handlers yields an average peanut crop value per handler of about $33 million. This is many times larger than the $7.5
U.S. peanut production from the 11 major peanut-producing States in 2016 was 5.685 billion pounds.
If the number of peanut producers (7,600) is divided into total 2016 U.S. production (5.685 billion pounds), the resulting average peanut production per producer is approximately 748,000 pounds.
This rule revises § 1216.51 to change the basis for assessment from value to volume (per ton). The program is administered by the Board with oversight by USDA. Two rates of assessment will be established instead of using a formula currently specified in the regulations. The assessment rates will be $3.55 per ton for Segregation 1 peanuts and $1.25 per ton for lower quality Segregation 2 and 3 peanuts. This action was unanimously recommended by the Board and will help facilitate program operations by providing a more predictable revenue stream for the Board based only on volume for assessment. Authority for this action is provided in § 1216.48(m) and section 517 of the 1996 Act. This rule also updates the definition for fiscal year specified in § 1216.11 to reflect current practices. That section provides authority for the Board, with approval of the Secretary, to change the fiscal year.
Regarding the economic impact of this rule on affected entities, this action changes the basis of assessment from value to volume (per ton). The rates of assessment recommended by the Board are comparable to the rates that have been in effect since the inception of the program.
Regarding the impact of the peanut program on the industry, the program has been successful in helping to build demand and improve producer returns. A 2014 economic study shows that the program helped to increase demand by 15 percent from 2007-2013, and that each dollar invested in Board activities over the period returned $8.87 to the producer.
With regard to alternatives, the Board has been considering revising the assessment rate computation for a number of years. The Board considered revising the assessment rate to equal a weighted average of the value of Segregation 1, 2, and 3 peanuts as reported by the NASS for the prior year. However, this would still link the assessment rate to value. Another option would be to maintain the status quo. After review and deliberation, the Board unanimously recommended revising the basis for assessment under the program from value to volume as described herein.
To calculate the percentage of producer revenue represented by the assessment rate, the proposed assessment rates are divided by the average producer price. The proposed assessment rates are $3.55 per ton ($0.001775 per pound) for Segregation 1 peanuts and $1.25 per ton ($0.000625 per pound) for Segregation 2 and 3 peanuts. According to NASS, the average producer price ranged from $0.193 per pound in 2015 to $0.189 per pound in 2016.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the information collection and recordkeeping requirements that are imposed by the program have been approved previously under OMB control number 0581-0093. This final rule will not result in a change to the information collection and recordkeeping requirements previously approved and will impose no additional reporting and recordkeeping burden on peanut producers or first handlers.
As with all Federal promotion programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. Finally, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this final rule.
AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
In regard to outreach efforts, Board members have been conducting outreach to educate industry members about the need for changing the basis of assessment since January 2016. The issue has been discussed at Board meetings over the past few years. The Board has also conducted outreach to the major peanut associations and has received positive feedback. All of the Board's meetings are open to the public and interested persons are invited to participate and express their views.
A proposed rule concerning this action was published in the
Thirteen comments were received in response to the proposed rule. Of those 13 comments, 12 comments were in favor of the proposed flat computation of the two assessment rates (one favorable comment was a duplicate and only counted once), and one comment was outside the scope of the review.
Ten commenters stated the change in the assessment computation would allow for a more consistent revenue stream for the Board to carry out its mission. Of these commenters, one commenter stated the computation change is not an increase or decrease in producer assessments. It stated that this change is a proactive business move to create an assessment rate which will not fluctuate downward rapidly. The
After consideration of all relevant matters presented, including the information and recommendation submitted by the Board and other available information, it is hereby found that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, is consistent with and will effectuate the purposes of the 1996 Act.
Administrative practice and procedure, Advertising, Consumer information, Marketing agreements, Peanut promotion, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 1216 is amended as follows:
7 U.S.C. 7411-7425; 7 U.S.C. 7401.
(c) Such assessments shall be levied on all farmers stock peanuts sold at a rate of $3.55 per ton for Segregation 1 peanuts and $1.25 per ton for Segregation 2 peanuts and 3 peanuts, as those terms are defined in §§ 996.13(b)-(d) of this title.
(d) For peanuts placed under a marketing assistance loan with the Department's Commodity Credit Corporation, the Commodity Credit Corporation, or any entity determined by the Commodity Credit Corporation shall deduct and remit to the Board, from the proceeds of the loan paid to the producer, the assessment per ton as specified in paragraph (c) of this section, no more than 60 days after the last day of the month in which the peanuts were placed under a marketing assistance loan.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures (ODPs) for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.
This rule is effective June 14, 2018. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of June 14, 2018.
Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:
1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;
3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center at
Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Divisions, 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 rule amends Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing, amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when required by an entry on 8260-15A.
The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the
The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the
The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.
This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as Amended in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C 553(d), good cause exists for making some SIAPs 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.
Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.
On May 23, 2018 (83 FR 23802), the FAA published an Amendment in Docket No. 31193, Amdt No. 3799, to Part 97 of the Federal Aviation Regulations under section 97.23. The following entry for Wellsville, NY, effective July 19, 2018, is hereby rescinded in its entirety:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This rule amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.
This rule is effective June 14, 2018. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of June 14, 2018.
Availability of matter incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:
1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;
3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center online at
Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420) Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box
This rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by amending the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (NFDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the
This amendment provides the affected CFR sections, and specifies the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure and the amendment number.
The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the
The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.
This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as modified by FDC permanent NOTAMs.
The SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, as modified by FDC permanent NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
The circumstances that created the need for these SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments require making them effective in less than 30 days.
Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making these SIAPs 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.
Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal regulations, Part 97, (14 CFR part 97), is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.
By amending: § 97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or TACAN; § 97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; § 97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; § 97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, MLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV; § 97.31 RADAR SIAPs; § 97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and § 97.35 COPTER SIAPs, Identified as follows:
Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, Labor.
Final rule.
This final rule revises the regulations under the Black Lung Benefits Act (BLBA or Act) governing the payment of medical benefits and maintains the level of care available to miners. The final rule establishes methods for determining the amounts that the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund (Trust Fund) will pay for covered medical services and treatments provided to entitled miners. The Department based the rule on payment formulas that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) uses to determine payments under the Medicare program, which are similar to the formulas used by other programs that the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP) administers. The Department is adopting these payment formulas for the black lung program because they more accurately reflect prevailing community rates for authorized treatments and services than do the internally-derived payment formulas that OWCP currently uses. In addition, the final rule eliminates two obsolete provisions.
Michael A. Chance, Director, Division of Coal Mine Workers' Compensation, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Suite N-3520, Washington, DC 20210. Telephone: 1-800-347-2502. This is a toll-free number. TTY/TDD callers may dial toll-free 1-800-877-8339 for further information.
The BLBA, 30 U.S.C. 901-944, provides for the payment of benefits to coal miners and certain of their dependent survivors on account of total disability or death due to coal workers' pneumoconiosis. 30 U.S.C. 901(a);
Benefits are paid by either a “responsible” coal mine operator (or its insurance carrier), or the Trust Fund.
Although the current regulations provide that medical services and supplies be paid at the rate prevailing in the community where the physician, medical facility or supplier is located, they do not address how the prevailing community rate should be determined.
On January 4, 2017, the Department issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), proposing a revised Subpart J. 82 FR 739-770 (Jan. 4, 2017). Specifically, the Department proposed to base Trust Fund payments for all medical services and treatments rendered on or after the effective date of the rule on payment formulas derived from those used by CMS under the Medicare program.
The Department chose these payment formulas for several reasons. The proposed formulas more accurately reflected prevailing community rates for authorized treatments and services than did OWCP's internally-derived formulas.
The public comment period closed on March 6, 2017. The Department has fully evaluated these comments and has determined that proceeding with a final rule is in the best interests of the stakeholders and the program's administration.
Section 426(a) of the BLBA, 30 U.S.C. 936(a), authorizes the Secretary of Labor to prescribe rules and regulations necessary for the administration and enforcement of the BLBA. The Secretary is also explicitly empowered to promulgate regulations addressing medical fees and charges, including determining the prevailing community rate. 33 U.S.C. 907(g), as incorporated by 30 U.S.C. 932(a).
The Department received eleven comments on the proposed regulations. Most of these comments focus on a few substantive issues. Some commenters generally supported OWCP's efforts to modernize the medical payment formulas and no commenters expressed overall objections to the promulgation of these rules. Several commenters applauded the technical changes made to several rules to simplify and clarify the language, such as replacing the term “Office” with “OWCP.” No negative comments were received on the following revised or new regulations: §§ 725.308, 725.701, 725.702, 725.703, 725.704, 725.706, 725.708, 725.711, 725.712, and 725.714-725.720. Thus, the Department is promulgating these regulations as proposed. The Department received one negative comment on the substantive provisions of § 725.705 (titled “Is prior authorization for medical services required?”), but the Department proposed only technical changes to this rule and did not open it for substantive comment. Thus, the Department is promulgating § 725.705 as proposed.
In addition to comments received on specific sections of the proposed rules (discussed below in the Section-by-Section Explanation), a few commenters offered more general comments. One suggested that the medical bill payment rules should contain provisions allowing the Director to sue operators who fail to properly reimburse the Trust Fund for medical benefit payments made on their behalf. The BLBA incorporates various provisions of the and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. 918(a), 921(d), as incorporated by 30 U.S.C. 932(a), that already provide the Department with authority to undertake such suits.
Another commenter requested that the Department specify when OWCP will exercise its discretion to modify or change payment formulas or parts thereof as provided in several proposed regulations.
Finally, the Department has determined that a two-phase implementation of this rule will be more efficient and cost-effective, allow sufficient time to update and improve its computer processes, and result in less disruption, than implementing the entire rule at once. Except for §§ 725.708(a) and (b) and 725.710, all provisions of this rule (including the payment formulas for medical equipment, prescription drugs and inpatient medical services) will apply to services and treatments rendered after the effective date of the rule, August 31, 2018. The Department can apply these regulations immediately because they either codify existing practices or require easily implemented modifications to current payment processes. The provisions of §§ 725.708(a) and (b) and 725.710 (governing the payment of professional medical services and outpatient medical services) will apply to services and treatments rendered after November 30, 2019. Both regulations would require extensive modifications to the existing computer processes for full implementation. The Department is currently transitioning to a new computer system and will realize cost-savings by building the new payment methodologies into that system rather than modifying the existing one. The Department has revised three provisions (§§ 725.707, 725.708 and 725.710) to reflect the two-phase implementation. The changes to each provision are discussed in the Section-by-Section Explanation.
(a) Section 725.707 is a new provision that sets out general rules governing the payment of compensable medical bills by the Trust Fund. It provides that the Trust Fund will pay no more than the prevailing community rate for medical services, treatments, drugs or equipment, and that the prevailing community rate for various types of treatments and services will generally be determined under the provisions of §§ 725.708-725.711. Where the provisions of §§ 725.708-725.711 cannot be used to determine the prevailing community rate, the rule permits OWCP to determine the prevailing community rate based on other payment formulas or evidence. This section also requires OWCP to review the payment formulas in §§ 725.708-725.711 annually, and permits OWCP to adjust, revise or replace any formula (or its components) when needed.
(b) Four commenters express concern that the proposed payment formulas may have a negative impact on miners' access to care. This concern stems from the fact that reduced payments will result in some circumstances under the proposed rules. One commenter believes that rural Appalachia would feel the greatest impact.
The Department agrees that maintaining miners' access to care is of paramount importance in implementing the payment formulas for various services and treatments. In fact, OWCP made access to care a primary
Nonetheless, the commenters' general concern is important and the Department agrees that maintaining access to care should be codified in the regulation. Thus, the Department has revised § 725.707(e) in the final rule to specifically require that OWCP consider and ensure miners' access to care in its annual review of the payment formulas in §§ 725.708-.725.711. The Department believes that this clarification of its intent will prevent miners' access to care from being negatively affected by the new payment formulas.
(c) Finally, the Department has revised § 725.707(f) to reflect the phased implementation of this rule. This paragraph now provides that the provisions of the rule apply to all medical services or treatments rendered after the effective date of the rule (August 31, 2018), except as otherwise noted in the rule. A different application date for the payment formulas for professional medical services and outpatient medical services is now provided in §§ 725.708 and 725.710. These regulations apply to services and treatments rendered after November 30, 2019.
Section 725.708 is a new provision governing payment for professional medical services and medical equipment. No comments were received on this provision. The Department, however, has revised the provision to reflect the phased implementation of this rule. The Department has added a new paragraph (c), which states that the provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) apply to professional medical services rendered after November 30, 2019. This later applicability date does not apply to payments for medical equipment, which are instead governed by the general applicability date in § 725.707(f). The Department has also renumbered paragraph (c) of the proposed rule (dealing with payment for medical equipment) as paragraph (d).
(a) Section 725.709 is a new provision governing payment for compensable prescription drugs. The regulation codifies existing policy and does not change current payment practice. It is also consistent with the payment practices of the other programs that OWCP administers. Section 725.709 generally provides for payment for prescribed medication at a percentage of the national average wholesale price (or another baseline price designated by OWCP) for a particular medication, plus a flat-rate dispensing fee. It also provides that OWCP may, in its discretion, require the use of specific providers for certain medications.
(b) One commenter asks OWCP to specify when miners will be required to use specific providers for certain medications. The comment also requests clarification of whether OWCP will directly negotiate with drug manufacturers, presumably with respect to the cost of medications.
The Department declines to revise the regulation in response to this comment. OWCP does not currently require the use of specific providers for any medication under the BLBA. The provision in § 725.709 gives OWCP the option of doing so in the future if it would be in the best interests of both the agency and the program's stakeholders. It is not possible to predict or specify when OWCP might use this option. OWCP, however, would advise miners and providers before any such requirement were implemented. With respect to negotiating drug prices with drug manufacturers, OWCP is a third-party payer and does not directly purchase medications or distribute them to miners.
(a) Section 725.710 is a new provision governing payment for compensable outpatient medical services. As proposed, it provides that, where appropriate, OWCP will utilize the Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS) devised by CMS for the Medicare program. The proposed rule also states that where outpatient services cannot be assigned or priced appropriately under the OPPS system, payment will be based on fee schedules and other pricing formulas utilized by OWCP.
(b) One commenter requested clarification of the proposed rules with respect to payments that would be made to Critical Access Hospitals (CAHs) for outpatient hospital services. CAHs are small hospitals (generally 25 beds or less) in isolated rural areas (35 miles or more from another hospital, 15 or more miles in mountainous areas) that provide emergency services and offer short-term (generally less than 96 hours) inpatient services.
During the development of the proposed rules, OWCP determined that CAHs would be exempt from the new outpatient and inpatient prospective payment systems generally applicable to other hospitals, as CAHs are excluded from Medicare's prospective payment systems. While this determination was codified in the inpatient regulation (§ 725.711), it was omitted from the outpatient regulation (§ 725.710). The Department agrees with the commenter that § 725.710 should be revised to clarify that the outpatient payment formula described in paragraph (a) of the provision does not apply to services at facilities (such CAHs) that are excluded from Medicare's OPPS. Thus, the Department has revised § 725.710(b) in the final rule to provide that services at such facilities will be paid “based on fee schedules or other pricing formulas utilized by OWCP for outpatient services.” This revision mirrors the inpatient rule and is consistent with Medicare's exclusion of CAHs from its OPPS. Since the Department has revised § 725.710 to exclude CAHs from the general payment formula, there is no need to analyze the economic impact of that formula on CAHs.
(c) Finally, the Department has revised § 725.710 to reflect the phased
(a) Section 725.713 is a new provision addressing reductions in requested fees. The proposed regulation provides that if a billed fee has been reduced (
(b) Three commenters request that the proposed rule be extended to prohibit balance billing where OWCP makes
It is OWCP's longstanding position and practice that miners should not be subject to balance billing for treatments and services that are covered under these regulations. To make this clear, the Department has revised § 725.713 in the final rule to explicitly state that providers cannot bill miners for, and that miners are not required to pay, any remaining balance for any treatments or services provided pursuant to this subpart (
(a) Section 725.717 is a new provision setting time limits on the submission of bills by providers and reimbursement requests by miners. Bills and reimbursement requests must be submitted within one year of either (1) the end of the calendar year in which the service or treatment was provided or (2) the end of the calendar year in which the miner's entitlement to benefits was finally adjudicated, whichever is later. OWCP may waive these time limits for good cause shown.
(b) As discussed under § 725.713, several commenters asked the Department to clarify in the regulations that miners are not required to pay for covered treatments and services. The Department agrees with the commenters' point. Thus, in addition to revising § 725.713, the Department has revised the title and text of § 725.717 to clarify that a provider may not seek reimbursement from a miner when OWCP denies an otherwise-compensable bill due to late submission.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501
Although the medical benefit payment rules in Subpart J contain collections of information within the meaning of the PRA (
While the Department has determined that the rule does not affect the general terms of the information collections or their associated burdens, consistent with requirements codified at 44 U.S.C. 3506(a)(1)(B), (c)(2)(B) and 3507(a)(1)(D); 5 CFR 1320.11, the Department submitted a series of Information Collection Requests (ICRs) to OMB for approval concurrent with the NPRM to update the information collections to reflect this rulemaking and provide interested parties a specific opportunity to comment under the PRA. The NPRM specifically invited comments regarding the information collection and notified the public of their opportunity to file such comments with both OMB and the Department. 82 FR 742. On March 6, 2017, OMB concluded its review of the ICRs by asking the Department to submit updated ICRs at the final rule stage after considering any public comments regarding the information collection requirements in the rule. While the Department received comments on the substance of the proposed rule, which are addressed in the Section-by-Section Explanation above, it received no comments about the information collection burdens.
The Department submitted updated ICRs to OMB for the information collections in this final rule.
The information collections in this rule are summarized as follows. The number of responses and burden estimates listed are not specific to the black lung program; instead, the estimates are cumulative for all OWCP-administered compensation programs that collect this information.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 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. It also instructs agencies to review “rules that may be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them.” The Department has considered the final rule with these principles in mind and has determined that the regulated community will benefit from this regulation.
The Department addressed these issues in the NPRM. 82 FR 745-752. The Department comprehensively analyzed the potential economic impact of the new payment formulas and determined that they would not have a significant impact on either the economy as a whole or on firms that provide black lung-related health care to entitled miners. 82 FR 745-751. Comparing Trust Fund medical benefit payments for Fiscal Year 2014 with payment amounts that would be made under the proposed regulations for the same services, the Department estimated an aggregate $3,154,297 annual reduction in Trust Fund payments under the proposed payment formulas. 82 FR 751. Further analysis revealed that even for negatively affected providers, the proposed rule would not have significant impact on individual firms.
The Department also noted the rule's multiple advantages that serve the interests of stakeholders. 82 FR 752. The proposed formulas would bring Trust Fund payments in line with industry standards, help protect the Trust Fund from inaccurate and excessive payments, ease recouping of medical benefits paid by the Trust Fund on a liable operator's behalf, and conserve the Trust Fund's limited resources.
The Department received one comment suggesting that the economic analysis in the NPRM improperly focused solely on the nation-wide impacts of the proposed rules. This is incorrect. In addition to considering the overall impact of the proposed rules, the analysis addressed the impact of the proposed payment formulas on a state-by-state basis.
The same commenter takes issue with a statement in the NPRM's economic analysis that any decline in the number of entitled claimants may result in a decline in payments by the Trust Fund, even apart from any change in payments resulting from the new payment formulas.
The Department received no other comments calling its cost-benefit analysis into question. Thus, the Department continues to believe that the cost savings and other benefits of this rule support its promulgation.
The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget has determined that this rule is a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f)(4) of Executive Order 12866 and has reviewed it.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601
The Department conducted an initial regulatory flexibility analysis to aid understanding of the impact of the proposed rule and invited comments on all aspects of the costs and benefits of the proposed rule, with particular attention to the effects of the rule on small entities.
No comments were received that raise a significant issue regarding the initial regulatory flexibility analysis or that provide a basis for departing from the conclusion reached in the analysis. Significantly, with the exception of CAHs, no commenter or interested small business brought forth any information that contradicts the Department's assumptions or conclusions in the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, despite the Department's specific request for comments about adverse effects on small businesses. And the Department's determination, as explained in the Section-by-Section Explanation above, to exclude CAHs from the new payment formulas renders the request to analyze the impact of those formulas on CAHs moot.
Based on these facts, the Department certifies for the purposes of 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, it has not prepared a final regulatory impact analysis. The Department will provide the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration with a copy of this certification.
This final rule is not subject to the requirements of Executive Order 13771 because this final rule addresses transfer costs and does not impose any new requirements apart from the transfers. OMB's interim guidance on E.O. 13771 (Para II, Q2) (February 2, 2017) and OMB additional guidance on E.O. 13771 (Para III, Q13) (April 5, 2017);
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531
The Department has reviewed this rule in accordance with Executive Order 13132 regarding federalism, and has determined that it does not have “federalism implications.” The rule will not “have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”
This rule meets the applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Administrative practice and procedure, Black lung benefits, Claims, Coal miners' entitlement to benefits, Health care, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Survivors' entitlement to benefits, Total disability due to pneumoconiosis, Vocational rehabilitation, Workers' compensation.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of Labor amends 20 CFR part 725 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note (Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990); Pub. L. 114-74 at sec. 701; Reorganization Plan No. 6 of 1950, 15 FR 3174; 30 U.S.C. 901
(a) A miner who is determined to be eligible for benefits under this part or part 727 of this subchapter (
(b) A responsible operator, or where there is none, the fund, must furnish a miner entitled to benefits under this part with such medical services and treatments (including professional medical services and medical equipment, prescription drugs, outpatient medical services, inpatient medical services, and any other medical service, treatment or supply) for such periods as the nature of the miner's pneumoconiosis and disability requires.
(c) The medical benefits referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section include palliative measures useful only to prevent pain or discomfort associated with the miner's pneumoconiosis or attendant disability.
(d) An operator or the fund must also pay the miner's reasonable cost of travel necessary for medical treatment (to be determined in accordance with prevailing United States government mileage rates) and the reasonable documented cost to the miner or medical provider incurred in communicating with the operator, carrier, or OWCP on matters connected with medical benefits.
(e)(1) If a miner receives a medical service or treatment, as described in this section, for any pulmonary disorder, there will be a rebuttable presumption that the disorder is caused or aggravated by the miner's pneumoconiosis.
(2) The party liable for the payment of benefits may rebut the presumption by producing credible evidence that the medical service or treatment provided was for a pulmonary disorder apart from those previously associated with the miner's disability, or was beyond that necessary to effectively treat a covered disorder, or was not for a pulmonary disorder at all.
(3) An operator or the fund, however, cannot rely on evidence that the miner does not have pneumoconiosis or is not totally disabled by pneumoconiosis arising out of coal mine employment to defeat a request for coverage of any medical service or treatment under this subpart.
(4) In determining whether the treatment is compensable, the opinion of the miner's treating physician may be entitled to controlling weight pursuant to § 718.104(d) of this subchapter.
(5) A finding that a medical service or treatment is not covered under this subpart will not otherwise affect the miner's entitlement to benefits.
The term “physician” includes only doctors of medicine (MD) and doctors of osteopathy (DO) within the scope of their practices as defined by State law. No treatment or medical services performed by any other practitioner of the healing arts is authorized by this part, unless such treatment or service is authorized and supervised both by a physician as defined in this section and by OWCP.
(a) Upon notification to a miner of such miner's entitlement to benefits, OWCP must provide the miner with a list of authorized treating physicians and medical facilities in the area of the miner's residence. The miner may select a physician from this list or may select another physician with approval of OWCP. Where emergency services are necessary and appropriate, authorization by OWCP is not required.
(b) OWCP may, on its own initiative, or at the request of a responsible operator, order a change of physicians or facilities, but only where it has been determined that the change is desirable or necessary in the best interest of the miner. The miner may change physicians or facilities subject to the approval of OWCP.
(c) If adequate treatment cannot be obtained in the area of the claimant's residence, OWCP may authorize the use of physicians or medical facilities outside such area as well as reimbursement for travel expenses and overnight accommodations.
(a)
(1) Notify the miner and the providers chosen that the operator or carrier will be responsible for the cost of medical services provided to the miner on account of the miner's total disability due to pneumoconiosis;
(2) Designate a person or persons with decision-making authority with whom OWCP, the miner and authorized providers may communicate on matters involving medical benefits provided under this subpart and notify OWCP, the miner and providers of this designation;
(3) Make arrangements for the direct reimbursement of providers for their services.
(b)
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, medical services from an authorized provider which are payable under § 725.701 do not require prior approval of OWCP or the responsible operator.
(b) Except where emergency treatment is required, prior approval of OWCP or the responsible operator must be obtained before any hospitalization or surgery, or before ordering medical equipment where the purchase price exceeds $300. A request for approval of non-emergency hospitalization or surgery must be acted upon expeditiously, and approval or disapproval will be given by telephone if a written response cannot be given within 7 days following the request. No employee of the Department of Labor, other than a district director or the Chief, Medical Audit and Operations Section, DCMWC, is authorized to approve a request for hospitalization or surgery by telephone.
(a) Within 30 days following the first medical or surgical treatment provided
(b) In order to permit continuing supervision of the medical care provided to the miner with respect to the necessity, character and sufficiency of any medical care furnished or to be furnished, the provider, operator or carrier must submit such reports in addition to those required by paragraph (a) of this section as OWCP may from time to time require. Within the discretion of OWCP, payment may be refused to any medical provider who fails to submit any report required by this section.
(a) All fees charged by providers for any medical service, treatment, drug or equipment authorized under this subpart will be paid at no more than the rate prevailing for the service, treatment, drug or equipment in the community in which the provider is located.
(b) When medical benefits are paid by the fund at OWCP's direction, either on an interim basis or because there is no liable operator, the prevailing community rate for various types of service will be determined as provided in §§ 725.708-725.711.
(c) The provisions of §§ 725.708-725.711 do not apply to charges for medical services or treatments furnished by medical facilities of the U.S. Public Health Service or the Departments of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Veterans Affairs.
(d) If the provisions of §§ 725.708-725.711 cannot be used to determine the prevailing community rate for a particular service or treatment or for a particular provider, OWCP may determine the prevailing community rate by reliance on other federal or state payment formulas or on other evidence, as appropriate.
(e) OWCP must review the payment formulas described in §§ 725.708-725.711 at least once a year, and may adjust, revise or replace any payment formula or its components when necessary or appropriate to ensure miners' access to care or for other reasons.
(f) Except as otherwise provided in this subpart, the provisions of §§ 725.707-725.711 apply to all medical services and treatments rendered after August 31, 2018.
(a)(1) OWCP pays for professional medical services based on a fee schedule derived from the schedule maintained by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) for the payment of such services under the Medicare program (42 CFR part 414). The schedule OWCP utilizes consists of: An assignment of Relative Value Units (RVU) to procedures identified by Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System/Current Procedural Terminology (HCPCS/CPT) code, which represents the work (relative time and intensity of the service), the practice expense and the malpractice expense, as compared to other procedures of the same general class; an assignment of Geographic Practice Cost Index (GPCI) values, which represent the relative work, practice expense and malpractice expense relative to other localities throughout the country; and a monetary value assignment (conversion factor) for one unit of value for each coded service.
(2) The maximum payment for professional medical services identified by a HCPCS/CPT code is calculated by multiplying the RVU values for the service by the GPCI values for such service in that area and multiplying the sum of these values by the conversion factor to arrive at a dollar amount assigned to one unit in that category of service.
(3) OWCP utilizes the RVUs published, and updated or revised from time to time, by CMS for all services for which CMS has made assignments. Where there are no RVUs assigned, OWCP may develop and assign any RVUs that OWCP considers appropriate. OWCP utilizes the GPCI for the locality as defined by CMS and as updated or revised by CMS from time to time. OWCP will devise conversion factors for professional medical services using OWCP's processing experience and internal data.
(b) Where a professional medical service is not covered by the fee schedule described in paragraph (a) of this section, OWCP may pay for the service based on other fee schedules or pricing formulas utilized by OWCP for professional medical services.
(c) Paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section apply to professional medical services rendered after November 30, 2019.
(d) OWCP pays for medical equipment identified by a HCPCS/CPT code based on fee schedules or other pricing formulas utilized by OWCP for such equipment.
(a)(1) OWCP pays for drugs prescribed by physicians by multiplying a percentage of the average wholesale price, or other baseline price as specified by OWCP, of the medication by the quantity or amount provided, plus a dispensing fee.
(2) All prescription medications identified by National Drug Code are assigned an average wholesale price representing the product's nationally recognized wholesale price as determined by surveys of manufacturers and wholesalers, or another baseline price designated by OWCP.
(3) OWCP may establish the dispensing fee.
(b) If the pricing formula described in paragraph (a) of this section is inapplicable, OWCP may make payment based on other pricing formulas utilized by OWCP for prescription medications.
(c) OWCP may, in its discretion, contract for or require the use of specific providers for certain medications. OWCP also may require the use of generic equivalents of prescribed medications where they are available.
(a)(1) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, OWCP pays for outpatient medical services according to Ambulatory Payment Classifications (APCs) derived from the Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS) devised by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) for the Medicare program (42 CFR part 419).
(2) For outpatient medical services paid under the OPPS, such services are assigned according to the APC prescribed by CMS for that service. Each payment is derived by multiplying the prospectively established scaled relative weight for the service's clinical APC by a conversion factor to arrive at a national unadjusted payment rate for the APC. The labor portion of the national unadjusted payment rate is further adjusted by the hospital wage index for the area where payment is being made. Additional adjustments are also made as required or needed.
(b) If a compensable service cannot be assigned or paid at the prevailing community rate under the OPPS or occurs at a facility excluded from the Medicare OPPS, OWCP may pay for the service based on fee schedules or other pricing formulas utilized by OWCP for outpatient services.
(c) This section does not apply to services provided by ambulatory surgical centers.
(d) This section applies to outpatient medical services rendered after November 30, 2019.
(a)(1) OWCP pays for inpatient medical services according to predetermined rates derived from the Medicare Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS) used by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) for the Medicare program (42 CFR part 412).
(2) Inpatient hospital discharges are classified into diagnosis-related groups (DRGs). Each DRG groups together clinically similar conditions that require comparable amounts of inpatient resources. For each DRG, an appropriate weighting factor is assigned that reflects the estimated relative cost of hospital resources used with respect to discharges classified within that group compared to discharges classified within other groups.
(3) For each hospital discharge classified within a DRG, a payment amount for that discharge is determined by using the national weighting factor determined for that DRG, national standardized adjustments, and other factors which may vary by hospital, such as an adjustment for area wage levels. OWCP may also use other price adjustment factors as appropriate based on its processing experience and internal data.
(b) If an inpatient service cannot be classified by DRG, occurs at a facility excluded from the Medicare IPPS, or otherwise cannot be paid at the prevailing community rate under the pricing formula described in paragraph (a) of this section, OWCP may pay for the service based on fee schedules or other pricing formulas utilized by OWCP for inpatient services.
(a) A provider's designation of the code used to identify a billed service or treatment will be accepted if the code is consistent with the medical and other evidence, and the provider will be paid no more than the maximum allowable fee for that service or treatment. If the code is not consistent with the medical evidence or where no code is supplied, the bill will be returned to the provider for correction and resubmission or denied.
(b) If the charge submitted for a service or treatment supplied to a miner exceeds the maximum amount determined to be reasonable under this subpart, OWCP must pay the amount allowed by §§ 725.707-725.711 for that service and notify the provider in writing that payment was reduced for that service in accordance with those provisions.
(c) A provider or other party who disagrees with a fee determination may seek review of that determination as provided in this subpart (
Where a provider submits a bill to OWCP and OWCP has reduced the provider's fee, the miner is not responsible for any additional payment for services or treatments covered under this subpart. Thus, a provider whose fee for service is partially paid by OWCP as a result of the application of the provisions of §§ 725.707-725.711 or otherwise in accordance with this subpart may not request reimbursement from the miner for additional amounts.
(a) All non-pharmacy providers seeking payment from the fund must enroll with OWCP or its designated bill processing agent to have access to the automated authorization system and to submit medical bills to OWCP.
(b) To enroll, the non-pharmacy provider must complete and submit a Form OWCP-1168 to the appropriate location noted on that form. By completing and submitting this form, providers certify that they satisfy all applicable Federal and State licensure and regulatory requirements that apply to their specific provider or supplier type.
(c) The non-pharmacy provider must maintain documentary evidence indicating that it satisfies those requirements.
(d) The non-pharmacy provider must also notify OWCP immediately if any information provided to OWCP in the enrollment process changes.
(e) All pharmacy providers must obtain a National Council for Prescription Drug Programs number. Upon obtaining such number, they are automatically enrolled in OWCP's pharmacy billing system.
(f) After enrollment, a provider must submit all medical bills to OWCP through its bill processing portal or to the OWCP address specified for such purpose and must include the Provider Number/ID obtained through enrollment, or its National Provider Number (NPI) or any other identifying numbers required by OWCP.
(a) A provider must itemize charges on Form OWCP-1500 or CMS-1500 (for professional services, equipment or drugs dispensed in the office), Form OWCP-04 or UB-04 (for hospitals), an electronic or paper-based bill that includes required data elements (for pharmacies) or other form as designated by OWCP, and submit the form promptly to OWCP.
(b) The provider must identify each medical service performed using the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code, the Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) code, the National Drug Code (NDC) number, or the Revenue Center Code (RCC), as appropriate to the type of service. OWCP has discretion to determine which of these codes may be utilized in the billing process. OWCP also has the authority to create and supply codes for specific services or treatments. These OWCP-created codes will be issued to providers by OWCP as appropriate and may only be used as authorized by OWCP. A provider may not use an OWCP-created code for other types of medical examinations, services or treatments.
(1) For professional medical services, the provider must list each diagnosed condition in order of priority and furnish the corresponding diagnostic code using the “International Classification of Disease, 10th Edition, Clinical Modification” (ICD-10-CM), or as revised.
(2) For prescription drugs or supplies, the provider must include the NDC assigned to the product, and such other information as OWCP may require.
(3) For outpatient medical services, the provider must use HCPCS codes and other coding schemes in accordance with the Outpatient Prospective Payment System.
(4) For inpatient medical services, the provider must include admission and discharge summaries and an itemized statement of the charges.
(c)(1) By submitting a bill or accepting payment, the provider signifies that the service for which reimbursement is sought was performed as described, necessary, appropriate, and properly billed in accordance with accepted industry standards. For example, accepted industry standards preclude upcoding billed services for extended medical appointments when the miner actually had a brief routine appointment, or charging for the services of a professional when a paraprofessional or aide performed the service; industry standards prohibit unbundling services to charge separately for services that should be billed as a single charge.
(2) The provider agrees to comply with all regulations set forth in this subpart concerning the provision of medical services or treatments and/or the process for seeking reimbursement for medical services and treatments,
(a) If a miner has paid bills for a medical service or treatment covered under § 725.701 and seeks reimbursement for those expenses, he or she may submit a request for reimbursement on Form OWCP-915, together with an itemized bill. The reimbursement request must be accompanied by evidence that the provider received payment for the service from the miner and a statement of the amount paid. Acceptable evidence that payment was received includes, but is not limited to, a copy of the miner's canceled check (both front and back) or a copy of the miner's credit card receipt.
(b) OWCP may waive the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section if extensive delays in the filing or the adjudication of a claim make it unusually difficult for the miner to obtain the required information.
(c) Reimbursements for covered medical services paid by a miner generally will be no greater than the maximum allowable charge for such service as determined under §§ 725.707-725.711.
(d) A miner will be only partially reimbursed for a covered medical service if the amount he or she paid to a provider for the service exceeds the maximum charge allowable. If this happens, OWCP will advise the miner of the maximum allowable charge for the service in question and of his or her responsibility to ask the provider to refund to the miner, or credit to the miner's account, the amount he or she paid which exceeds the maximum allowable charge.
(e) If the provider does not refund to the miner or credit to his or her account the amount of money paid in excess of the charge allowed by OWCP, the miner should submit documentation to OWCP of the attempt to obtain such refund or credit. OWCP may make reasonable reimbursement to the miner after reviewing the facts and circumstances of the case.
(f) If a miner has paid transportation costs or other incidental expenses related to covered medical services under this part, the miner may submit a request for reimbursement on Form OWCP-957 or OWCP-915, together with proof of payment.
OWCP will pay providers and reimburse miners promptly for all bills received on an approved form and in a timely manner. However, absent good cause, no bill will be paid for expenses incurred if the bill is submitted more than one year beyond the end of the calendar year in which the expense was incurred or the service or supply was provided, or more than one year beyond the end of the calendar year in which the miner's eligibility for benefits is finally adjudicated, whichever is later. A provider may not request reimbursement from a miner for a bill denied by OWCP due to late submission of the bill by the provider.
(a) If a dispute develops concerning medical services or treatments or their payment under this part, OWCP must attempt to informally resolve the dispute. OWCP may, on its own initiative or at the request of the responsible operator or its insurance carrier, order the claimant to submit to an examination by a physician selected by OWCP.
(b) If a dispute cannot be resolved informally, OWCP will refer the case to the Office of Administrative Law Judges for a hearing in accordance with this part. Any such hearing concerning authorization of medical services or treatments must be scheduled at the earliest possible time and must take precedence over all other hearing requests except for other requests under this section and as provided by § 727.405 of this subchapter (
(c) In the development or adjudication of a dispute over medical benefits, the adjudication officer is authorized to take whatever action may be necessary to protect the health of a totally disabled miner.
(d) Any interested medical provider may, if appropriate, be made a party to a dispute under this subpart.
The objective of vocational rehabilitation is the return of a miner who is totally disabled by pneumoconiosis to gainful employment commensurate with such miner's physical impairment. This objective may be achieved through a program of re-evaluation and redirection of the miner's abilities, or retraining in another occupation, and selective job placement assistance.
Each miner who has been determined entitled to receive benefits under part C of title IV of the Act must be informed by OWCP of the availability and advisability of vocational rehabilitation services. If such miner chooses to avail himself or herself of vocational rehabilitation, his or her request will be processed and referred by OWCP vocational rehabilitation advisors pursuant to the provisions of §§ 702.501 through 702.508 of this chapter as is appropriate.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final order.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is classifying the brain trauma assessment test into class II (special controls). The special controls that apply to the device type are identified in this order and will be part of the codified language for the brain trauma assessment test's classification. We are taking this action because we have determined that classifying the device into class II (special controls) will provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device. We believe this action will also enhance patients' access to beneficial innovative devices, in part by reducing regulatory burdens.
This order is effective June 14, 2018. The classification was applicable on February 14, 2018.
Erin Cutts, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug
Upon request, FDA has classified the brain trauma assessment test as class II (special controls), which we have determined will provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. In addition, we believe this action will enhance patients' access to beneficial innovation, in part by reducing regulatory burdens by placing the device into a lower device class than the automatic class III assignment.
The automatic assignment of class III occurs by operation of law and without any action by FDA, regardless of the level of risk posed by the new device. Any device that was not in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, is automatically classified as, and remains within, class III and requires premarket approval unless and until FDA takes an action to classify or reclassify the device (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(1)). We refer to these devices as “postamendments devices” because they were not in commercial distribution prior to the date of enactment of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976, which amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act).
FDA may take a variety of actions in appropriate circumstances to classify or reclassify a device into class I or II. We may issue an order finding a new device to be substantially equivalent under section 513(i) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360c(i)) to a predicate device that does not require premarket approval. We determine whether a new device is substantially equivalent to a predicate by means of the procedures for premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) and part 807 (21 CFR part 807).
FDA may also classify a device through “De Novo” classification, a common name for the process authorized under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act. Section 207 of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 established the first procedure for De Novo classification (Pub. L. 105-115). Section 607 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act modified the De Novo application process by adding a second procedure (Pub. L. 112-144). A device sponsor may utilize either procedure for De Novo classification.
Under the first procedure, the person submits a 510(k) for a device that has not previously been classified. After receiving an order from FDA classifying the device into class III under section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act, the person then requests a classification under section 513(f)(2).
Under the second procedure, rather than first submitting a 510(k) and then a request for classification, if the person determines that there is no legally marketed device upon which to base a determination of substantial equivalence, that person requests a classification under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act.
Under either procedure for De Novo classification, FDA shall classify the device by written order within 120 days. The classification will be according to the criteria under section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act. Although the device was automatically placed within class III, the De Novo classification is considered to be the initial classification of the device.
We believe this De Novo classification will enhance patients' access to beneficial innovation, in part by reducing regulatory burdens. When FDA classifies a device into class I or II via the De Novo process, the device can serve as a predicate for future devices of that type, including for 510(k)s (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(2)(B)(i)). As a result, other device sponsors do not have to submit a De Novo request or premarket approval application in order to market a substantially equivalent device (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(i), defining “substantial equivalence”). Instead, sponsors can use the less burdensome 510(k) process, when necessary, to market their device.
On August 28, 2017, Banyan Biomarkers, Inc., submitted a request for De Novo classification of the Banyan BTI. FDA reviewed the request in order to classify the device under the criteria for classification set forth in section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act.
We classify devices into class II if general controls by themselves are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, but there is sufficient information to establish special controls that, in combination with the general controls, provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(a)(1)(B)). After review of the information submitted in the request, we determined that the device can be classified into class II with the establishment of special controls. FDA has determined that these special controls, in addition to the general controls, will provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device.
Therefore, on February 14, 2018, FDA issued an order to the requester classifying the device into class II. FDA is codifying the classification of the device by adding 21 CFR 866.5830. We have named the generic type of device brain trauma assessment test, and it is identified as a device that consists of reagents used to detect and measure brain injury biomarkers in human specimens. The measurements aid in the evaluation of patients with suspected mild traumatic brain injury in conjunction with other clinical information to assist in determining the need for head imaging per current standard of care.
FDA has identified the following risks to health associated specifically with this type of device and the measures required to mitigate these risks intable 1.
FDA has determined that special controls, in combination with the general controls, address these risks to health and provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. For a device to fall within this classification, and thus avoid automatic classification in class III, it would have to comply with the special controls named in this final order. The necessary special controls appear in the regulation codified by this order. This device is subject to
The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) 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.
This final order establishes special controls that refer to previously approved collections of information found in other FDA regulations and guidance. 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 the guidance document “De Novo Classification Process (Evaluation of Automatic Class III Designation)” have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0844; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814, subparts A through E, regarding premarket approval, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0231; the collections of information in part 807, subpart E, regarding premarket notification submissions, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; and the collections of information in 21 CFR parts 801 and 809, regarding labeling, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485.
Biologics, Laboratories, Medical devices.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 866 is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 360
(a)
(b)
(1) The 21 CFR 809.10(b) compliant labeling must include detailed descriptions of and results from performance testing conducted to evaluate precision, accuracy, linearity, analytical sensitivity, interference, and cross-reactivity. This information must include the following:
(i) Performance testing of device precision must, at minimum, use one unmodified clinical specimen from the intended use population with concentration of the brain injury biomarker(s) near the medical decision point. Contrived specimens that have been generated from pooling of multiple samples or spiking of purified analyte to cover the measuring range may be used, but the contrived samples must be prepared to mimic clinical specimens as closely as possible. This testing must evaluate repeatability and reproducibility using a protocol from an FDA-recognized standard.
(ii) Device performance data must be demonstrated through a clinical study and must include the following:
(A) Data demonstrating clinical validity including the clinical sensitivity and specificity, and positive and negative predictive value of the test in the intended use population of patients with suspected mild traumatic brain injury (
(B) Study must be performed using the operators and in settings that are representative of the types of operators and settings for which the device is intended to be used.
(C) All eligible subjects must meet the well-defined study inclusion and exclusion criteria that define the intended use population. The prevalence of diseased or injured subjects in the study population must reflect the prevalence of the device's intended use population, or alternatively, statistical measures must be used to account for any bias due to enrichment of subpopulations of the intended use population.
(D) All eligible subjects must have undergone a head computerized tomography (CT) scan or other appropriate clinical diagnostic standard used to determine the presence of an intracranial lesion as part of standard of care and must also be evaluated by the subject device. All clinical diagnostic standards used in the clinical study must follow standard clinical practice in the United States.
(E) Relevant demographic variables and baseline characteristics including medical history and neurological history. In addition, head injury characteristics, neurological assessments, and physical evidence of trauma must be provided for each subject. This information includes but is not limited to the following: Time since head injury, time from head injury to CT scan, time from head injury to blood draw, GCS score or equivalent, experience of loss of consciousness, presence of confusion, episodes of vomiting, post-traumatic amnesia characteristics, presence of post-traumatic seizures, drug or alcohol intoxication, mechanism of injury, acute intracranial lesion type, neurosurgical lesion, and cranial fracture.
(F) Each CT scan or other imaging result must be independently evaluated in a blinded manner by at least two board-certified radiologists to determine whether it is positive or negative as defined by the presence or absence of acute intracranial lesions. This independent review must be conducted without access to test results of the device. Prior to conducting the review, the criteria and procedures to be followed for scoring the images must be established, including the mechanism for determining consensus.
(G) All the clinical samples must be tested with the subject device blinded to the TBI status and the neurological-lesion-status of the subject.
(H) Details on how missing values in data are handled must be provided.
(I) For banked clinical samples, details on storage conditions and storage period must be provided. In addition, a specimen stability study must be conducted for the duration of storage to demonstrate integrity of archived clinical samples. The samples evaluated in the assay test development must not be used to establish the clinical validity of the assays.
(iii) Performance testing of device analytical specificity must include the most commonly reported concomitant medications present in specimens from the intended use population. Additionally, potential cross-reacting endogenous analytes must be evaluated at the highest concentration reported in specimens from the intended use population.
(iv) Expected/reference values generated by testing a statistically appropriate number of samples from apparently healthy normal individuals.
(2) The 21 CFR 809.10(a) and (b) compliant labeling must include the following limitations:
(i) A limiting statement that this device is not intended to be used a stand-alone device but as an adjunct to other clinical information to aid in the evaluation of patients who are being considered for standard of care neuroimaging.
(ii) A limiting statement that reads “A negative result is generally associated with the absence of acute intracranial lesions. An appropriate neuroimaging method is required for diagnosis of acute intracranial lesions.”
(iii) As applicable, a limiting statement that reads “This device is for use by laboratory professionals in a clinical laboratory setting.”
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final order.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is classifying the endoscopic electrosurgical clip cutting system into class II (special controls). The special controls that apply to the device type are identified in this order and will be part of the codified language for the endoscopic electrosurgical clip cutting system's classification. We are taking this action because we have determined that classifying the device into class II (special controls) will provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device. We believe this action will also enhance patients' access to beneficial innovative devices, in part by reducing regulatory burdens.
This order is effective June 14, 2018. The classification was applicable on December 22, 2017.
Purva Pandya, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. G223, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-9979,
Upon request, FDA has classified the endoscopic electrosurgical clip cutting system as class II (special controls), which we have determined will provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. In addition, we believe this action will enhance patients' access to beneficial innovation, in part by reducing regulatory burdens by placing the device into a lower device class than the automatic class III assignment.
The automatic assignment of class III occurs by operation of law and without any action by FDA, regardless of the level of risk posed by the new device. Any device that was not in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, is automatically classified as, and remains within, class III and requires premarket approval unless and until FDA takes an action to classify or reclassify the device (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(1)). We refer to these devices as “postamendments devices” because they were not in commercial distribution prior to the date of enactment of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976, which amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act).
FDA may take a variety of actions in appropriate circumstances to classify or reclassify a device into class I or II. We may issue an order finding a new device to be substantially equivalent under section 513(i) of the FD&C Act to a predicate device that does not require premarket approval (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(i)). We determine whether a new device is substantially equivalent to a predicate by means of the procedures for premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) and part 807 (21 CFR part 807), respectively).
FDA may also classify a device through “De Novo” classification, a common name for the process authorized under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act. Section 207 of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 established the first procedure for De Novo classification (Pub. L. 105-115). Section 607 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act modified the De Novo application process by adding a second procedure (Pub. L. 112-144). A device sponsor may utilize either procedure for De Novo classification.
Under the first procedure, the person submits a 510(k) for a device that has not previously been classified. After receiving an order from FDA classifying the device into class III under section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act, the person then requests a classification under section 513(f)(2).
Under the second procedure, rather than first submitting a 510(k) and then a request for classification, if the person determines that there is no legally marketed device upon which to base a determination of substantial equivalence, that person requests a classification under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act.
Under either procedure for De Novo classification, FDA shall classify the device by written order within 120 days. The classification will be according to the criteria under section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act. Although the device was automatically within class III, the De Novo classification is considered to be the initial classification of the device.
We believe this De Novo classification will enhance patients' access to beneficial innovation, in part by reducing regulatory burdens. When FDA classifies a device into class I or II via the De Novo process, the device can serve as a predicate for future devices of that type, including for 510(k)s. As a result, other device sponsors do not have to submit a De Novo request or PMA in order to market a substantially equivalent device (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(i), defining “substantial equivalence”). Instead, sponsors can use the less-burdensome 510(k) process, when necessary, to market their device.
On April 11, 2016, Ovesco Endoscopy AG submitted a request for De Novo classification of the remOVE System. FDA reviewed the request in order to classify the device under the criteria for classification set forth in section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act.
We classify devices into class II if general controls by themselves are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, but there is sufficient information to establish special controls that, in combination with the general controls, provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(a)(1)(B)). After review of the information submitted in the request, we determined that the device can be classified into class II with the establishment of special controls. FDA has determined that these special controls, in addition to the general controls, will provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device.
Therefore, on December 22, 2017, FDA issued an order to the requester classifying the device into class II. FDA is codifying the classification of the device by adding 21 CFR 876.4310. We have named the generic type of device endoscopic electrosurgical clip cutting system, and it is identified as a prescription device that applies electrical energy to fragment metallic clips, which are devices placed in the digestive tract to close gastrointestinal perforations, hemorrhages, or perform resection. The system includes instruments that are then used to remove the fragmented clips from the digestive tract.
FDA has identified the following risks to health associated specifically with this type of device and the measures required to mitigate these risks intable 1.
FDA has determined that special controls, in combination with the general controls, address these risks to health and provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. In order for a device to fall within this classification, and thus avoid automatic classification in class III, it would have to comply with the special controls named in this final order. The necessary special controls appear in the regulation codified by this order. We encourage sponsors to consult with us if they wish to use a non-animal testing method they believe is suitable, adequate, validated, and feasible. We will consider if such an alternative method could be assessed for equivalency to an animal test method. This device is subject to premarket notification requirements under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act.
At the time of classification, endoscopic electrosurgical clip cutting systems are for prescription use only. Prescription devices are exempt from the requirement for adequate directions for use for the layperson under section 502(f)(1) of the FD&C Act and 21 CFR 801.5, as long as the conditions of 21 CFR 801.109 are met (referring to 21 U.S.C. 352(f)(1)).
The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) 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.
This final order establishes special controls that refer to previously approved collections of information found in other FDA regulations and guidance. 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 the guidance document “De Novo Classification Process (Evaluation of Automatic Class III Designation)” have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0844; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814, subparts A through E, regarding premarket approval, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0231; the collections of information in part 807, subpart E, regarding premarket notification submissions, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 801, regarding labeling, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485.
Medical devices.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 876 is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 360l, 371.
(a)
(b)
(1) Non-clinical performance testing must demonstrate that the device performs as intended under anticipated conditions of use. The following performance characteristics must be tested:
(i) Performance bench testing to evaluate the functionality (including stress, compatibility, usability, and reliability) of the device during use;
(ii) Electrical and thermal safety testing; and
(iii) Electromagnetic compatibility testing.
(2) Animal testing must evaluate tissue damage, including thermal effects, during the clip removal procedure. This testing must also evaluate usability and effectiveness of the device.
(3) The patient-contacting components of the device must be demonstrated to be biocompatible.
(4) Performance data must demonstrate the sterility of the device components intended to be provided sterile.
(5) Performance data must support shelf life by demonstrating continued sterility of the device (or the sterile components), package integrity, and device functionality over the labeled shelf life.
(6) Labeling of the device must include:
(i) Instructions for use, and
(ii) A shelf life for single use components.
Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, DoD.
Final rule.
This final rule removes DoD's regulation concerning the Technical Surveillance Countermeasures (TSCM) Program. DoD originally determined that rulemaking was required based on the portion of this part that speaks to providing assistance to non-DoD agencies. However, this part places no burden on other agencies. The description of the relationship with other agencies is in accordance with federal law, and this part is unnecessary. Therefore, this part can be removed from the CFR.
This rule is effective on June 14, 2018.
Richard Davison, 703-697-4850.
It has been determined that publication of this CFR part removal for public comment is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to public interest since it is based on removing DoD internal policies and procedures that are publically available on the Department's issuance website.
This part contains internal DoD requirements and thus, does not fiscally impact parties outside of DoD. DoD's internal DoD Instruction 5240.05, “Technical Surveillance Countermeasures (TSCM),” remains in effect exclusively for the management of TSCM in DoD and is available at
This rule is not significant under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” therefore, E.O. 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs” does not apply.
Classified information, Investigations.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Lehigh Valley Bridge across the Newark Bay, mile 4.3, at Newark, New Jersey. This temporary deviation is necessary to allow the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position to facilitate repairs.
This deviation is effective from 6 a.m. on July 15, 2018, to 6 p.m. on August 6, 2018.
The docket for this deviation, USCG-2018-0438 is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Judy Leung-Yee, Bridge Management Specialist, First District Bridge Branch, U.S. Coast Guard, telephone 212-514-4336, email
Consolidated Rail Corporation, the owner of the bridge, requested a temporary deviation from the normal operating schedule to facilitate A-Frame sheave bearing repairs. The Lehigh Valley Bridge across the Newark Bay, mile 4.3, at Newark, New Jersey is a lift bridge with a vertical clearance in the closed position of 35 feet at mean high water and 39 feet at mean low water. The existing bridge operating regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.5 and 117.735.
Under this temporary deviation, the Lehigh Valley Bridge shall remain in the closed position from 6 a.m. on July 15, 2018, to 6 p.m. on July 16, 2018. Should inclement weather occur, the following rain dates may be used: (1) From 6 a.m. on July 22, 2018, to 6 p.m. on July 23, 2018; (2) from 6 a.m. on July 29, 2018, to 6 p.m. on July 30, 2018; or (3) from 6 a.m. on August 5, 2018, to 6 p.m. on August 6, 2018.
The waterway users are seasonal recreational boaters and commercial vessels of various sizes. Coordination with waterway users indicated no objections to this temporary deviation. Vessels able to pass under the bridge in the closed position may do so at any time. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass.
The Coast Guard will inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can 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 a temporary safety zone for navigable waters within a 420-foot radius of the launch site located near the mouth of the Vermilion River, Vermilion, OH. This safety zone is
This rule is effective from 9:45 p.m. through 10:45 p.m. on June 15, 2018.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email LT Ryan Junod, Chief of Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Cleveland; telephone 216-937-0124, 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.” On April 19, 2018, the Captain of the Port (COTP) Buffalo published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), Docket Number USCG-2017-1112, to make temporary safety zones for annual events a final rule. This event was included in the NPRM. Its purpose was to mitigate potential threats to personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the specified safety zones. The NPRM addressed these concerns, and invited the public to comment during the comment period, which ended on May 21, 2018. As such, it is unnecessary to publish an NPRM for this temporary rule because the public had opportunity to comment on it and no comments were received concerning this event.
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 Buffalo (COTP) has determined that a fireworks display presents significant risks to the public safety and property. Such hazards include premature and accidental detonations, dangerous projectiles, and falling or burning debris. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the fireworks display takes place.
This rule establishes a safety zone on June 15, 2018, from 9:45 p.m. until 10:45 p.m. The safety zone will encompass all waters of the Vermillion River, Vermillion, OH contained within a 420-foot radius of: 41°25′45″ N, 082°21′54″ W.
Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.
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 conclusion that this rule is not a significant regulatory action. We anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced for a relatively short time. Also, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit around it. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.
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
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, 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 establishes a temporary safety zone. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. 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)
(b)
(c)
(2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.
(3) The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port Buffalo is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act on his behalf.
(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone shall contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene representative.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce various safety zones for annual marine events in the Captain of the Port Detroit zone from 9 p.m. on June 23, 2018 through 11 p.m. on July 5, 2018. Enforcement of these zones is necessary and intended to ensure safety of life on the navigable waters immediately prior to, during, and immediately after these fireworks events. During the aforementioned period, the Coast Guard will enforce restrictions upon, and control movement of, vessels in a specified area immediately prior to, during, and immediately after fireworks events. During each enforcement period, no person or vessel may enter the respective safety zone without
The regulations in 33 CFR 165.941 will be enforced at various dates and times between 9 p.m. on June 23, 2018 through 11 p.m. on July 5, 2018.
If you have questions on this document, call or email Ryan Erpelding, Prevention, Marine Safety Unit Toledo, Coast Guard; telephone (419) 418-6037, or email
The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zones listed in 33 CFR 165.941, Safety Zones; Annual Events in the Captain of the Port Detroit Zone, at the following dates and times for the following events:
(1)
(2)
Under the provisions of § 165.23, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within these safety zones during the enforcement period is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated representative. Vessels that wish to transit through the safety zones may request permission from the Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated representative. Requests must be made in advance and approved by the Captain of Port before transits will be authorized. Approvals will be granted on a case by case basis. The Captain of the Port may be contacted via U.S. Coast Guard Sector Detroit on channel 16, VHF-FM or by calling (313) 568-9564. The Coast Guard will give notice to the public via Local Notice to Mariners and VHF radio broadcasts that the regulation is in effect.
This document is issued under authority of § 165.941 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). If the Captain of the Port determines that any of these safety zones need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this document, he may suspend such enforcement and notify the public of the suspension via a Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for navigable waters on the Buffalo River, Buffalo, NY. This safety zone is intended to restrict vessels from portions of the Buffalo River during the Hope Chest Buffalo Niagara Dragon Boat Festival. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect mariners and vessels from the navigational hazards associated with this event. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo.
This rule is effective from 8:00 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. on June 16, 2018.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email LT Michael Collet, Chief Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 716-843-9322, 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 find that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to public interest.” On April 19, 2018, the Captain of the Port (COTP) Buffalo published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), Docket Number USCG-2017-1112, to make temporary safety zones for annual events a final rule. This event was included in the NPRM. Its purpose was to mitigate potential threats to personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the specified safety zones. The NPRM addressed these concerns, and invited the public to comment during the comment period, which ended on May 21, 2018. As such, it is unnecessary to publish an NPRM for this temporary rule because the public had opportunity to comment on it and no comments were received concerning this event.
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 Buffalo (COTP) has determined the Hope Chest Buffalo Niagara Dragon Boat Festival presents significant risks to the public safety and property. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the event takes place.
This rule establishes a safety zone on June 16, 2018, from 8:00 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. The safety zone will encompass all waters of the Buffalo River, Buffalo, NY starting at position 42°52′12.60″ N, 078°52′17.0″ W then Southeast to 42°52′03.0″ N, 078°52′12.0″ W then East
Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.
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 conclusion that this rule is not a significant regulatory action. We anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced for a relatively short time. Also, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit around it. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.
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 between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, 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 establishes a temporary safety zone. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. 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)
(b)
(c)
(2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.
(3) The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port Buffalo is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act on his behalf.
(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene representative.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for navigable waters within a 280-foot radius of a portion of the Detroit River, Grosse Ile, MI. This zone is necessary to protect spectators and vessels from potential hazards associated with the Grosse Ile Fireworks.
This temporary final rule is effective from 10 p.m. on June 30, 2018 through 11 p.m. on July 1, 2018.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this temporary rule, call or email Tracy Girard, Prevention Department, Sector Detroit, Coast Guard; telephone 313-568-9564, or email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)(5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable. The Coast Guard did not receive the final details of this fireworks display in time to publish an NPRM. As such, it is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule.
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 Detroit (COTP) has determined that potential hazard associated with fireworks from 10 p.m. on June 30, 2018 through 11 p.m. on July 1, 2018 will be a safety concern to anyone within a 280-foot radius of the launch site. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the fireworks are being displayed.
This rule establishes a safety zone from 10 p.m. on June 30 through 11 p.m. on July 1, 2018. The safety zone will encompass all U.S. navigable waters of Detroit River, Grosse Ile, MI, within a 280-foot radius of position 42°05.390′ N, 083°09.065′ W (NAD 83). The safety zone will be enforced from 10 p.m. to 11 p.m. on June 30, 2018. In the case of inclement weather on June 30, 2018, this safety zone will be enforced from 10 p.m. to 11 p.m. on July 1, 2018. 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.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-year of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this safety zone which will impact a small designated area of the Detroit River from 10 p.m. on June 30, 2018 through 11 p.m. on July 1, 2018. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNM) via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.
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 between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, 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 lasting one hour that will prohibit entry into a designated area. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. 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)
(b)
(c)
(2) The safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the COTP or his on-scene representative.
(3) The “on-scene representative” of COTP is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer or a Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Detroit to act on his behalf.
(4) Vessel operators shall contact the COTP or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to enter or operate within the safety zone. The COTP or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 or at (313) 568-9464. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the regulated area must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP or his on-scene representative.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for Extract of
This regulation is effective June 14, 2018. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before August 13, 2018, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0565, is available at
Robert McNally, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0565 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before August 13, 2018. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0565, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
In the
Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the exemption is “safe.” Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings but does not include occupational exposure. Pursuant to FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), in establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C), which require EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance or tolerance exemption and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue . . . .” Additionally, FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D) requires that EPA consider “available information concerning the cumulative effects of [a particular pesticide's] . . . residues and other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.” FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C) provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.
EPA evaluated the available toxicity and exposure data on Extract of
Extract of
Based on the data submitted in support of this petition and the dietary risk assessment conducted by the Agency, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm from aggregate exposures to Extract of
Based upon its evaluation, EPA concludes that Extract of
Therefore, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from aggregate exposure to residues of Extract of
An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes due to the lack of concern about safety for Extract of
This action establishes a tolerance exemption under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to EPA. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance exemption in this action, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes. As a result, this action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, EPA has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, EPA has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501
This action does not involve any technical standards that would require EPA's consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
Residues of the biochemical pesticide Extract of
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
NMFS issues final 2018 and projected 2019-2020 specifications for the small-mesh multispecies fishery, and corrects an error from a previous action. The specifications are necessary to establish allowable catch limits for each stock within the fishery to control overfishing while allowing optimum yield, consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The intent of this action is to inform the public of these specifications for the 2018 fishing year, projected specifications for 2019-2020, and the regulatory correction.
Effective June 14, 2018, through April 30, 2019.
Copies of these specifications, including the Environmental Assessment (EA), Regulatory Flexibility Act Analyses, and other supporting documents for the action, are available upon request from Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Newburyport, MA 01950. These documents are also accessible via the internet at
Cynthia Hanson, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 281-9180.
The small-mesh multispecies fishery is managed by the New England Fishery Management Council within the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The fishery is composed of five stocks of three species of hakes: Northern silver hake; southern silver hake; northern red hake; southern red hake; and offshore hake. Southern silver hake and offshore hake are often grouped together and collectively referred to as “southern whiting.” Amendment 19 to the FMP (78 FR 20260; April 4, 2013) established a process and framework for setting catch specifications for the small-mesh fishery. The FMP requires the specification of an overfishing limit (OFL), acceptable biological catch (ABC), annual catch limit (ACL), and total allowable landings (TAL) for each stock within the fishery for up to three years at a time, based on the most recent stock projections for upcoming years. This action implements the Council's recommended small-mesh multispecies specifications for the 2018 fishing year, announces projected 2019 and 2020 specifications as recommended by the Council, and makes a minor regulatory correction.
The proposed rule for this action published in the
This action implements the final 2018 and projected 2019-2020 small-mesh multispecies specifications as proposed (Table 1). All other management measures in the small-mesh multispecies fishery (such as possession limits) will remain unchanged. By providing projected quotas for 2019 and 2020, NMFS hopes to assist fishery participants in planning ahead. The Council will review these specifications annually, and NMFS will provide notice prior to each fishing year to announce any necessary changes for 2019 and 2020. For more information on the Council's recommendations and decision-making process, please see the proposed rule (83 FR 15780).
This action also corrects regulatory text specifying the red hake possession limits in the southern small-mesh exemption areas (Southern New England and Mid-Atlantic Exemption Areas). In the 2015-2017 specifications for this fishery (May 28, 2015; 80 FR 30379), we implemented a new 3,000-lb (1,361-kg) red hake possession limit for the northern exemption areas, but we did not specify that the possession limit in the southern areas would remain 5,000 lb (2,268 kg). This action revises the regulations to specify the 5,000-lb (2,268-kg) possession limit for red hake harvested in the southern small-mesh exemption areas, as originally intended by the Council.
The public comment period for the proposed rule ended on April 27, 2018. We received three comments from the public on this rule. One commenter asked how the input of the active fishing community contributed to the development of these specifications. These specifications were developed through the Council process, which involved multiple discussions at public Council meetings (such as meetings on June 20, 2017, in Portland, ME; on September 26, 2017, in Gloucester, MA; and on December 7, 2017, in Newport, RI) where concerns and interests of the active fishing community were considered. Active members of the fishing community also sit on the Small-Mesh Multispecies (Whiting) Advisory Panel, which makes recommendations on management of the fishery to the Council and its Small-Mesh Multispecies Committee. The public comment period announced by the proposed rule was another opportunity for fishermen to offer suggestions and improvements to the specifications. The other two comments were not relevant either to this action or to fisheries in general and did not warrant a response. No changes to the proposed specifications were made as a result of these comments.
There are no substantive changes from the proposed rule.
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this final rule is consistent with the Small-Mesh Multispecies FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.
This final rule does not duplicate, conflict, or overlap with any existing Federal rules.
This action does not contain a collection of information requirement for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay in the date of effectiveness for this rule, to ensure that the final specifications are in place as close as practicable to the start of the 2018 small-mesh multispecies fishing year, which began on May 1, 2018. This action establishes the final specifications (
This rule is being issued at the earliest possible date. Preparation of the proposed rule was dependent on the submission of the EA, in support of the specifications, that is developed by the Council. A complete specifications document and accompanying EA was received by NMFS in late January 2018. Documentation in support of the Council's recommended specifications is required for NMFS to provide the public with information from the environmental and economic analyses, as required in rulemaking, and to evaluate the consistency of the Council's recommendation with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law. The proposed rule published on April 12, 2018, with a 15-day comment period ending April 27, 2018.
Although the specifications from 2017 are carried into 2018 until the new catch limits are implemented, the Council has recommended changes based on the most recent assessment of the four main small-mesh multispecies stocks that should be in place as soon as possible. Harvest occurring within the first weeks of the fishing year based on old catch limits could be detrimental to southern hake stocks, including southern red hake, which is experiencing overfishing.
Furthermore, this action increases the northern silver hake quota by 33 percent and increases northern red hake quota by 128 percent, providing federally permitted vessels additional harvest opportunity for the 2018 fishing year. The timely implementation of these specifications will help to ensure that the industry has the opportunity to achieve optimal yield in the fishery, and to access the increased quotas for the
The final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) included in this final rule was prepared consistent with 5 U.S.C. 604(a), and incorporates the initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) and a summary of analyses completed to support the action. A public copy of the environmental assessment/IRFA is available from the Council (see
NMFS did not receive any comments in response to the IRFA or regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA) process. Refer to the “Comments and Responses” section of this rule's preamble for more detail on the public comments that were received. No changes to the proposed rule were required to be made as a result of public comment.
This final rule affects small entities engaged in commercial fishing operations within the small-mesh multispecies fishery that is a subset of the northeast multispecies fishery. For the purposes of the RFA analysis, the ownership entities (or firms), not the individual vessels, are considered to be the regulated entities. Because of this, some vessels with northeast multispecies permits may be considered to be part of the same firm because they may have the same owners. In terms of RFA, a business primarily engaged in commercial fishing activity is classified as a small business if it has combined annual gross receipts not in excess of $11 million (NAICS 11411) for all its affiliated operations worldwide. To identify these small and large firms, vessel ownership data from the permit database were grouped according to common owners and sorted by size. The current ownership data set used for this analysis is based on calendar year 2016 (the most recent complete year available) and contains average gross sales associated with those permits for calendar years 2014 through 2016.
The small-mesh exempted fishery allows vessels to harvest species in designated areas using mesh sizes smaller than the minimum mesh size required by Regulated Mesh Area (RMA) regulations. To participate in the small-mesh multispecies exempted fishery, vessels must possess either a limited access multispecies permit (categories A, C, D, E or F) or an open access multispecies permit (category K). Limited access multispecies permit holders can target small-mesh multispecies with different possession limit requirements depending on fishing region and mesh size used. Open access, Category K permit holders may fish for small-mesh multispecies when participating in an exempted fishing program. Therefore, entities holding one or more multispecies permits (permit type A, C-F, K) are the entities that have the potential to be directly impacted by this action. According to the commercial database, there were 853 distinct ownership entities, based on entities' participation during the 2014-2016 time-period, that could potentially target small-mesh multispecies. This includes entities that could not be classified into a business type because they did not earn revenue from landing and selling fish in 2014-2016 and thus are considered to be small. Of the 853 total firms, 844 are categorized as small business entities and nine are categorized as large businesses.
While 853 commercial entities have the potential to be impacted by the proposed action, not all of these entities actively land small-mesh multispecies for commercial sale. There are 406 distinct entities that commercially sold small-mesh multispecies from 2014-2016 and may be directly affected by the proposed action. Of those, 404 are categorized as small businesses.
No additional reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements are included in this final rule.
Specification of commercial catch limits is constrained by the conservation objectives of in the FMP and implemented at 50 CFR part 648 under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action implements final 2018 and projected 2019-2020 commercial catch specifications for the small-mesh multispecies fishery based on the most recent stock assessment update. The Council also considered taking no action, where the same catch limits and specifications from 2017 would continue into 2018 with no change. Only these two alternatives were considered by the Council. The alternative status quo specifications do not address the overfishing and overfished designations raised by the 2017 stock assessment update, and thus do not meet the Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements. The specifications implemented by this final rule minimize the economic impacts on small entities to the extent practicable while adhering to the conservation requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. As described in the proposed rule for this action, we do not anticipate these specifications to have a significant impact on those small entities to which this final rule would apply.
Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such publications as “small entity compliance guides.” The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. As part of this rulemaking process, a letter to permit holders that also serves as small entity compliance guide was prepared and will be sent to all holders of Federal permits issued for the small-mesh multispecies fishery. In addition, copies of this final rule and guide (
Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(v)
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
This final rule extends the region-wide moratorium on the harvest of gold corals in the U.S. Pacific Islands through June 30, 2023. NMFS intends this final rule to prevent overfishing and to stimulate research on gold corals.
This rule is effective July 16, 2018.
Background information on Pacific Island precious coral fisheries is found in the fishery ecosystem plans available from the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council), 1164 Bishop St., Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813, tel (808) 522-8220, fax (808) 522-8226, or
Kate Taylor, NMFS PIR Sustainable Fisheries, (808)725-5182.
Precious corals (also called deep-sea corals) include black, pink, red, bamboo, and gold corals, and are harvested for use in high quality jewelry. NMFS and the Council manage the fishery for precious corals in the U.S. Pacific Islands under fishery ecosystem plans (FEP) for American Samoa, Hawaii, the Mariana Archipelago (Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands), and the Pacific Remote Islands Area. The U.S. fishery for gold corals in the Pacific Islands has been dormant since 2001.
In 2008, the Council recommended, and NMFS implemented, a five-year moratorium on the harvest of gold corals in the Pacific Islands Region (73 FR 47098, August 13, 2008). The measure was a precautionary response to research that suggested that gold coral growth rates and recruitment were much lower than previously known.
The Council considered additional research in 2012 that included refined gold coral growth rates and the identification of previously unknown habitat requirements. Based on that information, in 2013 the Council recommended that NMFS extend the moratorium for five years, which the agency did in May 2013 (78 FR 32181, May 29, 2013).
The current moratorium is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2018, but the Council continues to be concerned about uncertainties related to slow gold coral growth rates, taxonomy, and complex habitat requirements. Extending the moratorium another five years will provide additional time for further research and for the Council to develop sustainable management measures for gold corals. Based on the Council's concerns, NMFS is extending the moratorium on harvesting gold corals for five years, through June 30, 2023.
Additional background information on this action is in the preamble to the proposed rule (83 FR 18260, April 26, 2018).
On April 26, 2018, NMFS published a proposed rule and request for public comments (83 FR 18260). The comment period ended May 11, 2018. NMFS received input from four commenters, all generally in support of the rule. We respond below to specific comments.
This final rule contains no changes from the proposed rule.
The Administrator, Pacific Islands Region, NMFS, determined that this action is necessary for the conservation and management of the gold coral fishery and that it is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and other applicable laws.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration 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. As a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis was not required and none was prepared.
Administrative practice and procedure, American Samoa, Deep sea coral, Fisheries, Fishing, Guam, Hawaii, Northern Mariana Islands, Pacific Remote Island Areas, Precious coral.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS amends 50 CFR part 665 as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
Fishing for, taking, or retaining any gold coral in any precious coral permit area is prohibited through June 30, 2023.
(d) * * *
Notes:
2. A moratorium on gold coral harvesting is in effect through June 30, 2023.
Fishing for, taking, or retaining any gold coral in any precious coral permit area is prohibited through June 30, 2023.
Fishing for, taking, or retaining any gold coral in any precious coral permit area is prohibited through June 30, 2023.
Fishing for, taking, or retaining any gold coral in any precious coral permit area is prohibited through June 30, 2023.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2016-04-16, which applies to all The Boeing Company Model DC-10-10, DC-10-10F, DC-10-15, DC-10-30, DC-10-30F (KC-10A and KDC-10), DC-10-40, DC-10-40F, MD-10-10F, MD-10-30F, MD-11, and MD-11F airplanes. AD 2016-04-16 requires adding design features to detect electrical faults and to detect a pump running in an empty fuel tank. Since we issued AD 2016-04-16, we have received new service information that would eliminate the need for certain provisions of AD 2016-04-16. This proposed AD would provide optional terminating action for certain requirements. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 30, 2018.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone: 562-797-1717; internet:
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Serj Harutunian, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5254; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We issued AD 2016-04-16, Amendment 39-18410 (81 FR 12806, March 11, 2016) (“AD 2016-04-16”), for all The Boeing Company Model DC-10-10, DC-10-10F, DC-10-15, DC-10-30, DC-10-30F (KC-10A and KDC-10), DC-10-40, DC-10-40F, MD-10-10F, MD-10-30F, MD-11, and MD-11F airplanes. AD 2016-04-16 requires adding design features to detect electrical faults and to detect a pump running in an empty fuel tank. AD 2016-04-16 resulted from a determination that it is necessary to clarify the requirements for the design features and to remove a terminating action for certain inspections. We issued AD 2016-04-16 to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.
Since we issued AD 2016-04-16, we have received new service information that would eliminate the need for certain provisions of AD 2016-04-16.
We reviewed the following Boeing service information.
• Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC10-28A253, dated June 5, 2014; and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-28A133, dated June 5, 2014. This service information describes procedures for replacing the fuel pump control relays with fault current detectors and changing the fuel tank boost/transfer pump wire termination. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models.
• Boeing Service Bulletin DC10-28-256, dated June 24, 2014; and Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-137, dated June 24, 2014. This service information describes procedures for changing the fuel pump control and indication system wiring. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models.
• Boeing Trijet Special Compliance Item Report MDC-02K1003, Revision M,
• Boeing Service Bulletin DC10-28-264, dated May 15, 2015, or Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-146, dated May 15, 2015. This service information describes procedures for replacement of the fuel pump housing electrical connector, associated wires, fuel tank feed-through components, and installing sealed terminal lugs on the fuel pump wiring, or replacement of the fuel pump housing, associated wires, fuel tank feed-through components, and installing sealed terminal lugs on the fuel pump. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
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 designs.
This proposed AD would retain all requirements of AD 2016-04-16. Specifically, this proposed AD would retain the repetitive inspections for proper operation of the fuel pump, and applicable corrective actions.
This proposed AD would also eliminate the need for the provisions in paragraph (j) of this proposed AD by providing optional terminating action for the requirements of paragraph (a) of AD 2002-13-10, Amendment 39-12798 (67 FR 45053, July 8, 2002); paragraph (a) of AD 2003-07-14, Amendment 39-13110 (68 FR 17544, April 10, 2003); and paragraph (j) of AD 2011-11-05, Amendment 39-16704 (76 FR 31462, June 1, 2011).
This proposed AD specifies to revise certain operator maintenance documents to include new actions (
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 341 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by July 30, 2018.
(1) This AD replaces AD 2016-04-16, Amendment 39-18410 (81 FR 12806, March 11, 2016) (“AD 2016-04-16”).
(2) This AD affects AD 2002-13-10, Amendment 39-12798 (67 FR 45053, July 8, 2002) (“AD 2002-13-10”).
(3) This AD affects AD 2003-07-14, Amendment 39-13110 (68 FR 17544, April 10, 2003) (“AD 2003-07-14”).
(4) This AD affects AD 2008-06-21 R1, Amendment 39-16100 (74 FR 61504, November 25, 2009) (“AD 2008-06-21 R1”).
(5) This AD affects AD 2011-11-05, Amendment 39-16704 (76 FR 31462, June 1, 2011) (“AD 2011-11-05”).
This AD applies to all The Boeing Company airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD, certificated in any category.
(1) Model DC-10-10, DC-10-10F, DC-10-15, DC-10-30, DC-10-30F (KC-10A and KDC-10), DC-10-40, and DC-10-40F airplanes.
(2) Model MD-10-10F, MD-10-30F, MD-11, and MD-11F airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.
This AD was prompted by a fuel system review conducted by the manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2016-04-16, with no changes. Except as provided by paragraph (h) of this AD: As of 48 months after April 15, 2016 (the effective date of AD 2016-04-16), no person may operate any airplane affected by this AD unless an amended type certificate or supplemental type certificate that incorporates the design features and requirements described in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(4) of this AD has been approved by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, and those design features are installed on the airplane to meet the criteria specified in section 25.981(a) and (d) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 25.981(a) and (d), at Amendment 25-125 (
(1) For all airplanes: Each electrically powered alternating current (AC) fuel pump installed in any fuel tank that normally empties during flight and each pump that is partially covered by a lowering fuel level—such as main tanks, center wing tanks, auxiliary fuel tanks installed by the airplane manufacturer, and tail tanks—must have a protective device installed to detect electrical faults that can cause arcing and burn through of the fuel pump housing and pump electrical connector. The same device must shut off the pump by automatically removing electrical power from the pump when such faults are detected. When a fuel pump is shut off resulting from detection of an electrical fault, the device must stay latched off, until the fault is cleared through maintenance action and the pump is verified safe for operation.
(2) For airplanes with a 2-person flightcrew: Additional design features, if not originally installed by the airplane manufacturer, must be installed to meet 3 criteria: To detect a running fuel pump in a tank that is normally emptied during flight, to provide an indication to the flightcrew that the tank is empty, and to automatically shut off that fuel pump. The prospective pump indication and shutoff system must automatically shut off each pump in case the flightcrew does not shut off a pump running dry in an empty tank within 60 seconds after each fuel tank is emptied. An airplane flight manual supplement (AFMS) that includes flightcrew manual pump shutoff procedures in the Limitations section of the AFMS must be submitted to the Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, for approval.
(3) For airplanes with a 3-person flightcrew: Additional design features, if not originally installed by the airplane manufacturer, must be installed to detect when a fuel pump in a tank that is normally emptied during flight is running in an empty fuel tank, and to provide an indication to the flightcrew that the tank is empty. The flight engineer must manually shut off each pump running dry in an empty tank within 60 seconds after the tank is emptied. The AFMS Limitations section must be revised to specify that this pump shutoff must be done by the flight engineer.
(4) For all airplanes with tanks that normally empty during flight: Separate means must be provided to detect and shut off a pump that was previously commanded to be shut off automatically or manually but remained running in an empty tank during flight.
This paragraph restates the provisions of paragraph (h) of AD 2016-04-16, with no changes. In lieu of doing the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD, do the applicable actions specified in paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3) of this AD.
(1) For MD-11 and MD-11F airplanes: Do the actions specified in paragraphs (h)(1)(i) and (h)(1)(ii) of this AD.
(i) As of 48 months after April 15, 2016 (the effective date of AD 2016-04-16), change the fuel pump control and indication system wiring, in accordance with the
(ii) Prior to or concurrently with accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph (h)(1)(i) of this AD: Replace the fuel pump control relays with fault current detectors, and change the fuel tank boost/transfer pump wire termination, in accordance with Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-28A133, dated June 5, 2014.
(2) For Model DC-10-10, DC-10-10F, DC-10-15, DC-10-30, DC-10-30F (KC-10A and KDC-10), DC-10-40, DC-10-40F, MD-10-10F, and MD-10-30F airplanes: Do the actions specified in paragraphs (h)(2)(i) and (h)(2)(ii) of this AD.
(i) As of 48 months after April 15, 2016 (the effective date of AD 2016-04-16), change the fuel pump control and indication system wiring, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin DC10-28-256, dated June 24, 2014.
(ii) Prior to or concurrently with accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph (h)(2)(i) of this AD: Replace the fuel pump control relays with fault current detectors, and change the fuel tank boost/transfer pump wire termination, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC10-28A253, dated June 5, 2014.
(3) For all airplanes: Within 30 days after accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD, or within 30 days after April 15, 2016 (the effective date of AD 2016-04-16), whichever occurs later, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCLs), Airworthiness Limitation Instructions (ALIs), and short-term extensions specified in Appendices B, C, and D of Boeing Trijet Special Compliance Item (SCI) Report MDC-02K1003, Revision M, dated July 25, 2014. The initial compliance time for accomplishing the actions specified in the ALIs is at the later of the times specified in paragraphs (h)(3)(i) and (h)(3)(ii) of this AD. Revising the maintenance or inspection program required by this paragraph terminates the requirements in paragraphs (g) and (h) of AD 2008-06-21 R1.
(i) At the applicable time specified in Appendix C of Boeing Trijet SCI Report MDC-02K1003, Revision M, dated July 25, 2014, except as provided by Appendix D of Boeing Trijet SCI Report MDC-02K1003, Revision M, dated July 25, 2014.
(ii) Within 30 days after accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD, as applicable; or within 30 days after April 15, 2016 (the effective date of AD 2016-04-16); whichever occurs later.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (i) of AD 2016-04-16, with no changes. If the option in paragraph (h)(3) of this AD is accomplished: After the maintenance or inspection program has been revised as provided by paragraph (h)(3) of this AD, no alternative actions (
This paragraph restates the provisions of paragraph (j) of AD 2016-04-16, with an additional AD reference and clarification of the provisions. Accomplishment of the actions specified in paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3) of this AD, as applicable, extends the 18-month interval for the repetitive inspections and tests required by paragraph (a) of AD 2002-13-10; the 18-month interval for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (a) of AD 2003-07-14; and the 18-month interval for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (j) of AD 2011-11-05; to 24-month intervals for pumps affected by those ADs, regardless if the pump is installed in a tank that normally empties, provided the remaining actions required by those three ADs have been accomplished.
Replacing the electrical connectors or fuel pump housing in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin DC10-28-264, dated May 15, 2015; or Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-146, dated May 15, 2015, as applicable; terminates the repetitive inspections and tests required by paragraph (a) of AD 2002-13-10, paragraph (a) of AD 2003-07-14, and paragraph (j) of AD 2011-11-05.
(1) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (m)(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, Los Angeles ACO Branch, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (l)(4)(i) and (l)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.
(i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled “RC Exempt,” then the RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.
(ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Serj Harutunian, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5254; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone: 562-797-1717; internet:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model 4101 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a determination that
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 30, 2018.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact BAE Systems (Operations) Limited, Customer Information Department, Prestwick International Airport, Ayrshire, KA9 2RW, Scotland, United Kingdom; telephone +44 1292 675207; fax +44 1292 675704; email
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3228.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2017-0187, dated September 22, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model 4101 airplanes. The MCAI states:
Maintenance instructions for BAE Jetstream 4100 aeroplanes, which are approved by EASA, are defined in BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd Jetstream 4100 Service Bulletin (SB) J41-51-001, which references certain Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) tasks. These instructions have been identified as mandatory for continued airworthiness.
Failure to accomplish these instructions could result in an unsafe condition.
CAA UK [Civil Aviation Authority United Kingdom] issued AD 005-02-2002 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2005-15-11, Amendment 39-14200 (70 FR 43025, July 26, 2005) (“AD 2005-15-11”)] to require operators to comply with the inspection instructions as referenced in SB J41-51-001 at original issue.
Since that [CAA UK] AD was issued, BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd have determined that the inspection requirements for a number of maintenance tasks are incorrect. Consequently, existing inspection items 52-20-013, 53-10-006, 53-10-025, 53-10-029 and 53-10-079 will be amended in Chapter 05 of the AMM. Compliance periods for these changes are given in BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd SB J41-51-001 (now at Revision 4) and BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd Alert SB J41-A53-058. Those fatigue inspections detailed in SB J41-51-001, at Revision 3 or earlier, have now been incorporated into Chapter 05 of the AMM. To avoid duplication these tasks are deleted from SB J41-51-001 at Revision 4.
For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of CAA UK AD 005-02-2002, which is superseded, and requires accomplishment of the actions specified in BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd Jetstream 4100 SB J41-51-001 Revision 4 and Alert SB J41-A53-058 (hereafter collectively referred to as `the SB' in this [EASA] AD).
The actions include a one-time detailed inspection of fuselage frame 90 for cracking or fatigue damage and repair if necessary; and revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or revised maintenance instructions and airworthiness limitations. This proposed AD was prompted by a determination that it is possible for cracks in fuselage frame 90 to exceed the critical length for failure in less time than the current inspection interval; and a determination that inspection requirements for a number of maintenance tasks involving certain airworthiness limitations are incorrect. The unsafe condition is cracking in fuselage frame 90, which could cause it to fail and thereby compromise the structural integrity of the aircraft pressure hull; and fatigue damage of various airplane structures, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
This NPRM would not supersede AD 2005-15-11. Rather, we have determined that a stand-alone AD would be more appropriate to address the changes in the MCAI. This NPRM would require a one-time detailed inspection of fuselage frame 90 for cracking or fatigue damage and revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or revised maintenance instructions and airworthiness limitations. Accomplishment of the proposed actions would then terminate all of the requirements of AD 2005-15-11.
BAE Systems (Operations) Limited has issued the following service information.
• Service Bulletin J41-51-001, Revision 4, dated July 11, 2017. This service information describes new
• Alert Service Bulletin J41-A53-058, dated December 6, 2016. This service information describes procedures for a detailed inspection for cracking or fatigue damage of fuselage frame 90.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
This AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new actions (
The MCAI specifies that if there are findings from the airworthiness limitations section (ALS) inspection tasks, corrective actions must be accomplished in accordance with Airbus maintenance documentation. However, this proposed AD does not include that requirement. Operators of U.S.-registered airplanes are required by general airworthiness and operational regulations to perform maintenance using methods that are acceptable to the FAA. We consider those methods to be adequate to address any corrective actions necessitated by the findings of ALS inspections required by this proposed AD.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 4 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We have determined that revising the maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although we recognize that this number may vary from operator to operator. In the past, we have estimated that this action takes 1 work-hour per airplane. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), we have determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate. Therefore, we estimate the total cost per operator to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by July 30, 2018.
This AD affects AD 2005-15-11, Amendment 39-14200 (70 FR 43025, July 26, 2005) (“AD 2005-15-11”).
This AD applies to all BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model 4101 airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/Maintenance Checks.
This AD was prompted by a determination that it is possible for cracks in fuselage frame 90 to exceed the critical length for failure in less time than the current inspection interval; and a determination that inspection requirements for a number of maintenance tasks involving certain airworthiness limitations are incorrect. We are issuing this AD to address cracking in fuselage frame 90, which could cause it to fail and thereby compromise the structural integrity of the aircraft pressure hull. We are also issuing this AD to address fatigue damage of various airplane structures, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
At the compliance times specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD, as applicable: Do a detailed inspection of fuselage frame 90 for cracking or fatigue damage, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Alert Service Bulletin J41-A53-058, dated December 6, 2016. If any cracking or fatigue damage is found: Before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or BAE Systems (Operations) Limited's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).
(1) For airplanes with 6,300 flight cycles or fewer since Structural Significant Items (SSI) 53-10-029 (Maintenance Planning Document (MPD) 531029-DVl-10010-1) was last accomplished: Within 6,600 flight cycles after the last accomplishment of SSI 53-10-029 (MPD 531029-DVl-10010-1), or within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever is later.
(2) For airplanes with more than 6,300 flight cycles since SSI 53-10-029 (MPD 531029-DVl-10010-1) was last accomplished: Within 300 flight cycles or 4.5 months, whichever is earlier, since the last accomplishment of SSI 53-10-029 (MPD 531029-DVl-10010-1), or within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever is later.
Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD: Revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, by incorporating the maintenance tasks and associated thresholds and intervals described in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Service Bulletin J41-51-001, Revision 4, dated July 11, 2017, as applicable. The initial compliance times for new or revised tasks are at the applicable times specified in BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Service Bulletin J41-51-001, Revision 4, dated July 11, 2017, or within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever is later.
After the maintenance or inspection program has been revised as required by paragraph (h) of this AD, no alternative actions (
Accomplishment of the actions required by paragraph (h) of this AD terminates all requirements of AD 2005-15-11.
Although the Accomplishment Instructions of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Alert Service Bulletin J41-A53-058, dated December 6, 2016, specify to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2017-0187, dated September 22, 2017, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3228.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact BAE Systems (Operations) Limited, Customer Information Department, Prestwick International Airport, Ayrshire, KA9 2RW, Scotland, United Kingdom; telephone +44 1292 675207; fax +44 1292 675704; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A318, A319, A320 and A321 series airplanes. This AD requires revising the maintenance or inspection
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 30, 2018.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
You may examine the AD docket on the internet at
Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3223.
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
Fatigue damage can occur locally, in small areas or structural design details, or globally, in widespread areas. Multiple-site damage is widespread damage that occurs in a large structural element such as a single rivet line of a lap splice joining two large skin panels. Widespread damage can also occur in multiple elements such as adjacent frames or stringers. Multiple-site damage and multiple-element damage cracks are typically too small initially to be reliably detected with normal inspection methods. Without intervention, these cracks will grow, and eventually compromise the structural integrity of the airplane. This condition is known as widespread fatigue damage. It is associated with general degradation of large areas of structure with similar structural details and stress levels. As an airplane ages, WFD will likely occur, and will certainly occur if the airplane is operated long enough without any intervention.
The FAA's WFD final rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) became effective on January 14, 2011. The WFD rule requires certain actions to prevent structural failure due to WFD throughout the operational life of certain existing transport category airplanes and all of these airplanes that will be certificated in the future. For existing and future airplanes subject to the WFD rule, the rule requires that DAHs establish a limit of validity (LOV) of the engineering data that support the structural maintenance program. Operators affected by the WFD rule may not fly an airplane beyond its LOV, unless an extended LOV is approved.
The WFD rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) does not require identifying and developing maintenance actions if the DAHs can show that such actions are not necessary to prevent WFD before the airplane reaches the LOV. Many LOVs, however, do depend on accomplishment of future maintenance actions. As stated in the WFD rule, any maintenance actions necessary to reach the LOV will be mandated by airworthiness directives through separate rulemaking actions.
In the context of WFD, this action is necessary to enable DAHs to propose LOVs that allow operators the longest operational lives for their airplanes, and still ensure that WFD will not occur. This approach allows for an implementation strategy that provides flexibility to DAHs in determining the timing of service information development (with FAA approval), while providing operators with certainty regarding the LOV applicable to their airplanes.
This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the DAH indicating that the principal structural elements and certain life-limited parts are subject to WFD.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2017-0231, dated November 21, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320 and A321 series airplanes. The MCAI states:
The airworthiness limitations for the A320 family aeroplanes are currently defined and published in the Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) document(s). The Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items are published in ALS Part 2, approved by EASA. The instructions contained in the ALS Part 2 have been identified as mandatory actions for continued airworthiness.
Failure to comply with these instructions could result in an unsafe condition.
Previously, EASA issued AD 2016-0239 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2017-22-03, Amendment 39-19083 (82 FR 49091, October 24, 2017) (“AD 2017-22-03”)] to require accomplishment of all maintenance tasks as described in ALS Part 2 at Revision 05, and [EASA] AD 2015-0038 (later revised) [which corresponds to FAA AD 2016-09-06, Amendment 39-18504 (81 FR 26113, May 2, 2016) (“AD 2016-09-06”)] to require the implementation of reduced thresholds and intervals for the detailed inspection of the forward engine mount on both right hand and left hand sides of aeroplanes equipped with CFM56-5A/5B engines, as specified in the ALS task 712111-01.
Since those [EASA] ADs were issued, Airbus published Revision 06 of the ALS Part
For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2016-0239 and EASA AD 2015-0038R1, which are superseded, requires accomplishment of all maintenance tasks as described in the ALS Part 2 Revision 06, and ALS Part 2 variations 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 (hereafter collectively referred to as “the ALS” in this [EASA] AD), and maintains specific compliance times for ALS task 572021-01-1 (Wide Spread Fatigue Damage related).
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
This NPRM would not supersede AD 2016-09-06 and AD 2017-22-03. Rather, we have determined that a stand-alone AD would be more appropriate to address the changes in the MCAI. This NPRM would require revising the maintenance or inspection program to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations. Accomplishment of the proposed actions would then terminate the requirements of paragraphs (g) and (j) of AD 2016-09-06. Accomplishment of the proposed actions would also terminate paragraphs (g)(2) and (i) of 2017-22-03.
Airbus has issued A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitation Section Part 2—Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT-ALI), Revision 06, dated April 10, 2017. The service information describes new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations.
Airbus has also issued the following variations to A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitation Section Part 2—Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT—ALI), Revision 06, dated April 10, 2017.
• A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitation Section Part 2—Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT-ALI), Variation 6.1, dated May 18, 2017. The service information describes ALI tasks applicable to certain Model A320-200 and A321-200 airplane configurations.
• A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitation Section Part 2—Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT-ALI), Variation 6.2, dated May 24, 2017. The service information describes ALI tasks applicable to Model A321-271N and -272N airplanes.
• A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitation Section Part 2—Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT-ALI), Variation 6.3, October 24, 2017. The service information describes ALI tasks associated with door stops for certain Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series 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
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.
This proposed AD would require revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new actions (
The MCAI specifies that if there are findings from the airworthiness limitations section (ALS) inspection tasks, corrective actions must be accomplished in accordance with Airbus maintenance documentation. However, this proposed AD does not include that requirement. Operators of U.S.-registered airplanes are required by general airworthiness and operational regulations to perform maintenance using methods that are acceptable to the FAA. We consider those methods to be adequate to address any corrective actions necessitated by the findings of ALS inspections required by this proposed AD.
The FAA recently became aware of an issue related to the applicability of ADs that require incorporation of an ALS revision into an operator's maintenance or inspection program.
Typically, when these types of ADs are issued by civil aviation authorities of other countries, they apply to all airplanes covered under an identified type certificate (TC). The corresponding FAA AD typically retains applicability to all of those airplanes.In addition, U.S. operators must operate their airplanes in an airworthy condition, in accordance with 14 CFR 91.7(a). Included in this obligation is the requirement to perform any maintenance or inspections specified in the ALS, and in accordance with the ALS as specified in 14 CFR 43.16 and 91.403(c), unless an alternative has been approved by the FAA.
When a type certificate is issued for a type design, the specific ALS, including revisions, is a part of that type design, as specified in 14 CFR 21.31(c).
The sum effect of these operational and maintenance requirements is an obligation to comply with the ALS defined in the type design referenced in the manufacturer's conformity statement. This obligation may introduce a conflict with an AD that requires a specific ALS revision if new airplanes are delivered with a later revision as part of their type design.
To address this conflict, the FAA has approved alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs) that allow operators to incorporate the most recent ALS revision into their maintenance/inspection programs, in lieu of the ALS revision required by the AD. This eliminates the conflict and enables the operator to comply with both the AD and the type design.
However, compliance with AMOCs is normally optional, and we recently became aware that some operators choose to retain the AD-mandated ALS revision in their fleet-wide maintenance/inspection programs, including those for new airplanes delivered with later ALS revisions, to help standardize the maintenance of the fleet. To ensure that operators comply with the applicable ALS revision for newly delivered airplanes containing a later revision than that specified in an AD, we plan to limit the applicability of
This proposed AD therefore applies to certain Model Airbus Model A318, A319, A320 and A321 series airplanes with an original certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of airworthiness that was issued on or before the date of approval of the ALS revision identified in this proposed AD. Operators of airplanes with an original certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of airworthiness issued after that date must comply with the airworthiness limitations specified as part of the approved type design and referenced on the type certificate data sheet.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 1,180 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We have determined that revising the maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although we recognize that this number may vary from operator to operator. In the past, we have estimated that this action takes 1 work-hour per airplane. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), we have determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate. Therefore, we estimate the total cost per operator to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).
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 July 30, 2018.
This AD affects AD 2016-09-06, Amendment 39-18504 (81 FR 26113, May 2, 2016) (“AD 2016-09-06”) and AD 2017-22-03, Amendment 39-19083 (82 FR 49091, October 24, 2017) (“AD 2017-22-03”).
This AD applies to all Airbus airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), and (c)(4) of this AD; certificated in any category; with an original certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of airworthiness issued on or before October 24, 2017.
(1) Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes.
(2) Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes.
(3) Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, -233, -251N, and -271N airplanes.
(4) Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, -232, -251N, -253N, 271N, and -272N airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/Maintenance Checks.
This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder, which indicates that principal structural elements and certain life-limited parts are subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). We are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking, accidental damage, or corrosion in principal structural elements, and WFD, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the airworthiness limitations (ALIs) specified in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitation Section Part 2—Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT-ALI), Revision 06, dated April 10, 2017; and A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitation Section Part 2—Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT-ALI), Variation 6.3, October 24, 2017. Except for ALIs identified in paragraphs (g)(2) and (g)(3) of this AD, the initial compliance time for accomplishing the actions is at the applicable time identified in the ALIs specified in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitation Section Part 2—Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT-ALI), Revision 06, dated April 10, 2017; A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitation Section Part 2—Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT-ALI), Variation 6.3, October 24, 2017; or within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later; without exceeding the inspection intervals in
(2) For airplanes identified in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitation Section Part 2—Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT-ALI), Variation 6.1, dated May 18, 2017: Concurrently with the revision required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the ALIs specified in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitation Section Part 2—Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT-ALI), Variation 6.1, dated May 18, 2017. The initial compliance time for accomplishing the actions is at the applicable time identified in the ALIs specified in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitation Section Part 2—Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT-ALI), Variation 6.1, dated May 18, 2017, or within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later; without exceeding the inspection intervals in the ALIs required by paragraph (i) of AD 2017-22-03.
(3) For airplanes identified in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitation Section Part 2—Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT-ALI), Variation 6.2, dated May 24, 2017: Concurrently with the revision required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the ALIs specified in A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitation Section Part 2—Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT-ALI), Variation 6.2, dated May 24, 2017. The initial compliance time for accomplishing the actions is at the applicable time identified in the ALIs specified in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitation Section Part 2—Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT-ALI), Variation 6.2, dated May 24, 2017, or within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later; without exceeding the inspection intervals in the ALIs required by paragraph (i) of AD 2017-22-03.
After the maintenance or inspection program has been revised as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (
(1) Accomplishing the action required by paragraph (g) of this AD terminates the requirements of paragraphs (g) and (j) of AD 2016-09-06.
(2) Accomplishing the action required by paragraph (g) of this AD terminates the requirements of paragraphs (g)(2) and (i) of AD 2017-22-03.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(i) 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.
(ii) AMOCs previously approved for AD 2015-05-02, Amendment 39-18112 (80 FR 15152, March 23, 2015) that required incorporation of the service information in paragraphs (j)(1)(ii)(A), (j)(1)(ii)(B), (j)(1)(ii)(C), or (j)(1)(ii)(D), are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.
(A) Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitation Section Part 2—Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT-ALI), Revision 06, dated April 10, 2017.
(B) Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitation Section Part 2—Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT-ALI), Variation 6.1, dated May 18, 2017.
(C) Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitation Section Part 2 -Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT-ALI), Variation 6.2, dated May 24, 2017.
(D) A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitation Section Part 2—Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT-ALI), Variation 6.3, October 24, 2017.
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2017-0231, dated November 21, 2017, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3223.
(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
Social Security Administration.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
In today's
To ensure that your comments are considered, we must receive them no later than July 16, 2018.
You may submit comments by any one of three methods—internet, fax, or mail. Do not submit the same comments multiple times or by more than one method. Regardless of which method you choose, please state that your comments refer to Docket No. SSA-2015-0003, so that we may associate your comments with the correct regulation.
1.
2.
3.
Comments are available for public viewing on the Federal eRulemaking portal at
Pamela J. Carcirieri, Supervisory Government Information Specialist, SSA, Office of Privacy and Disclosure, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235-6401, Phone: (410) 965-0355, for information about this rule. For information on eligibility or filing for benefits, call our national toll-free number, 1-800-772-1213 or TTY 1-800-325-0778, or visit our internet site, Social Security Online, at
In accordance with the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a), we are issuing public notice of our intent to establish a new system of records entitled, Social Security Administration Violence Evaluation and Reporting System (SSAvers) (60-0379). On April 18, 2012, President Obama issued the memorandum,
We are establishing SSAvers as part of our compliance efforts under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; Congressional Accountability Act of 1995; 29 U.S.C. 51, Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970; 29 CFR 1960, Basic Program Elements for Federal Employee Occupational Safety and Health Programs and Related Matters; 41 CFR 102-74, Subpart C, Conduct on Federal Property; 5 CFR 735, Employee Responsibilities and Conduct; 5 CFR 2635, Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch; and various other statutes related to handling incidents of workplace and domestic violence.
SSAvers will capture and house information regarding alleged incidents of workplace and domestic violence filed by SSA employees and SSA contractors, and will allow SSA's Crisis Advisory Team (CAT) to review and respond to the reported allegations. Due to the investigatory nature of information that we will maintain in this system of records, we propose this rule to add SSAvers to the list of SSA systems that are exempt from specific provisions of the Privacy Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2).
We will consider all comments received on or before the close of business on the comment closing date previously indicated, and we will make the comments available for examination in the docket at the previously noted address. We will file comments received after the comment closing date in the docket, and we will consider them to the extent practicable. We may publish a final rule at any time after close of the comment period.
Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, requires each agency to write all rules in plain language. In addition to your substantive comments on this interim final rule, we invite your comments on how to make the rule easier to understand.
For example:
• Would more, but shorter, sections be better?
• Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
• Have we organized the material to suit your needs?
• Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?
• What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand?
• Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is not clear?
• Would a different format make the rule easier to understand,
SSA will publish a final rule responding to any comments received and, if appropriate, will amend provisions of the rule.
We consulted with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and determined that this final rule does not meet the criteria for a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, OMB did not review it.
We also determined that this final rule meets the plain language requirement of Executive Order 12866.
We analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the principles and criteria established by Executive Order 13132, and we determined that the proposed rule will not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism assessment. We also determined that this proposed rule will not preempt any State law or State regulation or affect the States' abilities to discharge traditional State governmental functions.
The regulations effectuating Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this proposed rule.
We certify that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it affects individuals only. Therefore, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, does not require us to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis.
These rules do not create any new or affect any existing collections and, therefore, do not require Office of Management and Budget approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Administrative practice and procedure, Privacy.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, we are amending part 401 of title 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:
Secs. 205, 702(a)(5), 1106, and 1141 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 405, 902(a)(5), 1306, and 1320b-11); 5 U.S.C. 552 and 552a; 8 U.S.C. 1360; 26 U.S.C. 6103; 30 U.S.C. 923.
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) * * *
(G) Social Security Administration Violence Evaluation and Reporting System, SSA.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to change the operating schedule that governs the State Route 22 Bridge (Madisonville (SR 22) swing span bridge) across the Tchefuncta River, mile 2.5, at Madisonville, St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana. This action is necessary to relieve vehicular traffic congestion along SR 22 near Madisonville, LA during peak, afternoon weekday traffic periods.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before July 16, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2016-0963 using Federal eRulemaking Portal at
See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the
If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Mr. Doug Blakemore, Eighth Coast Guard District Bridge Administrator; telephone (504) 671-2128, email
The State Route 22 Bridge (Madisonville (SR 22) swing span bridge) across the Tchefuncta River, mile 2.5, at Madisonville, St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana, is regulated under 33 CFR 117.500 and has a vertical clearance of 6.2 feet above Mean High Water in the closed-to-navigation position and unlimited clearance in the open-to-navigation position. The draw of this bridge opens on signal from 7 p.m. to 6 a.m. From 6 a.m. to 7 p.m., the draw opens on the hour and half hour, except that from 6 a.m. to 9 a.m. and from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Friday except federal holidays, the draw opens only on the hour. Navigation on the waterway consists primarily of recreational traffic as the largest commercial facility upstream of the bridge is no longer in service.
On November 4, 2016, at the request of the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (LA-DOTD), the Coast Guard issued a temporary deviation titled “Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Tchefuncta River, Madisonville, LA” (81 FR 76866). There, we stated that the 180-day deviation would test a temporary change to the operating schedule of the Madisonville (SR 22) swing span bridge to determine whether a permanent change is necessary. From November 21, 2016 through May 18, 2017, this deviation extended the time between openings from 30 minutes to an hour between 6 a.m. and 7 p.m. daily, and allowed the bridge to remain closed at 8 a.m., 5 p.m., and 6 p.m.. Monday through Friday except federal holidays. During the comment period that closed on January 18, 2017, we received no comments.
On November 4, 2016, concurrent with the test deviation and on the basis of a recent traffic study conducted by LA-DOTD, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled “Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Tchefuncta River, Madisonville, LA” (81 FR 76889). There, we stated that the traffic study indicated that the intersection of SR 22 and SR 21/SR1077 is over capacity at peak hours and causes unacceptable levels of delay to roadway traffic, which is compounded by the opening of the Madisonville (SR 22) swing span bridge during peak hours. The traffic study also indicated that a combination of modifications of the traffic controls at this intersection and the operating schedule of the Madisonville (SR 22) swing span bridge would enhance the flow of vehicular traffic over SR 22. The NPRM proposed a change to the schedule of the Madisonville (SR 22) swing span bridge that extended the time between openings from 30 minutes to an hour between 6 a.m. and 7 p.m. daily, and allowed the bridge to remain closed at 8 a.m., 5 p.m., and 6 p.m.. Monday through Friday except federal holidays. During the comment period that closed on January 18, 2017, we received no comments.
LA-DOTD planned to conduct a study of vehicular traffic flow over the bridge as it related to a four way stop sign and traffic light at the intersection of SR 22 and SR 21 during the temporary deviation period. The LA-DOTD planned to complete four separate traffic studies at this intersection: A baseline traffic analysis across the SR 22 bridge with the original regulation and a four-way stop sign in place at the intersection of SR 22 and SR 21, a traffic analysis with the temporary deviation to the regulation and a four-way stop sign in place at the intersection of SR 22 and SR 21, a traffic analysis with the temporary deviation to the regulation and a traffic light in place at the intersection of SR 22 and SR 21, and a traffic analysis with the original regulation and a traffic light in place at the intersection of SR 22 and SR 21. On May 18, 2017, the temporary deviation expired at the end of its scheduled 180 days.
On May 26, 2017, LA-DOTD requested that the Coast Guard permanently change the regulation based on information provided in the traffic study, which is available in the docket where indicated under
LA-DOTD requested that the regulation change as follows:
The draw on the SR 22 Bridge, mile 2.5, at Madisonville, shall open on signal from 7 p.m. to 6 a.m. From 6 a.m. to 7 p.m., the draw need only open on the hour, except that the draw need not open for the passage of vessels at 8 a.m., 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. Monday through Friday except federal holidays. The bridge will open at any time an emergency.
LA-DOTD's regulation change request has three components. First, it requests that the Coast Guard extend the daily openings from half-hour intervals to hourly intervals both on weekdays and on weekends. Second, it requests that the bridge stay closed at 8 a.m. on weekdays. Third, it requests that the bridge stay closed at 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. on weekdays.
On December 12, 2017, the Coast Guard informed LA-DOTD by letter that there was still insufficient data or information to correlate bridge openings with traffic flow over this bridge for the hourly interval request and for the 8 a.m. weekday closure request, which is available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard has reviewed the data and information provided by LA-DOTD and has determined that there is a possible correlation between bridge openings for vessel traffic and vehicular congestion during peak traffic times from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Friday. This supplementary notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) proposes to change the bridge operating schedule and allow the bridge to remain closed to marine traffic at the scheduled openings 4 p.m., 4:30 p.m., 5 p.m., and 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday except federal holidays. This would allow vehicles to travel unimpeded by bridge openings for a two and a half hour period during peak rush hours along SR 22 near Madisonville, LA. There are no other proposed changes to the operating schedule. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and Executive orders and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This SNPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the SNPRM 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 a reduction of commercial vessel traffic on this waterway, and the recreational powerboats and sailboats that routinely transit the bridge under the proposed schedule. Those vessels with a vertical clearance requirement of less than 6.2 feet above mean high water may transit the bridge at any time, and the bridge will open in case of emergency at any time. This regulatory action takes into account the reasonable needs of vessel and vehicular traffic.
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 received no comments from the Small Business Administration on the November 4, 2016 NPRM. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the bridge may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
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 proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which 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 proposed rule involves a change to the operating schedule of a drawbridge. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L49 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Documents mentioned in this SNPRM as being available in this docket and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
Bridges.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
The draw of the S22 Bridge, mile 2.5, at Madisonville, LA shall open on signal from 7 p.m. to 6 a.m. From 6 a.m. to 7 p.m. the draw need only open on the hour and half hour, except that:
(a) From 6 a.m. to 9 a.m. Monday through Friday except federal holidays the draw need only open on the hour; and
(b) From 4 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday except federal holidays the draw need not open.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. This revision pertains to the infrastructure requirement for interstate transport of pollution with respect to the 2012 fine particulate matter (PM
Written comments must be received on or before July 16, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2018-0054 at
Joseph Schulingkamp, (215) 814-2021, or by email at
On July 15, 2014, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania submitted, through the Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP), a revision to its SIP to address for the 2012 PM
On October 11, 2017, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, through PADEP submitted a SIP revision addressing the infrastructure requirements under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA for the 2012 PM
Particle pollution is a complex mixture of extremely small particles and liquid droplets in the air. When inhaled, these particles can reach the deepest regions of the lungs. Exposure to particle pollution is linked to a variety of significant health problems. Particle pollution also is the main cause of visibility impairment in the nation's cities and national parks. PM
Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are required to submit a SIP revision to address the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) requires states to address basic SIP elements to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS—such as requirements for monitoring, basic program requirements, and legal authority. Section 110(a) imposes the obligation upon states to make a SIP submission to EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of that submission may vary depending upon the facts and circumstances of each NAAQS and what is in each state's existing SIP. In particular, the data and analytical tools available at the time the state develops and submits the SIP revision for a new or revised NAAQS affect the content of the submission. The content of such SIP submission may also vary depending upon what provisions the state's existing SIP already contains.
Specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing requirements for SIP submissions. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states must meet for infrastructure SIP requirements related to a newly established or revised NAAQS such as requirements for monitoring, basic program requirements, and legal authority that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA requires a state's SIP to address any emissions activity in one state that contributes significantly to nonattainment, or interferes with maintenance, of the NAAQS in any downwind state. The EPA sometimes refers to these requirements as prong 1 (significant contribution to nonattainment) and prong 2 (interference with maintenance), or jointly as the “good neighbor” provision of the CAA. Further information can be found in the Technical Support Document (TSD) for this rulemaking action, which is available online at
Pennsylvania's October 11, 2017 SIP submittal includes a summary of statewide annual emissions of PM
Pennsylvania also discussed EPA's March 17, 2016 memorandum (2016 PM
EPA used the information in the 2016 PM
EPA is proposing to approve the Pennsylvania SIP revision addressing the interstate transport requirements for the 2012 PM
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866.
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed rule, regarding Pennsylvania's interstate transport SIP for the 2012 PM
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Particulate matter.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of West Virginia (West Virginia) to change reliance on the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to reliance on the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) with the purpose of addressing certain regional haze requirements and visibility protection requirements for the 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO
Written comments must be received on or before July 16, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2018-0217; EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0299; and/or EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0373 at
Emlyn Vélez-Rosa, (215) 814-2038, or by email at
On September 16, 2015, the State of West Virginia via the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) submitted a revision to update its regional haze plan and to meet the visibility protection requirements in section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA.
In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes “as a national goal the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I federal areas which impairment results from manmade air pollution.”
The CAA requires each state to develop, and submit for approval by EPA, a SIP to meet various air quality requirements, including the protection of visibility in Class I areas.
In a 2005 revision to the Regional Haze Rule,
In July 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) vacated CAIR.
After promulgating CSAPR, EPA conducted a technical analysis to determine whether compliance with CSAPR would satisfy the requirements of the Regional Haze Rule addressing alternatives to BART. In a June 7, 2012 action, EPA amended the Regional Haze Rule to provide that participation by a state's EGUs in a CSAPR trading program for a given pollutant—either a CSAPR federal trading program or an integrated CSAPR state trading program implemented through an approved CSAPR SIP revision—qualifies as a BART alternative for those EGUs for that pollutant.
Numerous parties filed petitions for review of CSAPR in the D.C. Circuit, and on August 21, 2012, the court issued its ruling, vacating and remanding CSAPR to EPA and ordering continued implementation of CAIR.
On March 23, 2012, EPA finalized a limited approval and a limited disapproval of a SIP revision submitted by WVDEP on June 18, 2008 addressing regional haze program requirements.
On September 16, 2015, the State of West Virginia submitted a revision to its Regional Haze SIP to change its present reliance from CAIR to CSAPR for the purpose of meeting BART for regional haze and addressing reasonable progress requirements, thereby eliminating West Virginia's need for the partial RH FIP. The SIP revision was also submitted to meet outstanding visibility protection requirements under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA for the 2010 SO
The CAA requires states to submit, within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, SIP revisions meeting the applicable elements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). SIP revisions that are intended to meet the requirements of section 110(a) of the CAA are often referred to as infrastructure SIPs and the elements under 110(a) are referred to as infrastructure requirements. Several of these applicable elements are delineated within section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires SIPs to contain adequate provisions to prohibit emissions in that state from having certain adverse air quality effects on neighboring states due to interstate transport of air pollution. There are four prongs within section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA; section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) contains prongs 1 and 2, while section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) includes prongs 3 and 4. This rulemaking action addresses prong 4 which is related to interference with measures by another state to protect visibility. Prong 4 requires that a state's SIP include adequate provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from interfering with measures to protect visibility required to be included in another state's SIP. One way in which prong 4 can be satisfied is if a state has a fully approved regional haze program within its SIP.
As part of its September 16, 2015 SIP submittal, which is the subject of this rulemaking action, West Virginia demonstrates it should receive full approval of its regional haze SIP with the switch to reliance upon CSAPR and requests amending the portion of its October 16, 2014 infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010 SO
West Virginia submitted a SIP revision on September 16, 2015 to correct its regional haze and visibility protection deficiencies. West Virginia submitted the September 16, 2015 SIP revision seeking to correct the deficiencies identified in EPA's July 13, 2011 limited disapproval action, by replacing reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR in its regional haze SIP.
Additionally, the September 16, 2015 submittal revises the prong 4 portion of the infrastructure SIP revision for the 2010 SO
The State's September 16, 2015 regional haze SIP revision replaces reliance upon CAIR for reliance upon CSAPR to address the deficiencies identified in EPA's limited disapproval of West Virginia's regional haze SIP.
EPA is proposing to take the following actions: (1) Approve West Virginia's September 16, 2015 SIP submission to change reliance on CAIR to reliance on CSAPR for certain elements of West Virginia's regional haze program; (2) convert EPA's limited approval/limited disapproval of West Virginia's regional haze program to a full approval; (3) approve West Virginia's October 16, 2014 SIP submission, as revised September 16, 2015, as satisfying prong 4 regarding visibility protection for the 2010 SO
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866.
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed rule, addressing West Virginia's regional haze requirements and visibility protection for the 2010 SO
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a revision to the Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns the District's Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting program for new and modified sources of air pollution. We are proposing action on a local rule under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.
Any comments must arrive by July 16, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0282 at
Laura Yannayon, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3534,
Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to the EPA.
Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this proposal with the dates that it was amended by the PCAPCD and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), which is the governor's designee for California SIP submittals.
On April 17, 2017, the EPA determined that CARB's January 24, 2017, SIP submittal package conformed to the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.
The current SIP-approved version of Rule 518—
Section 110(a)(2)(C) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations that include a preconstruction permit program for certain new or modified stationary sources of pollutants, including a permit program as required by part C of title I of the CAA. This part, and the EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR 51.166, provide requirements for the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) program, which applies to new and modified major sources of regulated New Source Review pollutants located in areas that are designated attainment or unclassifiable for those pollutants.
Rule 518 implements the federal PSD permit program for Placer County. The submitted rule has been revised to update and clarify the rule. See our technical support document (TSD), which can be found in the docket for this rule, for additional information about the rule and rule revisions.
The submitted rule must meet the CAA's general requirements for SIPs and SIP revisions in CAA sections 110(a)(2) and 110(l) as well as the applicable requirements for a PSD permit program contained in part C of title I of the Act and 40 CFR 51.166.
Section 110(a)(2)(A) of the Act requires that SIP rules be enforceable. Section 110(l) provides that the EPA may not approve a SIP revision if it would interfere with any applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. In addition, section 110(a)(2) and section 110(l) of the Act require that each SIP or revision to a SIP submitted by a state must be adopted after reasonable notice and public hearing.
Part C of title I of the Act contains the general permit requirements for new major sources and major modifications proposing to construct in attainment areas. Additionally, 40 CFR 51.166 sets forth the EPA's regulatory requirements for SIP approval of a PSD permit program.
The EPA has reviewed the submitted rule in accordance with the rule evaluation criteria described above. With respect to the procedural requirements at CAA sections 110(a)(2) and 110(l), we are proposing to approve the submitted rule because we have determined, based on our review of the public process documentation included in the January 24, 2017 submittal, that the PCAPCD has provided sufficient evidence of public notice and opportunity for comment and public hearing prior to adoption and submittal of this rule.
With respect to the rest of the evaluation criteria, we are proposing to approve the submitted rule because we have determined that the rule satisfies the substantive statutory and regulatory requirements for a PSD permit program as set forth in the applicable provisions of part C of title I of the Act and in 40 CFR 51.166. This determination is based on our review of Rule 518 and clarifying information provided by the District in a letter dated May 22, 2018 (available in the docket for this action). Our TSD for this action contains a more detailed discussion of our evaluation.
As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA proposes to fully approve the submitted rule because it fulfills all relevant requirements. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal until July 16, 2018. If we take final action to approve the submitted rule, our final action will incorporate this rule into the Placer County portion of the California SIP.
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the PCAPCD rule described in Table 1 of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials available through
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
Air pollution control, Environmental protection, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, New source review, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency.
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a request from Louisiana for EPA to relax the federal Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) standard applicable to gasoline introduced into commerce from June 1 to September 15 of each year for the Louisiana parishes of East Baton Rouge, West Baton Rouge, Livingston, Ascension, and Iberville (the Baton Rouge area). Specifically, EPA is proposing to amend the regulations to allow the RVP standard for the Baton Rouge area to change from 7.8 pounds per square inch (psi) to 9.0 psi for gasoline. EPA has preliminarily determined that this change to the federal RVP regulation is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
Written comments must be received on or before July 16, 2018 unless a public hearing is requested by June 29, 2018. If EPA receives such a request, we will publish information related to the timing and location of the hearing and a new deadline for public comment.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0172, to the
For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit
Dave Sosnowski, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48105; telephone number: (734) 214-4823; fax number: (734) 214-4052; email address:
The contents of this preamble are listed in the following outline:
Entities potentially affected by this proposed rule are fuel producers and distributors involved in the supplying of gasoline to the Baton Rouge area.
The above table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. The table lists the types of entities of which EPA is aware that potentially could be affected by this proposed rule. Other types of entities not listed on the table could also be affected. To determine whether your organization could be affected by this proposed rule, you should carefully examine the regulations in 40 CFR 80.27. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, call the person listed in the
The statutory authority for this action is granted to EPA by sections 211(h) and 301(a) of the CAA, as amended; 42 U.S.C. 7545(h) and 7601(a).
EPA will not hold a public hearing on this matter unless a request is received by the person identified in the
EPA is proposing to approve a request from Louisiana to change the summertime federal RVP standard for the parishes of East Baton Rouge, West Baton Rouge, Livingston, Ascension, and Iberville (henceforth “the Baton Rouge area”) from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi by amending EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 80.27(a)(2). On April 10, 2017, the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ or State) requested a relaxation of the federal RVP requirements. Before EPA could act on LDEQ's request, the State needed to revise its approved section 175A maintenance plan and demonstrate that relaxing the federal RVP requirement from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi for gasoline sold from June 1 to September 15 of each year in the Baton Rouge area would not interfere with maintenance of any NAAQS, including the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS, or any other applicable CAA requirement, under CAA section 110(l). This demonstration was performed and a revised maintenance plan was submitted to EPA for approval on January 31, 2018. On April 13, 2018, EPA proposed approval of Louisiana's maintenance revision and non-interference demonstration for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (83 FR 16017); EPA
The preamble for this rulemaking is organized as follows: Section III.B. provides the history of the federal gasoline volatility regulation. Section III.C. describes the policy regarding relaxation of gasoline volatility standards in ozone nonattainment areas that are redesignated as attainment areas. Section III.D. provides information specific to Louisiana's request for the Baton Rouge area.
On August 19, 1987 (52 FR 31274), EPA determined that gasoline nationwide was becoming increasingly volatile, causing an increase in evaporative emissions from gasoline-powered vehicles and equipment. Evaporative emissions from gasoline, referred to as volatile organic compounds (VOC), are precursors to the formation of tropospheric ozone and contribute to the nation's ground-level ozone problem. Exposure to ground-level ozone can reduce lung function, thereby aggravating asthma and other respiratory conditions, increase susceptibility to respiratory infection, and may contribute to premature death in people with heart and lung disease.
The most common measure of fuel volatility that is useful in evaluating gasoline evaporative emissions is RVP. Under CAA section 211(c), EPA promulgated regulations on March 22, 1989 (54 FR 11868) that set maximum limits for the RVP of gasoline sold during the regulatory control periods that were established on a state-by-state basis in that final rule. The regulatory control periods addressed the portion of the year when peak ozone concentrations were expected. These regulations constituted Phase I of a two-phase nationwide program, which was designed to reduce the volatility of gasoline during the high ozone season. On June 11, 1990 (55 FR 23658), EPA promulgated more stringent volatility controls as Phase II of the volatility control program. These requirements established maximum RVP standards of 9.0 psi or 7.8 psi (depending on the state, the month, and the area's initial ozone attainment designation with respect to the 1-hour ozone NAAQS).
The 1990 CAA Amendments established a new CAA section 211(h) to address fuel volatility. CAA section 211(h) requires EPA to promulgate regulations making it unlawful to sell, offer for sale, dispense, supply, offer for supply, transport, or introduce into commerce gasoline with an RVP level in excess of 9.0 psi during the high ozone season. CAA section 211(h) also prohibits EPA from establishing a volatility standard more stringent than 9.0 psi in an attainment area, except that EPA may impose a lower (more stringent) standard in any former ozone nonattainment area redesignated to attainment.
On December 12, 1991 (56 FR 64704), EPA modified the Phase II volatility regulations to be consistent with CAA section 211(h). The modified regulations prohibited the sale of gasoline with an RVP above 9.0 psi in all areas designated attainment for ozone, effective January 13, 1992. For areas designated as nonattainment, the regulations retained the original Phase II standards published on June 11, 1990 (55 FR 23658), which included the 7.8 psi ozone season limitation for certain areas. As stated in the preamble to the Phase II volatility controls and reiterated in the proposed change to the volatility standards published in 1991, EPA will rely on states to initiate changes to their respective volatility programs. EPA's policy for approving such changes is described below in Section III.C.
As stated in the preamble for EPA's amended Phase II volatility standards (56 FR 64706), any change in the gasoline volatility standard for a nonattainment area that was subsequently redesignated as an attainment area must be accomplished through a separate rulemaking that revises the applicable standard for that area. Thus, for former 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas where EPA mandated a Phase II volatility standard of 7.8 psi RVP in the December 12, 1991 rulemaking, the federal 7.8 psi gasoline RVP requirement remains in effect, even after such an area is redesignated to attainment, until a separate rulemaking is completed that relaxes the federal gasoline RVP standard in that area from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi.
As explained in the December 12, 1991 rulemaking, EPA believes that relaxation of an applicable gasoline RVP standard is best accomplished in conjunction with the redesignation process. In order for an ozone nonattainment area to be redesignated as an attainment area, CAA section 107(d)(3) requires the state to make a showing, pursuant to CAA section 175A, that the area is capable of maintaining attainment for the ozone NAAQS for ten years. Depending on the area's circumstances, this maintenance plan will either demonstrate that the area is capable of maintaining attainment for ten years without the more stringent volatility standard or that the more stringent volatility standard may be necessary for the area to maintain its attainment with the ozone NAAQS. Therefore, in the context of a request for redesignation, EPA will not relax the gasoline volatility standard unless the state requests a relaxation and the maintenance plan demonstrates that the area will maintain attainment for ten years without the need for the more stringent volatility standard. Similarly, a maintenance plan may be revised to relax the gasoline volatility standard if the state requests a relaxation and the maintenance plan demonstrates that the area will maintain attainment for the duration of the maintenance plan.
On April 10, 2017, LDEQ submitted a request to relax the federal gasoline RVP requirement in 16 parishes throughout the State, including the 5 parishes making up the Baton Rouge area. RVP relaxation for 11 of the parishes covered by the April 10, 2017 request was approved on December 26, 2017 (82 FR 60886). Louisiana did not request relaxation of the federal RVP standard from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi when LDEQ originally submitted the CAA section 175A maintenance plan for the Baton Rouge area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS that was approved on December 27, 2016 (81 FR 95051). Therefore, LDEQ was required to revise the approved maintenance plan and to submit a CAA section 110(l) non-interference demonstration for the 5-parish Baton Rouge area to support the request to relax the federal RVP standard. Therefore, action on the 5-parish Baton Rouge area was deferred until LDEQ submitted (and EPA approved) a maintenance plan revision and CAA section 110(l) non-interference demonstration showing that the relaxation would not interfere with maintenance of the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS or any other applicable CAA requirement.
On January 30, 2018, Louisiana submitted a CAA section 175A maintenance plan revision and section 110(l) non-interference demonstration to EPA. EPA finalized its approval of the maintenance plan revision and demonstration on May 25, 2018 (83 FR 24226). As part of the rulemaking on Louisiana's submission, EPA included a detailed evaluation of the maintenance
In today's action, EPA is proposing to approve Louisiana's request to relax the summertime ozone season gasoline RVP standard for the Baton Rouge area from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi. Specifically, EPA is proposing to amend the applicable gasoline RVP standard to allow the gasoline RVP requirements at 40 CFR 80.27(a)(2) for the Baton Rouge area to change from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi. Today's proposal relies on EPA's separate rulemaking that approved Louisiana's January 30, 2018 request to revise the approved maintenance plan for the Baton Rouge area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and the submitted CAA section 110(l) non-interference demonstration as described in this document.
This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and therefore was not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
This action is considered an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action. This proposed rule, if finalized, would provide meaningful burden reduction because it would relax the federal RVP standard for gasoline, and as a result, fuel suppliers would no longer be required to provide the lower, 7.8 psi RVP gasoline in the 5 parishes during the summer months. Relaxing the volatility requirements would also be beneficial because this action can improve the fungibility of gasoline sold in Louisiana by allowing the gasoline sold in the 5 named parishes to be identical to the fuel sold in the remainder of the state.
This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the provisions of the
I certify that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. The small entities subject to the requirements of this action are refiners, importers or blenders of gasoline that choose to produce or import low RVP gasoline for sale in Louisiana, and gasoline distributers and retail stations in Louisiana. This action, if finalized, would relax the federal RVP standard for gasoline sold in Louisiana's Baton Rouge area during the summertime ozone season to allow the RVP for gasoline sold in these parishes to rise from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi. This rule does not impose any requirements or create impacts on small entities beyond those, if any, already required by or resulting from the CAA section 211(h) RVP program. Therefore, this action would have no net regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.
This proposed rule does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action would implement mandates that are specifically and explicitly set forth in CAA section 211(h) without the exercise of any policy discretion by EPA.
This action does not have federalism implications. It would not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This proposed rule would affect only those refiners, importers or blenders of gasoline that choose to produce or import low RVP gasoline for sale in the Baton Rouge area and gasoline distributers and retail stations in the area. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. EPA has no reason to believe that this action may disproportionately affect children since Louisiana has provided evidence that a relaxation of the gasoline RVP will not interfere with its attainment of the ozone NAAQS for the Baton Rouge area, or any other applicable CAA requirement. By separate action, EPA has finalized its approval of Louisiana's revised maintenance plan for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, including the state's non-interference demonstration that relaxation of the gasoline RVP standard in the Baton Rouge area to 9.0 RVP will not interfere with any other NAAQS or CAA requirement.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action would not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations because it does not affect the applicable ozone NAAQS which establish the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. Louisiana has demonstrated in its non-interference demonstration that this action will not interfere with maintenance of the ozone NAAQS in the Baton Rouge area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, or with any other applicable requirement of the CAA. Therefore, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations are not an anticipated result. The results of this evaluation are
The statutory authority for this action is granted to EPA by sections 211(h) and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act, as amended; 42 U.S.C. 7545(h) and 7601(a).
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, Air pollution control, Fuel additives, Gasoline, Motor vehicle and motor vehicle engines, Motor vehicle pollution, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of filing of petitions and request for comment.
This document announces the Agency's receipt of several initial filings of pesticide petitions requesting the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various commodities.
Comments must be received on or before July 16, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number and the pesticide petition number (PP) of interest as shown in the body of this document, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
Michael Goodis, Registration Division (RD) (7505P), main telephone number: (703) 305-7090, email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
1.
2.
3.
EPA is announcing its receipt of several pesticide petitions filed under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, requesting the establishment or modification of regulations in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various food commodities. The Agency is taking public comment on the requests before responding to the petitioners. EPA is not proposing any particular action at this time. EPA has determined that the pesticide petitions described in this document contain the data or information prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the pesticide petitions. After considering the public comments, EPA intends to evaluate whether and what action may be warranted. Additional data may be needed before EPA can
Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of each of the petitions that are the subject of this document, prepared by the petitioner, is included in a docket EPA has created for each rulemaking. The docket for each of the petitions is available at
As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), EPA is publishing notice of the petitions so that the public has an opportunity to comment on these requests for the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food commodities. Further information on the petitions may be obtained through the petition summaries referenced in this unit.
21 U.S.C. 346a.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of filing of petitions and request for comment.
This document announces the Agency's receipt of several initial filings of pesticide petitions requesting the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various commodities.
Comments must be received on or before July 16, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number and the pesticide petition number (PP) of interest as shown in the body of this document, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
Michael Goodis, Registration Division (RD) (7505P), main telephone number: (703) 305-7090, email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
1.
2.
3.
EPA is announcing its receipt of several pesticide petitions filed under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, requesting the establishment or modification of regulations in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various food commodities. The Agency is taking public comment on the requests before responding to the petitioners. EPA is not proposing any particular action at this time. EPA has determined that the pesticide petitions described in this document contain the data or information prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the pesticide petitions. After considering the public comments, EPA intends to evaluate whether and what action may be warranted. Additional data may be needed before EPA can make a final determination on these pesticide petitions.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of each of the petitions that are the subject of this document, prepared by the petitioner, is included in a docket EPA has created for each rulemaking. The docket for each of the petitions is available at
As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), EPA is publishing notice of the petitions so that the public has an opportunity to comment on these requests for the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food commodities. Further information on the petitions may be obtained through the petition summaries referenced in this unit.
21 U.S.C. 346a,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Proposed rule; withdrawal.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is withdrawing its proposed rule concerning proposed flood elevation determinations for Assumption Parish, Louisiana and Incorporated Areas.
The proposed rule is withdrawn as of June 14, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1085, to Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
On February 5, 2010, FEMA published a proposed rule at 75 FR 5915, proposing flood elevation determinations along one or more flooding sources in Assumption Parish, Louisiana and Incorporated Areas. FEMA is withdrawing the proposed rule.
42 U.S.C. 4104; 44 CFR 67.4.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Proposed rule; withdrawal.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is withdrawing its proposed rule concerning proposed flood elevation determinations for Iron County, Utah and Incorporated Areas.
The proposed rule is withdrawn as of June 14, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1100 to Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
On May 25, 2010, FEMA published a proposed rule at 75 FR 29245, proposing flood elevation determinations along one or more flooding sources in Iron County, Utah and Incorporated Areas. FEMA is withdrawing the proposed rule.
42 U.S.C. 4104; 44 CFR 67.4.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Proposed rule; withdrawal.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is withdrawing its proposed rule concerning proposed flood elevation determinations for Iron County, Utah and Incorporated Areas.
The proposed rule is withdrawn as of June 14, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1222 to Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
On October 6, 2011, FEMA published a proposed rule at 76 FR 62014 and 76 FR 62015, proposing flood elevation determinations along one or more flooding sources in Iron County, Utah and Incorporated Areas. FEMA is withdrawing the proposed rule.
42 U.S.C. 4104; 44 CFR 67.4.
Federal Communications Commission.
Petitions for Reconsideration.
Petitions for Reconsideration (Petitions) have been filed in the Commission's Rulemaking proceeding by James M. Gleason, on behalf of Clarity Telecom, LLC d/b/a Vast Broadband, Kevin Pyle, on behalf Hamilton County Telephone Co-op and Ronald T. Hinds, on behalf Grand River Mutual Telephone Corporation.
Oppositions to the Petition must be filed on or before June 29, 2018. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before June 25, 2018.
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.
Alexander Minard, Wireline Competition Bureau, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, at: (202) 418-7400; email:
This is a summary of the Commission's document, Report No. 3091, released June 5, 2018. The full text of the Petitions is available for viewing and copying at the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR); request for comments.
This notice announces that NMFS intends to consider expanded harvester reporting requirements for the American lobster fishery as recommended by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission and is soliciting comments. The expanded requirements would be intended to improve the data available to enhance lobster stock assessments, evaluate the co-occurrence of fixed-gear fisheries with large whales, and estimate the economic impacts of offshore energy projects and other marine activities on the fishing industry. We may combine this action with an ongoing rulemaking that considers trap caps and ownership limits for the lobster fishery. The intent is to address the harvester reporting as soon as practicable, as recommended by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission.
We must receive written comments on or before July 16, 2018.
You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2013-0169 by any of the following methods:
Peter Burns, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978-281-9144.
NMFS works cooperatively with the states to conserve the American lobster resource within the framework of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's Interstate Fishery Management Plan for American Lobster (ISFMP). Through the ISFMP, the Commission adopts fishery conservation and management strategies for the lobster resource and coordinates the efforts of the states and NMFS to implement these strategies.
In February 2018, the Commission approved Addendum XXVI. The intent of Addendum XXVI is to expand lobster harvester reporting requirements, enhance the spatial and effort data collections, and improve the amount and type of biological data collected in the offshore trap fishery. Given the offshore expansion of lobster trap effort in recent years, the Commission developed this addendum to address data gaps due to inconsistent reporting and data collection requirements across state agencies and imposed in Federal waters by NMFS.
The addendum also serves to complement the Commission's Jonah crab management program as Addendum III to the Jonah Crab ISFMP. NMFS is currently in rulemaking to consider adopting management measures for the Jonah crab fishery, which could include the harvester reporting and other data collection elements of the addendum.
Addendum XXVI recommends that we require all Federal lobster permit holders to submit trip-level catch reports. Approximately 60 percent of all Federal lobster permit holders are currently required to submit a trip-level catch report. Federal reporting requirements are limited to those Federal lobster permit holders who also hold another Federal fishery permit with a reporting requirement. The new addendum also extends the 100-percent reporting requirement to the State of Maine, which currently requires about 10 percent of state lobster licensees to report their catch. All other lobster-producing states require all of their harvesters to report their catch. The Commission requested that we implement the mandatory trip-level harvester reporting requirement as soon as practicable. Consequently, we propose to combine the harvester reporting action with the ongoing actions for Addenda XXI and XXII and consolidate them into a single rulemaking action. Focused primarily on lobster conservation management areas (LCMAs) 2 and 3, these two addenda recommended modifications to the trap transfer program and trap caps in these LCMAs.
Addendum XXVI also recommends that we develop a fixed-gear catch report with expanded data elements, including a requirement for fishermen to report their fishing locations down to the 10-minute square to provide more
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces the intention of the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) to request revision and extension of a currently approved information collection, the Floriculture Survey. Revision to burden hours will be needed due to changes in the size of the target population, sampling design, and/or questionnaire length.
Comments on this notice must be received by August 13, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number 0535-0093, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Kevin L. Barnes, Associate Administrator, National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, (202) 720-2707. Copies of this information collection and related instructions can be obtained without charge from David Hancock, NASS—OMB Clearance Officer, at (202) 690-2388 or at
NASS also complies with OMB Implementation Guidance, “Implementation Guidance for Title V of the E-Government Act, Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002 (CIPSEA),”
All responses to this notice will become a matter of public record and be summarized in the request for OMB approval.
First Responder Network Authority (“FirstNet Authority”), U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of open public meetings.
The Board of the First Responder Network Authority (“FirstNet Authority Board”) will convene a meeting of the FirstNet Authority Board and the Committees of the Board of the First Responder Network Authority (“Board Committees”) that will be open to the public via teleconference and WebEx on June 20, 2018.
A combined meeting of the Board Committees and the FirstNet Authority Board will be held on June 20, 2018, between 10:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time (EDT). The meeting of the FirstNet Authority Board and the Governance and Personnel, Technology, Public Safety Advocacy, and Finance Committees will be open to the public via teleconference and WebEx only from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. EDT.
The combined meeting of the FirstNet Authority Board and Board Committees will be conducted via teleconference and WebEx only. Members of the public may listen to the meeting by dialing toll free 1-888-324-9653 and using passcode 4609182. To view the slide presentation, the public may visit the URL: URL:
Karen Miller-Kuwana, Board Secretary, FirstNet Authority, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, M/S 243, Reston, VA 20192; telephone: (571) 665-6177; email:
This notice informs the public that the FirstNet Authority Board and Board Committees will convene a combined meeting open to the public via teleconference and WebEx only on June 20, 2018.
If you experience technical difficulty, please contact the Conferencing Center customer service at 1-866-900-1011. Public access will be limited to listen-only. Due to the limited number of ports, attendance via teleconference will be on a first-come, first-served basis.
The FirstNet Authority Board and Combined Committee Meeting is accessible to people with disabilities. Individuals requiring accommodations are asked to notify Ms. Miller-Kuwana by telephone (571) 665-6177 or email at
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo Wood Industry Co., Ltd. (Jiangsu Senmao) and Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited (Fine Furniture), exporters of multilayered wood flooring (MLWF) from the People's Republic of China (China), received countervailable subsidies
Applicable June 14, 2018.
Dennis McClure or Jesus Saenz, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5973 or (202) 482-8184, respectively.
Commerce selected Jiangsu Senmao and Fine Furniture as mandatory respondents in this administrative review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on MLWF from the PRC.
Commerce exercised its discretion to toll all deadlines affected by the closure of the Federal Government from January 20 through 22, 2018. After revising the deadline for tolling the due date for the final results of this administrative review as a result of the shutdown of the Federal Government, we extended the deadline for the final results to June 8, 2018.
The product covered by the
All issues raised in the parties' briefs are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues addressed is attached to this notice at Appendix I. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
Commerce conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (Act). For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, we find that there is a subsidy,
As noted in the
Jiangsu Keri Wood Co., Ltd. (Jiangsu Keri Wood) and Linyi Bonn Flooring Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Linyi Bonn) also timely filed no-shipment certifications. However, both companies subsequently withdrew their no-shipment submissions. Therefore, we are including Jiangsu Keri Wood and Linyi Bonn in this administrative review for purposes of the final results.
In this review, in addition to the two selected mandatory respondents, there are 105 companies for which a review was requested and not rescinded, but which were not selected for individual examination (non-selected respondents). For these companies, we applied the rate of mandatory respondent, Fine Furniture, the only above
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(i), we determine the following net subsidy rates for the 2015 administrative review:
Review-Specific Average Rate Applicable to the Following Non-Selected Companies:
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review to liquidate shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015, for the above-listed companies at the applicable
Commerce also intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the amounts shown for each of the respective companies listed above, except, where the rate calculated in these final results is
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or
We are issuing and publishing these final results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that Deacero S.A.P.I de C.V. (Deacero) and exporters of steel concrete reinforcing bar from Mexico did not make sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value during the period of review (POR) November 1, 2015, through October 31, 2016.
Applicable June 14, 2018.
Stephanie Moore, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3692.
Commerce published the
On January 23, 2018, Commerce exercised its discretion to toll all deadlines affected by the closure of the Federal Government from January 20 through 22, 2018.
Imports covered by the order are shipments of steel concrete reinforcing bar imported in either straight length or coil form (rebar) regardless of metallurgy, length, diameter, or grade. The merchandise subject to review is currently classifiable under items 7213.10.0000, 7214.20.0000, and 7228.30.8010. The subject merchandise may also enter under other Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) numbers including 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.5000, 7221.00.0017, 7221.00.0018, 7221.00.0030, 7221.00.0045, 7222.11.0001, 7222.11.0057, 7222.11.0059, 7222.30.0001, 7227.20.0080, 7227.90.6085, 7228.20.1000, and 7228.60.6000. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to the order is dispositive.
As noted in the
As noted in the
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal brief by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues that parties raised and to which we responded is attached to this notice as an Appendix. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on-file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
Based on a review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding our
As a result of this review, we calculated a dumping margin of zero percent for Deacero. We are applying to the non-selected companies the rate calculated for Deacero, the sole mandatory respondent in these final results for the period November 1, 2015, through October 31, 2016:
We will disclose the calculations performed to parties in this proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this notice, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Commerce shall determine and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries.
We intend to issue assessment instructions directly to CBP 41 days after publication of the final results of this review.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for respondents noted above will be zero; (2) for merchandise exported by producers or exporters not covered in this administrative review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation, but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the producer of the subject merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will continue to be 20.58 percent, the all-others rate established in the antidumping investigation.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during the POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h) and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of availability of a draft Environmental Impact Statement; request for comments.
NMFS announces the availability of a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), in order to assess the impacts of issuing annual catch limits for the subsistence harvest of bowhead whales by Alaska Natives from 2019 onward. The official 60-day comment period for comments on the draft EIS began on June 1, 2018 and will end on July 31, 2018.
Comments on this draft EIS must be received no later than July 31, 2018.
Submit your comments on this draft environmental impact statement, by including NOAA-NMFS-2017-0098 by either of the following methods:
•
•
Carolyn Doherty, Office of International Affairs and Seafood Inspection, NOAA Fisheries (phone: 301-427-8385 or email:
NMFS is preparing an EIS in order to comprehensively assess impacts of the subsistence harvest of Western Arctic bowhead whales by Alaska Natives from 2019 onward. The draft EIS is posted on the NOAA Fisheries' Alaska Regional Office's web page at
Alaska Natives have hunted bowhead whales for over 2,000 years as the whales migrate in the spring and fall along the coast of Alaska. Their traditional subsistence hunts for these whales have been regulated by catch limits and other limitations under the authority of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) since 1977. Alaska Native subsistence hunters from 11 northern Alaskan communities take less than 1 percent of the stock of bowhead whales per year. Since 1977, the number of whales struck by harpoons has ranged between 14 and 72 animals per year, depending in part on changes in IWC management strategy due to higher estimates of both bowhead whale abundance and increased hunter efficiency in recent years. The IWC sets an overall aboriginal subsistence catch limit for this stock, based on the request of IWC member countries on behalf of the aboriginal hunters. The IWC's catch limit for bowhead whales includes a limit on the number of landed whales and a limit on the number of whales that may be struck. In the case of Alaska and Russian Native subsistence hunts, the United States and the Russian Federation make a joint request to the IWC for subsistence catch limits for bowhead whales.
NMFS must annually publish a notice of aboriginal subsistence whale hunting catch limits and any other limitations on such hunting in the
In order to comprehensively assess the effects of these annual removals, this proposed action would extend from 2019 onward, subject to IWC-set catch limits. IWC-set catch limits are, in turn, based on IWC Scientific Committee advice on the sustainability of proposed catch limits using a population model, referred to as a Strike Limit Algorithm. The Strike Limit Algorithm used by the IWC is specific to this population of bowhead whales and is the IWC's formula for calculating sustainable aboriginal subsistence whaling removal levels, based on the size and productivity of a whale population, in order to satisfy subsistence need. The Strike Limit Algorithm also allows for an inter-annual variation of strikes up to 50 percent of the annual strike limit in order to provide flexibility for the hunt while meeting the Commission's conservation objectives.
NMFS considered five alternatives in the draft EIS:
NMFS decided to prepare an EIS rather than an EA in order to assess the impacts of issuing annual quotas for the subsistence hunt by Alaska Natives from 2019 onward. This decision was not based on any new determination that significant effects occur as a result of the bowhead subsistence hunt, but rather to take advantage of the greater transparency and public involvement in decision-making afforded through an EIS process.
Major issues addressed in this draft EIS include: The impact of subsistence removal of bowhead whales from the Western Arctic stock of bowhead whales; the impacts of these harvest levels on the traditional and cultural values of Alaska Natives, and the cumulative effects of the action when considered along with environmental conditions and past, present, and future actions potentially affecting bowhead whales.
The publication date of the Environmental Protection Agency's Notice of Availability of the draft EIS, June 1, 2018, 83 FR 25451, constitutes the start of the comment period under NEPA for the draft EIS. The public comment period will end on July 31, 2018, per 83 FR 26665. NOAA encourages all parties with an interest in or who are affected by the Alternatives described in the draft EIS to provide suggestions and comments. Comments are specifically requested regarding the range of alternatives assessed, scope of analysis, and assessment of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts.
The official public comment period is 60 days, from June 1, 2018 until July 31, 2018. The draft EIS is posted on the NOAA Fisheries' Alaska Regional Office's web page at
The preparation of this draft EIS was conducted under the authority and in accordance with the requirements of NEPA, Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), other applicable Federal laws and regulations, and policies and procedures of NMFS for compliance with those regulations.
Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before July 16, 2018.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Ian Foss, 202-377-3681.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
The Department of Education is issuing a notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2018 for Indian Education Discretionary Grants Programs—Professional Development Program, Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number 84.299B.
Applications Available: June 14, 2018.
Deadline for Notice of Intent to Apply: June 29, 2018.
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: July 30, 2018.
Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: September 27, 2018.
For the addresses for obtaining and submitting an application, please refer to our Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the
Angela Hernandez-Marshall, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 3W113, Washington, DC 20202-6335. Telephone: (202) 205-1909 or by email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call, toll free: 1-877-576-7734.
These priorities are:
Projects that—
(i) Provide support and training to Indian individuals to complete a pre-service education program before the end of the award period that enables the individuals to meet the requirements for full State certification or licensure as a teacher through—
(A) Training that leads to a degree in education;
(B) For States allowing a degree in a specific subject area, training that leads to a degree in the subject area; or
(C) Training in a current or new specialized teaching assignment that requires a degree and in which a documented teacher shortage exists;
(ii) Provide two years of induction services, during the award period, to participants after graduation, certification, or licensure, while they are completing their first two years of work as teachers in local education agencies (LEAs) (including Bureau of Indian Education (BIE)-funded schools) that serve a high proportion of Indian students; and
(iii) Include goals for the—
(A) Number of participants to be recruited each year;
(B) Number of participants to continue in the project each year;
(C) Number of participants to graduate each year; and
(D) Number of participants to find qualifying jobs within 12 months of completion.
Projects that—
(i) Provide support and training to Indian individuals to complete a graduate degree in education administration that is provided before the end of the award period and that allows participants to meet the requirements for State certification or licensure as an education administrator;
(ii) Provide two years of induction services, during the award period, to participants after graduation, certification, or licensure, while they are completing their first two years of work as administrators in LEAs (including BIE-funded schools) that serve a high proportion of Indian students; and
(iii) Include goals for the—
(A) Number of participants to be recruited each year;
(B) Number of participants to continue in the project each year;
(C) Number of participants to graduate each year; and
(D) Number of participants to find qualifying jobs within twelve months of completion.
These priorities are:
An application that includes a letter of support signed by the authorized
An application submitted by an Indian Tribe, Indian organization, or Tribal College or University (as defined in section 316 of the Higher Education Act of 1965) (TCU) that is eligible to participate in the Professional Development program. A consortium application of eligible entities that meets the requirements of 34 CFR 75.127 through 75.129 and includes an Indian Tribe, Indian organization, or TCU will be considered eligible to receive preference under this priority only if the lead applicant for the consortium is the Indian Tribe, Indian organization, or TCU. In order to be considered a consortium application, the application must include the consortium agreement, signed by all parties.
A consortium application of eligible entities whose lead is non-Tribal that—
(i) Meets the requirements of 34 CFR 75.127 through 75.129 and includes an Indian Tribe, Indian organization, or TCU; and
(ii) Is not eligible to receive a preference under Competitive Preference Priority 2.
An application that is designed to increase the opportunities for high-quality preparation of, or professional development for, teachers or other educators of science, technology, engineering, math, or computer science.
Application requirements 1 and 3 below are from 20 U.S.C. 7442(e), and application requirement 2 is established, for the FY 2018 grant competition and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, in accordance with section 437(d)(1) of GEPA, 20 U.S.C. 1232(d)(1).
Each application must describe how the eligible entity will—
(1) Recruit qualified Indian individuals, such as students who may not be of traditional college age, to become teachers, principals, or school leaders;
(2) Use funds made available under the grant to support the recruitment, preparation, and professional development of Indian teachers or principals in local educational agencies (including BIE-funded schools) that serve a high proportion of Indian students; and
(3) Assist participants in meeting the payback requirements.
(a) Awards that are primarily for the benefit of Indians are subject to the provisions of section 7(b) of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (Pub. L. 93-638). That section requires that, to the greatest extent feasible, a grantee—
(1) Give to Indians preferences and opportunities for training and employment in connection with the administration of the grant; and
(2) Give to Indian organizations and to Indian-owned economic enterprises, as defined in section 3 of the Indian Financing Act of 1974 (25 U.S.C. 1452(e)), preference in the award of contracts in connection with the administration of the grant.
(b) For purposes of this section, an Indian is a member of any federally recognized Indian Tribe.
The definition of “computer science” is from the Supplemental Priorities. The definition of “Indian organization” is from the program regulations, 34 CFR 263.3. We are establishing the definition of “qualifying job,” for the FY 2018 grant competition and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, in accordance with section 437(d)(1) of GEPA, 20 U.S.C. 1232(d)(1).
Computer science often includes computer programming or coding as a tool to create software, including applications, games, websites, and tools to manage or manipulate data; or development and management of computer hardware and the other electronics related to sharing, securing, and using digital information.
In addition to coding, the expanding field of computer science emphasizes computational thinking and interdisciplinary problem-solving to equip students with the skills and abilities necessary to apply computation in our digital world.
Computer science does not include using a computer for everyday activities, such as browsing the internet; use of tools like word processing, spreadsheets, or presentation software; or using computers in the study and exploration of unrelated subjects.
(1) Is legally established—
(i) By Tribal or inter-Tribal charter or in accordance with State or Tribal law; and
(ii) With appropriate constitution, by-laws, or articles of incorporation;
(2) Includes in its purposes the promotion of the education of Indians;
(3) Is controlled by a governing board, the majority of which is Indian;
(4) If located on an Indian reservation, operates with the sanction or by charter of the governing body of that reservation;
(5) Is neither an organization or subdivision of, nor under the direct control of, any institution of higher education; and
(6) Is not an agency of State or local government.
The open licensing requirement in 2 CFR 3474.20 does not apply for this program.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian Tribes.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education only.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2019 from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
(a) An applicant must be an eligible entity which means—
(1) An institution of higher education, including a TCU;
(2) A State educational agency in consortium with an institution of higher education;
(3) An LEA in consortium with an institution of higher education;
(4) An Indian Tribe or Indian organization in consortium with an institution of higher education; or
(5) A BIE-funded school, in consortium with at least one TCU, where feasible.
(b) Eligibility of an applicant requiring a consortium with an institution of higher education, including a TCU, requires that the institution of higher education be accredited to provide the coursework and level of degree required by the project.
(c) An applicant applying as an Indian organization must demonstrate that the entity meets the definition of “Indian organization.”
2.
3.
1.
2.
Because we plan to make successful applications available to the public by posting them on our website, you may wish to request confidentiality of business information. Consistent with Executive Order 12600, please designate in your application any information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under Exemption 4. In the appropriate Appendix section of your application, under “Other Attachments Form,” please list the page number or numbers on which we can find this information. For additional information please see 34 CFR 5.11(c).
3.
4.
A Professional Development program may include, as training costs, assistance to—
(1) Fully finance a student's educational expenses including tuition, books, and required fees; health insurance required by the institution of higher education; stipend; dependent allowance; technology costs; program required travel; and instructional supplies; or
(2) Supplement other financial aid, including Federal funding other than loans, for meeting a student's educational expenses.
The maximum stipend amount is $1,800 per month for full-time students; grantees may also provide participants with a $300 allowance per month per dependent during an academic term. The Department will reduce any stipends in excess of this amount. The terms “stipend,” “full-time student,” and “dependent allowance” are defined in 34 CFR 263.3. Stipends may be paid only to full-time students.
Other costs that a Professional Development program may include, but that must not be included as training costs, include costs for—
(1) Collaborating with prospective employers within the grantees' local service area to create a pool of potentially available qualifying jobs;
(2) Assisting participants in identifying and securing qualifying jobs in their fields of study following completion of the program; and
(3) Teacher mentoring programs, professional guidance, and instructional support provided by educators, local traditional leaders, or cultural experts, as appropriate for teachers during their first two years of employment as teachers.
We reference additional regulations outlining funding restrictions in the
5.
• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs.
• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).
• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial.
The recommended page limit does not apply to the cover sheet; the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; the assurances and certifications; or the two-page abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, the letters of support, or the signed consortium agreement, if applicable.
1.
(a)
(1) (Up to 5 points) The extent to which specific gaps or weaknesses in services, infrastructure, or opportunities have been identified and will be addressed by the proposed project, including the nature and magnitude of those gaps or weaknesses.
(2) (Up to 10 points) The extent to which employment opportunities exist in LEAs (including BIE-funded schools) that serve a high proportion of Indian students in the project's service area, as demonstrated through a job market analysis.
(b)
(1) (Up to 10 points) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are ambitious but also attainable and address—
(i) The number of participants expected to be recruited in the project each year;
(ii) The number of participants expected to continue in the project each year;
(iii) The number of participants expected to graduate; and
(iv) The number of participants expected to find qualifying jobs within twelve months of completion.
(2) (Up to 8 points) The extent to which the proposed project has a plan for recruiting and selecting participants, including students who may not be of traditional college age, that ensures that program participants are likely to complete the program.
(3) (Up to 7 points) The extent to which the proposed project will incorporate the needs of potential employers, as identified by a job market analysis, by establishing partnerships and relationships with appropriate entities (
(c)
(1) (Up to 4 points) The likelihood that the proposed project will provide participants with learning experiences that develop needed skills for successful teaching and/or administration in LEAs, including BIE-funded schools, that serve a high proportion of Indian students.
(2) (Up to 4 points) The extent to which the proposed project prepares participants to adapt teaching and/or administrative practices to meet the breadth of Indian student needs.
(3) (Up to 6 points) The extent to which the applicant will provide job placement activities that reflect the findings of a job market analysis and needs of potential employers that serve a high proportion of Indian students.
(4) (Up to 5 points) The extent to which the applicant will offer induction services that reflect the latest research on effective delivery of such services.
(5) (Up to 6 points) The extent to which the applicant will assist participants in meeting the service obligation requirements.
(d)
(1) (Up to 4 points) The qualifications, including relevant training, experience, and cultural competence, of the project director and the amount of time this individual will spend directly involved in the project.
(2) (Up to 8 points) The qualifications, including relevant training, experience, and cultural competence, of key project personnel and the amount of time to be spent on the project and direct interactions with participants.
(3) (Up to 3 points) The qualifications, including relevant training, experience, and cultural competence (as necessary), of project consultants or subcontractors, if any.
(e)
(1) (Up to 7 points) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the number of persons to be served and to the anticipated results and benefits.
(2) (Up to 5 points) The adequacy of procedures for ensuring feedback and continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project.
(3) (Up to 8 points) The extent to which the time commitments of the project director and principal investigator and other key project personnel are appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed project.
2.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary requires various assurances, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial
3.
4.
Please note that, if the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
(c) Under 34 CFR 75.250(b), the Secretary may provide a grantee with additional funding for data collection analysis and reporting.
4.
These measures constitute the Department's indicator of success for this program. Consequently, we advise an applicant for a grant under this program to give careful consideration to these measures in conceptualizing the approach and evaluation for its proposed project. Each grantee will be required to provide, in its annual performance and final reports, data about its progress in meeting these measures.
5.
In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
Pursuant to section 6122(g) of the ESEA, the Secretary will award grants for an initial period of not more than three years, and may renew such grants for an additional period of not more than two years if the Secretary finds that the grantee is achieving the objectives of the grant.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before July 16, 2018.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Beth Grebeldinger, 202-377-4018.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Federal Student Aid, Department of Education.
Notice of a New Matching Program; correction.
On June 1, 2018, we published in the
Submit your comments on the proposed matching program on or before July 2, 2018.
In FR Doc. 2018-11856, on page 25446 in the right-hand column, after the Department of Education agency heading, we correct the Docket ID number to ED-2018-FSA-0015.
Marya Dennis, Management and Program Analyst, U.S. Department of Education, Federal Student Aid, Union Center Plaza, 830 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20202-5454. Telephone: (202) 377-3385.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Department of Energy.
Notice of meetings.
The Industry Advisory Board (IAB) to the International Energy Agency (IEA) will meet on June 26, 2018, at at the UIC-P, 16 Rue Jean Rey, 75015 Paris, France, in connection with a joint meeting of the IEA's Standing Group on Emergency Questions (SEQ) and the IEA's Standing Group on the Oil Market (SOM) on June 27, 2018. There will be a meeting involving members of the Industry Advisory Board (IAB) to the International Energy Agency (IEA) in connection with the IEA's 9th Emergency Response Exercise (ERE9) to be held at the OECD Conference Centre, 2 Rue André-Pascal, 75016 Paris, France, on June 28-29, 2018.
June 26-29, 2018.
UIC-P, 16 Rue Jean Rey, 75015 Paris, France; 2 Rue André-Pascal, 75016 Paris, France.
Thomas Reilly, Assistant General Counsel for International and National Security Programs, Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585, 202-586-5000.
In accordance with section 252(c)(1)(A)(i) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6272(c)(1)(A)(i)) (EPCA), the following notice of meetings is provided:
A meeting of the Industry Advisory Board (IAB) to the International Energy Agency (IEA) will be held at the UIC-P, 16 Rue Jean Rey, 75015 Paris, France, commencing at 9:30 a.m. on June 26, 2018. The purpose of this notice is to permit attendance by representatives of U.S. company members of the IAB at a meeting of the IEA's Standing Group on Emergency Questions (SEQ), which is scheduled to be held at the same location and time. The IAB will also hold a preparatory meeting among company representatives at the same location at 8:30 a.m. on June 26. The agenda for this preparatory meeting is to review the agenda for the SEQ meeting.
The agenda of the meeting is under the control of the SEQ and the SOM. It is expected that the SEQ and the SOM will adopt the following agenda:
A meeting of the Industry Advisory Board (IAB) to the International Energy Agency (IEA) will be held in UNESCO, Room IX (N° 9), 7 place de Fontenoy, 75007 Paris, France, commencing at 09:30 on June 27, 2018. The purpose of this notice is to permit attendance by representatives of U.S. company members of the IAB at a joint meeting of the IEA's Standing Group on Emergency Questions (SEQ) and the IEA's Standing Group on the Oil Market (SOM), which is scheduled to be held at the same location and time.The agenda of the SEQ meeting is under the control of the SEQ. It is expected that the SEQ will adopt the following agenda:
A meeting involving members of the Industry Advisory Board (IAB) to the International Energy Agency (IEA) in connection with the IEA's 9th Emergency Response Exercise (ERE9) will be held at the OECD Conference Centre, 2 Rue André-Pascal, 75016 Paris, France, on June 28-29, 2018.
The agenda for ERE9 is under the control of the IEA. It is expected that the IEA will adopt the following agenda:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In accordance with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is issuing a notice of receipt of requests by the registrant to voluntarily cancel its registrations of products containing the pesticide difenacoum. The requests would terminate the last difenacoum products registered for use in the United States. EPA intends to grant these requests at the close of the comment period for this announcement unless the Agency receives substantive comments within the comment period that would merit its further review of the requests, or unless the registrant withdraws its requests. If these requests are granted, any sale, distribution, or use of products listed in this notice will be permitted after the registration has been cancelled only if such sale, distribution, or use is consistent with the terms as described in the final order.
Comments must be received on or before July 16, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0769, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
Julie Javier, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 347-0790; email address:
This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.
1.
2.
This notice announces receipt by EPA of requests from registrant Woodstream Corporation to cancel all their difenacoum product registrations. Difenacoum is a second generation anticoagulant rodenticide used in and around homes, buildings, and in commercial transportation vehicles. It is formulated as ready-to-use pelleted bait to control rats and mice. In letters dated October 19, 2017 and April 4, 2018, Woodstream Corporation requested EPA to cancel the pesticide product registrations identified in Table 1 of Unit III. They also requested that the timeframe for the existing stocks provisions be two years from the date of the 90-day response to the GDCI,
This notice announces receipt by EPA of requests from a registrant to cancel all difenacoum product registrations. The affected products and the registrant making the requests are identified in Tables 1 and 2 of this unit.
Unless a request is withdrawn by the registrant or if the Agency determines that there are substantive comments that warrant further review of this request, EPA intends to issue an order canceling the affected registrations.
Table 2 of this unit includes the names and addresses of record for the registrant of the products listed in Table 1 of this unit, in sequence by EPA company number. This number corresponds to the first part of the EPA registration numbers of the products listed in Table 1 of this unit.
Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)(1)) provides that a registrant of a pesticide product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations be canceled or amended to terminate one or more uses. FIFRA further provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice of receipt of any such request in the
Section 6(f)(1)(B) of FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)(1)(B)) requires that before acting on a request for voluntary cancellation, EPA must provide a 30-day public comment period on the request for voluntary cancellation or use termination. In addition, FIFRA section 6(f)(1)(C) (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)(1)(C)) requires that EPA provide a 180-day comment period on a request for voluntary cancellation or termination of any minor agricultural use before granting the request, unless:
1. The registrants request a waiver of the comment period, or
2. The EPA Administrator determines that continued use of the pesticide would pose an unreasonable adverse effect on the environment.
Since difenacoum is not registered for minor agricultural use, the provision for a 180-day comment period does not apply. Accordingly, EPA will provide a 30-day comment period on the proposed requests.
Registrants who choose to withdraw a request for product cancellation or use deletion should submit the withdrawal in writing to the person listed under
Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products that are currently in the United States and that were packaged, labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the action. If the requests for voluntary cancellation are granted, the Agency intends to publish the cancellation order in the
In any order issued in response to these requests for cancellation of product registrations, EPA proposes to include the following provisions for the treatment of any existing stocks of the products listed in Table 1 of Unit III.
For these voluntary product cancellations, the registrant will be permitted to sell and distribute existing stocks of voluntarily canceled products until October 18, 2019, which is two years from the date of the 90-day response to the GDCI, as requested by the registrant. Thereafter, the registrant will be prohibited from selling or distributing the products identified in Table 1 of Unit III., except for export consistent with FIFRA section 17 (7 U.S.C. 136o) or for proper disposal.
Persons other than the registrant may sell, distribute, or use existing stocks of canceled products until supplies are exhausted, provided that such sale, distribution, or use is consistent with the terms of the previously approved labeling on, or that accompanied, the canceled products.
7 U.S.C. 136
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA has received a specific exemption request from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to use the pesticide ortho-phthalaldehyde (OPA) (CAS No. 643-79-8) to treat the coolant fluid of the internal active thermal control system of the International Space Station to control aerobic/microaerophilic bacteria in the aqueous coolant. The applicant proposes the use of a chemical which is not registered by EPA. Accordingly, as required by the Code of Federal Regulations, EPA is publishing this notice of receipt to allow public comment.
Because of the long lead time required for acquiring and sending products to the International Space Station (ISS), and because this is a
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0278, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
Michael L. Goodis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are a pesticide manufacturer (NAICS code 32532) or involved with the International Space Station. This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed could also be affected.
1.
2.
3.
Under section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. 136p), at the discretion of the EPA Administrator, a Federal or State agency may be exempted from any provision of FIFRA if the EPA Administrator determines that emergency conditions exist which require the exemption. NASA has requested the EPA Administrator to issue a specific exemption for the use of ortho-phthalaldehyde (OPA) in the coolant of the internal active thermal control system (IATCS) of the International Space Station (ISS) to control aerobic/microaerophilic bacteria in the aqueous coolant. Information in accordance with 40 CFR part 166 was submitted as part of this request.
As part of this request, the applicant stated that it has considered the registered biocide alternatives and has concluded that OPA is the most effective biocide which meets the requisite criteria including: The need for safe, non-intrusive implementation and operation in a functioning system; the ability to control existing planktonic and biofilm-residing micro-organisms; a negligible impact on system-wetted materials of construction; and a negligible reactivity with existing coolant additives. The ISS would not have an adequate long-term solution for controlling the micro-organisms in the IATCS coolant without the use of OPA. The OPA is incorporated into a porous resin material contained in a stainless-steel canister. The canister containing the OPA-incorporated resin is inserted into a coolant system loop, using flexible hose and quick disconnects, and is placed in-line for 8 hours to deliver the OPA into the fluid. As the coolant fluid flows through the canister, the OPA elutes from the resin material into the coolant fluid. The total volume of the circulatory loops of the IATCS is 829 liters. The maximum concentration would be 500 mg of OPA per liter of coolant fluid. A total of 414,500 mg of OPA would be needed for the entire system. The OPA is incorporated into the resin at 210 mg OPA per cm
Previous notices of applications for emergency exemptions for this same use of OPA in the ISS IATCS have not elicited significant substantive comment. Owing to NASA's need for an expedited decision, the negligible human and environmental exposures expected from the proposed emergency use, and the absence of registered alternatives that meet the ISS IATCS criteria, EPA has approved this emergency exemption request prior to receipt of public comments, consistent with 40 CFR 166.24(c). EPA's regulations provide that an emergency exemption may be modified or revoked if, among other things, additional information indicates that the product
7 U.S.C. 136
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Extension of comment period.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a notice in the
Comments must be received on or before July 14, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0209, online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Karen VanSickle, Clean Air Markets Division, Office of Air and Radiation, (6204M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-343-9220; fax number: 202-343-2361; email address:
This document extends the public comment period established in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA has submitted an amendment to the following information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for emergency processing in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA): “Pre-Manufacture Review Reporting and Exemption Requirements for New Chemical Substances and Significant New Use Reporting Requirements for Chemical Substances” and identified by EPA ICR No. 0574.17 and OMB Control No. 2070-0012. The ICR, which is available in the docket along with other related materials, provides a detailed explanation of the collection activities and the burden estimate that is summarized in this document.
EPA requested that OMB approve the emergency processing request on or before June 11, 2018.
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0398, is available at
Brandon Mullings, Environmental Assistance Division (MC 7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-4826 email address:
The Agency is issuing additional reporting guidance to help submitters better address the recently-amended requirements for new chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (15 U.S.C. 2601
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers are displayed either by publication in the
In an effort to avoid future delays and backlogs and to assist respondents in preparing a Premanufacture Notice (PMN), Significant New Use Notice (SNUN), or exemption notice (
44 U.S.C. 3501
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
On June 5, 2018, the Administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency approved the application by the State of Idaho to administer and enforce the Idaho Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (IPDES) program pursuant to the Clean Water Act. Concurrent with this approval, EPA is also approving IPDES program for electronic reporting. The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) will administer the approved IPDES program regulating discharges of pollutants into waters of the United States under its jurisdiction as described in the state's program application. EPA has approved the State's implementation plan that transfers the administration of specific program components from EPA to the State over a four-year period in accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement between IDEQ and EPA R10 (MOA) and subject to EPA oversight and enforcement. EPA will suspend issuance of NPDES permits in Idaho in accordance with the State's approved schedule to transfer NPDES program authority. EPA will retain the authority to issue NPDES permits for facilities located on tribal lands and/or discharging to tribal waters.
On June 5, 2018, the Administrator approved Idaho's IPDES program including electronic reporting.
Visit EPA's web page at
Entities potentially affected by this action are: The EPA; tribal programs; and the regulated community and citizens within the state of Idaho. This table is not intended to be exhaustive; rather, it provides a guide for readers regarding entities that this action is likely to regulate.
If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
EPA approved the State of Idaho's IPDES program granting IDEQ the authority to administer the NPDES program in Idaho to regulate discharges of pollutants into waters of the United States under its jurisdiction. Concurrent with this approval, EPA is also approving IPDES program for electronic reporting under the NPDES and pretreatment programs.
The CWA created the NPDES program under which EPA may issue permits authorizing the point source discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States under conditions required by the Act. The CWA provides that EPA shall approve a State to administer its own permit program, upon the Governor's request, provided that EPA has determined that the State has adequate authority and a program sufficient to meet the Act's requirements. 33 U.S.C. 1342(b). The regulatory requirements for state program approval are set forth in 40 CFR part 123 (
Pursuant to CWA section 402(d), 33 U.S.C. 1342(d), EPA can object to draft IPDES permits proposed by IDEQ and, if the objections are not resolved, the authority to issue such permits transfers to EPA. EPA retains enforcement authorities under CWA sections 308, 309, 402(i) and 504 and may take enforcement actions if EPA determines that the State has not taken timely and/or appropriate enforcement actions for IPDES program violations as authorized under those provisions.
September 11, 2017 at Central Public Library in Idaho Falls.
September 12, 2017 at Twin Falls Public Library.
September 13, 2017 at Boise Public Library.
September 14, 2017 at Lewiston Community Center.
September 15, 2017 at Coeur d'Alene Public Library.
These meetings included an overview of both the federal and state programs and provided an opportunity for question and answer. Each informational meeting was immediately followed by a public hearing in accordance with 40 CFR 124.12 and provided interested parties with the opportunity to give written and/or oral testimony into the official record. All comments received by EPA were considered and responded to by EPA with the final IPDES program approval. Information about the IPDES Program Application is available in the
IDEQ will assume permitting and compliance authority for the NPDES program in four phases. EPA will retain full permitting and compliance authority for the relevant major component(s) until that authority is transferred to IDEQ in accordance with
Phase I—Individual Municipal Permits and Pretreatment on July 1, 2018.
Phase II—Individual Industrial Permits on July 1, 2019.
Phase III—General Permits (Aquaculture, Pesticide, CAFO, Suction Dredge, Remediation) on July 1, 2020.
Phase IV—Federal Facilities, General and Individual Stormwater Permits and Biosolids on July 1, 2021.
A total of 18 comment letters and testimonials were received during the comment period. Of those 18, 10 commenters expressed support for the transfer of NPDES authority to IDEQ. One commenter expressed a general concern about IDEQ's ability to adequately run a program that sufficiently protects the environment. The remaining 7 commenters provided specific comments about the IPDES program application or IPDES program. EPA provided responses to all comments. No comments resulted in changes to the IPDES program application as provided with the
EPA engaged with all five federally-recognized Idaho tribes (Shoshone-Bannock Tribe, Shoshone-Paiute Tribe, Nez Perce Tribe Council, Coeur d'Alene Tribe and the Kootenai Tribe) and two federally-recognized Eastern Washington tribes (Kalispell Tribe and Spokane Tribes). EPA participated in several meetings with the Tribes that were held before and after the public comment period. The primary outcome of the tribal meetings was the development of IDEQ's
IDEQ will implement the National Network Discharge Monitoring Report System (National NetDMR) and Shared CROMERR Services (SCS) electronic document receiving system in accordance with the application submitted by IDEQ to EPA on March 26, 2018. The application anticipated concurrent approval with the State's 40 CFR part 123 (NPDES State Program Requirements) and part 403 (General Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New Source of Pollution) programs to allow electronic reporting under 40 CFR parts 122, 125, and 403-471. EPA has reviewed IDEQ's application and determined both that the application contains the information required 40 CFR 3.1000(b)(1) and that IDEQ's National NetDMR and SCS systems comply with the requirements for electronic document receiving systems in 40 CFR 3.2000. This approval is effective upon the date of this publication in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA has received applications to register pesticide products containing active ingredients not included in any currently registered pesticide products. Pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications.
Comments must be received on or before July 16, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by the Docket Identification (ID) Number and the File Symbol of interest as shown in the body of this document, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
Robert McNally, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (BPPD) (7511P), main telephone number: (703) 305-7090, email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
1.
2.
EPA has received applications to register pesticide products containing active ingredients not included in any currently registered pesticide products. Pursuant to the provisions of FIFRA section 3(c)(4) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(4)), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications. Notice of receipt of these applications does not imply a decision by the Agency on these applications.
1.
2.
3.
4.
7 U.S.C. 136
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before August 13, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email to
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
The recordkeeping requirements for FCC Form 396 are covered under OMB control number 3060-0214.
In 1997, the Commission determined that SDARS licensees must comply with the Commission's EEO requirements. See Establishment of Rules and Policies for the Digital Audio Radio Satellite Service in the 2310-2360 MHz Frequency Band, 12 FCC Rcd 5754, 5791,) 91 (1997) (“1997 SDARS Order”), FCC 97-70. In 2008, the Commission clarified that SDARS licensees must comply with the Commission's EEO broadcast rules and policies, including the same recruitment, outreach, public file, website posting, record-keeping, reporting, and self-assessment obligations required of broadcast licensees, consistent with 47 CFR 73.2080, as well as any other Commission EEO policies. See Applications for Consent to the Transfer of Control of Licenses, SM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc., Transferor, to Sirius Satellite Radio Inc., Transferee, 23 FCC Rcd 12348, 12426,) 174, and note 551 (2008) (“XM-Sirius Merger Order”).
Satellite Radio (also referred to as “Satellite Digital Audio Radio Services” or “SDARS”) licensees are required to comply with the Commission's EEO broadcast rules and policies. They must engage in the same recruitment, outreach, public file, website posting, record-keeping, reporting, and self-assessment obligations required of broadcast licensees, consistent with 47 CFR 73.2080, and are subject to the same EEO policies. See Applications for Consent to the Transfer of Control of Licenses, XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc., Transferor, to Sirius Satellite Radio Inc., Transferee, 23 FCC Rcd 12348, 12426,) 174, and note 551 (2008) (“XM-Sirius Merger Order”). See also Establishment of Rules and Policies for the Digital Audio Radio Satellite Service in the 2310-2360 MHz Frequency Band, 12 FCC Rcd 5754, 5791-92,)) 91-92 (1997) (“SDARS Order”), FCC 97-70.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before August 13, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email to
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments should be submitted on or before July 16, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email
For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the web page
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
On April 27, 2012, the Commission released the Empowering Consumers to Prevent and Detect Billing for Unauthorized Charges (“Cramming”), Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CG Docket No. 11-116, CG Docket No. 09-158, CC Docket No. 98-170, FCC 12-42 (Cramming Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking); published at 77 FR 30972, May 24, 2012, which determined that additional rules are needed to help consumers prevent and detect the placement of unauthorized charges on their telephone bills, an unlawful and fraudulent practice commonly referred to as “cramming.”
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than July 11, 2018.
1.
Federal Trade Commission.
Proposed consent agreement.
The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair methods of competition. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the complaint and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.
Comments must be received on or before July 5, 2018.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
James Southworth (202-326-2822), Bureau of Competition, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20580.
Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for June 5, 2018), on the World Wide Web, at
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before July 5, 2018. Write “In the Matter of Northrop Grumman Corporation and Orbital ATK, Inc., File No. 181 0005” 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 website, 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 “In the Matter of Northrop Grumman Corporation and Orbital ATK, Inc., File No. 181 0005” 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 D), 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 D), 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 website 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 FTC website at
The Federal Trade Commission (“Commission”) has accepted an Agreement Containing Consent Order (“Consent Agreement”) designed to remedy the anticompetitive effects resulting from Northrop Grumman Corporation's (“Northrop”) proposed acquisition of Orbital ATK, Inc. (“Orbital ATK”). Under the terms of the Consent Agreement, Northrop would be
The Consent Agreement has been placed on the public record for thirty days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Given that the acquisition could impact a current ongoing missile system competition, the Commission issued the accompanying Decision and Order (“Order”) as final prior to seeking public comment, as provided in Section 2.34(c) of the Commission's Rules. This will allow the Commission to enforce the Order if there are any violations of its provisions during the public comment period. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty days, the Commission will again review the proposed Consent Agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the Consent Agreement or modify the accompanying Order.
Pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated September 17, 2017, Northrop agreed to acquire 100 percent of the issued and outstanding voting securities of Orbital ATK for approximately $7.8 billion (the “Acquisition”). The Commission's Complaint alleges that the Acquisition is in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 45, and that the acquisition, if consummated, would violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 18, and Section 5 of the FTC Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 45, by lessening the competition in the United States market for missile systems. The Acquisition would provide Northrop with the ability and incentive to withhold its SRMs from competing missile system prime contractors, or only offer its SRMs at disadvantageous terms, thereby raising rivals' costs or otherwise undermining their ability to compete on future missile system bids. The Consent Agreement will remedy the alleged violations by prohibiting Northrop from discriminating against competing missile prime customers in supplying SRMs.
Northrop is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Falls Church, Virginia. Northrop is a global aerospace and defense company that acts as a prime contractor or preferred supplier on many high-priority programs for the United States Department of Defense (“DOD”) and other United States Government agencies. Northrop is one of only a few companies capable of acting as a prime contractor for tactical, missile defense, and strategic missile systems for DOD [the United States Government]. From 1997 to 2013, Northrop was the prime contractor responsible for maintaining, sustaining, and modernizing the Minuteman III strategic missile system. Northrop is currently competing to develop the nation's next intercontinental ballistic missile system, the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent. Northrop has also successfully competed for United States Government research and development contracts for tactical missiles and missile defense interceptors.
Orbital ATK is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Dulles, Virginia. The company is a prime contractor and merchant supplier of space, defense, and aviation-related systems to customers around the world. Orbital ATK is the nation's leading producer of SRMs for both defense and commercial applications. For defense programs, Orbital ATK produces strategic-grade SRMs for the Trident II D-5 and Minuteman III and the Missile Defense Agency's Ground-based Midcourse Defense interceptor. In addition, Orbital ATK is a leading producer of SRMs for air-, sea- and land-based tactical missiles and missile defense interceptors. Orbital ATK supplies these SRMs to prime contractors for use in their missile systems.
Northrop is one of only four companies capable of supplying missile systems to the United States Government. Missile systems provide essential national defense capabilities for the United States Government. The United States Armed Forces employ multiple types of missile systems, including short-range tactical missiles, longer-range strategic missiles, and missile defense interceptors designed to defeat ballistic missile threats. Each type of missile system purchased by DOD has unique capabilities and is designed specifically to perform its given mission(s).
Orbital ATK is one of only two viable suppliers of SRMs for U.S. Government missile systems and the dominant supplier of large SRMs used for long-range strategic missiles. SRMs are used to propel tactical, missile defense, and strategic missiles to their intended targets. SRMs are used for virtually all missile systems purchased by the United States Government because they offer numerous advantages over all other existing propulsion technologies.
The relevant geographic market in which to analyze the effects of the proposed transaction is the United States. The missile systems that are the subject of the Complaint are solely purchased by the United States Government, which also typically funds their development. National security considerations and other factors limit DOD's ability to procure its missile systems from foreign suppliers. Federal law, national security, and other considerations similarly drive missile system prime contractors to procure SRMs from domestic suppliers.
Entry into the relevant markets would not be timely, likely, or sufficient in magnitude, character, and scope to deter or counteract the anticompetitive effects of the Acquisition. There are significant barriers to entry into the development, manufacture, and sale of both SRMs and missile systems in the United States. The relevant products are high technology, defense-specific products that require specialized expertise and facilities to develop, test, and manufacture. It would be extremely difficult and costly for a new entrant to establish the technological expertise and specialized facilities necessary to compete successfully in either of these markets.
Following the Acquisition, Northrop, will be one of only two viable suppliers of SRMs for U.S. Government missile systems. The choice of SRM can have a significant impact on the final determination of a missile system prime competition because the propulsion system is a critical element of the overall missile design. SRMs comprise a large portion of the cost of the integrated missile and their performance affects the range, accuracy, and payload capacity of the missile. Absent the protections of the Consent Agreement, Northrop would have the ability to disadvantage competitors for future missile prime contracts by denying or limiting their access to Northrop's SRM products and technologies, which would lessen the ability of Northrop's missile system competitors to compete successfully for a given missile system prime contract. The Acquisition would also give Northrop access, through the former Orbital ATK SRM business, to the proprietary information that rival missile prime contractors must share with its SRM vendor. Similarly, the Acquisition creates a risk that the
The Consent Agreement remedies the acquisition's likely anticompetitive effects by requiring, whenever Northrop competes for a missile system prime contract, that Northrop must make its SRM products and related services available on a non-discriminatory basis to all other third-party competing prime contractors that wish to purchase them. The non-discrimination prohibitions of the Consent Agreement are comprehensive and apply to any potential discriminatory conduct affecting price, schedule, quality, data, personnel, investment, technology, innovation, design, or risk.
The Consent Agreement requires Northrop to establish firewalls to ensure that Northrop does not transfer or use any proprietary information that it receives from competing missile prime contractors or SRM suppliers in a manner that harms competition. These firewall provisions require that Northrop maintain separate firewalled teams to support offers of SRMs to different third-party missile prime contractors and to maintain these firewalled teams separate from the team supporting Northrop's missile prime contractor activities. The firewall provisions also prohibit Northrop's missile business from sharing proprietary information it may receive from third-party SRM suppliers with Northrop's SRM business.
The Consent Agreement also provides that the DOD's Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment shall appoint a compliance officer to oversee Northrop's compliance with the Order. The compliance officer will have all the necessary investigative powers to perform his or her duties, including the right to interview respondent's personnel, inspect respondent's facilities, and require respondents to provide documents, data, and other information. The compliance officer has the authority to retain third-party advisors, at the expense of Northrop, as appropriate to perform his or her duties. Access to these extensive resources will ensure that the compliance officer is fully capable of overseeing the implementation of, and compliance with, the Order.
The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed Consent Agreement, and it is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the proposed Consent Agreement or to modify its terms in any way.
By direction of the Commission.
Government Accountability Office (GAO).
Request for letters of nomination and resumes.
The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 established the Physician-Focused Payment Model Technical Advisory Committee to provide comments and recommendations to the Secretary of Health and Human Services on physician payment models, and gave the Comptroller General responsibility for appointing its members. GAO is now accepting nominations of individuals for this committee.
Letters of nomination and resumes should be submitted no later than July 20, 2018, to ensure adequate opportunity for review and consideration of nominees prior to appointment. Appointments will be made in October 2018.
Submit letters of nomination and resumes by either of the following methods: Email:
Greg Giusto at (202) 512-8268 or
Pub. L. 114-10, Sec. 101(e), 129 Stat. 87, 115 (2015).
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces the intention of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve the proposed information collection project
This proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments on this notice must be received by July 16, 2018.
Written comments should be submitted to: AHRQ's OMB Desk Officer by fax at (202) 395-6974 (attention: AHRQ's desk officer) or by email at
Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer, (301) 427-1477, or by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, AHRQ invites the public to comment on this proposed information collection. Ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) are a fast-growing health care setting, demonstrating tremendous growth both in the volume and complexity of procedures being performed. ASCs provide surgical services to patients who are not expected to need an inpatient stay following surgery. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) defines ASCs as distinct entities that operate exclusively to provide surgical services to patients who do not require hospitalization and are not expected to need to stay in a surgical facility longer than 24 hours.
Shortly after Congress enacted this legislation, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) published “To Err is Human,” a seminal report on medical errors that connects the dots between errors and workplace culture. In it, the IOM called for health care organizations to develop a “culture of safety” such that staffing and system processes are aligned to improve the reliability and safety of patient care. This appeal for safety culture improvements directly relates to AHRQ's legislative directive and mission (
The relationship between patient safety culture and the quality of ASC care has attracted more recent attention from policymakers and regulators. On the national level, the Joint Commission in early 2017 established within its ASC accreditation manual a new chapter on patient safety systems improvement, which includes strategies for “motivating staff to uphold a fair and just safety culture.” CMS, meanwhile, published in November 2017 its Final Rule outlining the ASC Quality Reporting (ASCQR) Program, which ties quality and patient safety performance to reimbursement.
AHRQ made the survey publicly available along with a Survey User's Guide, the pilot study results, and related toolkit materials on the
The AHRQ ASC SOPS Database will consist of data from the AHRQ ASC patient safety culture survey. ASCs in the U.S. will be asked to voluntarily submit data from the survey to AHRQ. The ASC SOPS Database will be modeled after four other SOPS databases developed by AHRQ: Hospital SOPS [OMB NO. 0935-0162; last approved 10/18/2016]; Medical Office SOPS [OMB NO. 0935-0196; last approved 08/25/15]; Nursing Home SOPS [OMB NO. 0935-0195; last approved 09/30/15]; and Community Pharmacy SOPS [OMB NO. 0935-0218; last approved 06/26/17].
The goal of this project is to create the ASC SOPS Database. This database will:
(1) Present results from ASCs that voluntarily submit their data;
(2) Present trend data for ASCs that have submitted their data more than once;
(3) Provide data to ASCs to facilitate internal assessment and learning in the patient safety improvement process; and
(4) Provide supplemental information to help ASCs identify their strengths and areas with potential for improvement in patient safety culture.
This study is being conducted by AHRQ through its contractor, Westat, pursuant to AHRQ's statutory authority to conduct and support research on health care and on systems for the delivery of such care, including activities with respect to the quality, effectiveness, efficiency, appropriateness and value of health care services and with respect to health statistics, surveys, and database development.. 42 U.S.C 299a(a)(1) and (8).
To achieve the goal of this project the following activities and data collections will be implemented:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
With the approval and addition of the ASC SOPS Database, data from the database will be used to produce three types of products:
(1) An ASC SOPS Database Report that will be made publicly available on the AHRQ website (see, for example, another project in the SOPS suite, the Hospital User Database Report);
(2) Individual ASC Survey Feedback Reports that are customized for each ASC that submits data to the database; and
(3) Research data sets of individual-level and ASC-level data to enable researchers to conduct analyses. All data released in a data set are de-identified at the individual level and the ASC level.
ASCs will be invited to voluntarily submit their ASC SOPS survey data into the database. AHRQ's contractor, Westat, will then clean and aggregate the data to produce a PDF-formatted Database Report displaying averages, standard deviations, and percentile scores on the survey's 33 items and 8 patient safety culture dimensions. In addition, the report will also display results by respondent characteristics (
The Database Report will include a section on data limitations, emphasizing that the report does not reflect a representative sampling of the U.S. ASC population. Because participating ASCs will choose to voluntarily submit their data into the database and therefore are not a random or national sample of ASCs, estimates based on this self-selected group might be biased estimates. These limitations will be noted in the database report. We will recommend that users review the database results with these caveats in mind.
Each ASC that submits its data will receive a customized survey feedback report that presents their results alongside the aggregated results from other participating ASCs. If an ASC submits data more than once, its survey feedback report will also present trend data.
ASC users of the ASCs SOPS Survey, Database Reports, and Individual ASC Survey Feedback Reports can use these documents to:
• Raise staff awareness about patient safety;
• Diagnose and assess the current status of patient safety culture in their own ASC;
• Identify strengths and areas for patient safety culture improvement;
• Examine trends in patient safety culture change over time; and
• Evaluate the cultural impact of patient safety initiatives and intervention.
Exhibit 1 shows the estimated annualized burden hours for the respondents' time to participate in the database. Given that this will be the first call for voluntary data submission, participation is initially expected to be modest. An estimated 100 ASC managers (
• Eligibility and registration form (completion is estimated to take about 5 minutes).
• Data use agreement (completion is estimated to take about 3 minutes).
• ASC Site Information Form (completion is estimated to take about 5 minutes).
• Survey data submission will take an average of one hour.
The total burden is estimated to be 121 hours.
Exhibit 2 shows the estimated annualized cost burden based on the respondents' time to submit their data. The cost burden is estimated to be $5,472.83
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on AHRQ's information collection are requested with regard to any of the following: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of AHRQ's health care research and health care information dissemination functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of AHRQ's estimate of burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection(s) of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information upon the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the Agency's subsequent request for OMB approval of the proposed information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
Notice of intent; announcement of public meeting; and request for comments.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), in cooperation with the General Services Administration (GSA), announces its intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to analyze and assess the environmental impacts of the proposed acquisition of a site in Mace, West Virginia, and the development of this site into a replacement of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Underground Safety Research Program facility (Proposed Action). The current acquisition and development would replace the former Lake Lynn Experimental Mine in Fayette County, Pennsylvania and would support research programs focused on miner health and safety issues. The site being considered for acquisition and development includes 461.35 acres located off of U.S. Route 219 in Randolph and Pocahontas Counties near Mace, West Virginia.
This notice is pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508). CDC, in cooperation with GSA, also intends to initiate consultation, as required by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), to evaluate the potential effects, if any, of the Proposed Action on historic properties. Following the scoping meeting, a Draft EIS will be prepared and circulated for public comment. CDC is the lead federal agency for this Proposed Action.
The public scoping meeting will be held at the Linwood Community Library, 72 Snowshoe Drive, Slatyfork, West Virginia 26291.
You may submit comments identified by Docket No. CDC-2018-0057 by either of the following methods:
•
•
Sam Tarr, Office of Safety, Security, and Asset Management (OSSAM), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS-K80, Atlanta, Georgia 30329-4027, phone: (770) 488-8170, or email:
In 1997, NIOSH assumed the lease for a facility referred to as the Lake Lynn Experimental Mine (LLEM) when the mine safety and health function was transferred from the Bureau of Mines (BOM) to NIOSH. The LLEM facility had been leased by BOM since 1982. The LLEM was located 60 miles south of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The LLEM and above ground fire testing facility was primarily used for studies and research on mine explosions, mine seals, mine rescue, ventilation, diesel exhaust, new health and safety technologies, ground control, and fire suppression. After December 2012, the property was no longer available for long-term leasing. CDC attempted to purchase the LLEM underlying property, but LLEM was vacated by the Government after market-based purchase offers were rejected by the property owners.
In 2013, CDC completed a Project Development Study to outline a design solution for the replacement of the LLEM. The study presented the facility and site requirements and design concepts for the replacement facilities. In 2016, to identify potentially available locations that could accommodate the space requirements defined in the 2013 study, GSA issued (on behalf of CDC) two separate Request for Expressions of Interest (REOI) for a site, developed or undeveloped, that could be used for the new underground safety research facility. The first REOI, advertised in June 2016, contained a limited delineated area within a 200-mile radius of the LLEM. The REOI set forth criteria that would be used to evaluate the suitability of the submitted sites. One expression of interest that had the potential to meet the minimum criteria was received. After further evaluation, however, the site was found to be non-viable.
The second REOI was issued in October 2016 and expanded the delineated area to the contiguous United States. Three expressions of interest were received. One did not meet the minimum criteria, and a second expression of interest did not contain all necessary information to evaluate the offer. The offeror of the second site did not respond to subsequent GSA inquiries.
The third potential site met the minimum criteria and was determined to be a viable site. The site is located near Mace, West Virginia, and straddles the Randolph and Pocahontas County lines.
In accordance with NEPA, as implemented by the CEQ regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), CDC is initiating the preparation of an EIS for the proposed acquisition of the site and construction of a new underground safety research facility on the Site. Under NEPA, Federal agencies are required to evaluate the environmental effects of their proposed actions and a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed action before making a decision. At a minimum, the EIS will evaluate the following two alternatives: The Proposed Action Alternative (acquisition of the Site and construction of a new underground safety research facility) and the No Action Alternative.
The purpose of this Notice is to inform interested parties regarding CDC's plan to prepare an EIS for the proposed Site acquisition in Mace, West Virginia, and the development of the Site into an underground safety research facility; to provide information on the nature of the Proposed Action; and to initiate the scoping process. The public scoping meeting will be held on June 26, 2018, at the Linwood Community Library, 72 Snowshoe Drive, Slatyfork, West Virginia 26291, from 5:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. Eastern Time. The public scoping meeting will be in open house format. General information on the Site and the Proposed Action will be provided, and representatives of CDC and GSA will be available to answer one-on-one questions. There will be no formal presentation or question-and-answer session. Participants may arrive at any time between 5:30 p.m. and 8:30 p.m. Eastern Time. Comment forms will be provided for written comments, and a stenographer will be available to transcribe oral comments. Through the NEPA scoping process, CDC will also facilitate consultation with the public as required by Section 106 of the NHPA.
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 “Human Immunodeficiency Virus-1 Infection: Developing Systemic Drug Products for
Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by August 13, 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.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Kimberly Struble, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 6374, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-794-1500.
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Human Immunodeficiency Virus-1 Infection: Developing Systemic Drug Products for Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis.” This draft guidance provides nonclinical and clinical recommendations specific to the development of systemic drug products, with a focus on long-acting systemic drug products, regulated within CDER at FDA for the prevention of sexually acquired HIV-1 infection.
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 developing systemic drug products for pre-exposure prophylaxis of HIV-1 infection. 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 draft guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.
This draft 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 draft guidance at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is withdrawing approval of two abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Ferring). Ferring notified the Agency in writing that the drug products were no longer marketed and requested that the approval of the applications be withdrawn.
Approval is withdrawn as of July 16, 2018.
Trang Tran, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 75, Rm. 1671, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7945,
Ferring has informed FDA that the drug products listed in the table are no longer marketed and has requested that FDA withdraw approval of the applications under the process described in § 314.150(c) (21 CFR 314.150(c)). Ferring has also, by its request, waived its opportunity for a hearing. Withdrawal of approval of an application or abbreviated application under § 314.150(c) is without prejudice to refiling.
Therefore, approval of the applications listed in the table, and all amendments and supplements thereto, is hereby withdrawn as of July 16, 2018. Introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of products without approved new drug applications violates section 301(a) and (d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 331(a) and (d)). Drug products that are listed in the table that are in inventory on July 16, 2018 may continue to be dispensed until the inventories have been depleted or the drug products have reached their expiration dates or otherwise become violative, whichever occurs first.
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, HRSA has submitted an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. Comments submitted during the first public review of this ICR will be provided to OMB. OMB will accept further comments from the public during the review and approval period.
Comments on this ICR should be received no later than July 16, 2018.
Submit your comments, including the ICR Title, to the desk officer for HRSA, either by email to
To request a copy of the clearance requests submitted to OMB for review, email Lisa Wright-Solomon, the HRSA Information Collection Clearance Officer at
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the information request collection title for reference, in compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
• Collaborate with experts to define necessary data elements to understand the impact of ZIKV testing in deceased organ donors;
• Deploy a data collection tool to a limited number of OPOs that agree to participate in the pilot project; and
• Assess the ability of OPTN to respond to a public health situation by collecting data from impacted members of the transplant community to assess the national experience.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Cancer Institute Council of Research Advocates.
The meeting will be open to the public, 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 website (
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to scheduling difficulties.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page: NCRA:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the ZAT1 AJT (08) meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 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.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands (FEMA-4335-DR), dated September 7, 2017, and related determinations.
This amendment was issued May 18, 2018.
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, in a letter dated May 18, 2018, the President amended the cost-sharing arrangements regarding Federal funds provided under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the damage in the territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands resulting from Hurricane Irma during the period of September 5-7, 2017, is of sufficient severity and magnitude that special cost-sharing arrangements are warranted regarding Federal funds provided under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
Therefore, I amend my declarations of September 7, 2017, September 9, 2017, September 26, 2017, and March 15, 2018, to authorize the following: 90 percent Federal funding for Other Needs Assistance under section 408 of the Stafford Act and all categories of Public Assistance, except for assistance previously approved at 100 percent; a 120-day extension of the 100 percent Federal cost share for debris removal and emergency protective measures, with the extension of emergency protective measures being limited to Sheltering and Temporary Essential Power (STEP); and a waiver of the non-Federal cost share for hazard mitigation measures authorized by section 404 of the Stafford Act, provided hazard mitigation grant funding is prioritized toward protecting Federal investments in the territory.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice lists communities where the addition or modification of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations), as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for each community, is appropriate because of new scientific or technical data. The FIRM, and where applicable, portions of the FIS report, have been revised to reflect these flood hazard determinations through issuance of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), in accordance with Federal Regulations. The LOMR will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings. For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown in the table below and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
These flood hazard determinations will be finalized on the dates listed in the table below and revise the FIRM panels and FIS report in effect prior to this determination for the listed communities.
From the date of the second publication of notification of these changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has 90 days in which to request through the community that the Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation reconsider the changes. The flood hazard determination information may be changed during the 90-day period.
The affected communities are listed in the table below. Revised flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
The specific flood hazard determinations are not described for each community in this notice. However, the online location and local community map repository address where the flood hazard determination information is available for inspection is provided.
Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. The flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood hazard determination information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands (FEMA-4340-DR), dated September 20, 2017, and related determinations.
This amendment was issued May 18, 2018.
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, in a letter dated May 18, 2018, the President amended the cost-sharing arrangements regarding Federal funds provided under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the damage in the territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands resulting from Hurricane Maria during the period of September 16-22, 2017, is of sufficient severity and magnitude that special cost-sharing arrangements are warranted regarding Federal funds provided under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
Therefore, I amend my declarations of September 20, 2017, October 3, 2017, and March 15, 2018, to authorize the following: 90 percent Federal funding for Other Needs Assistance under section 408 of the Stafford Act and all categories of Public Assistance, except for assistance previously approved at 100 percent; a 120-day extension of the 100 percent Federal cost share for debris removal and emergency protective measures, with the extension of emergency protective measures being limited to Sheltering and Temporary
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have been made final for the communities listed in the table below.
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that a community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report are used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for buildings and the contents of those buildings.
The date of September 14, 2018 has been established for the FIRM and, where applicable, the supporting FIS report showing the new or modified flood hazard information for each community.
The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the final flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or modified flood hazard information for each community listed. Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds and/or communities listed in the table below.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Maine (FEMA-4367-DR), dated May 30, 2018, and related determinations.
The declaration was issued May 30, 2018.
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, in a letter dated May 30, 2018, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of Maine resulting from a severe storm and flooding during the period of March 2-8, 2018, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford Act.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, James N. Russo, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the State of Maine have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
York County for Public Assistance.
All areas within the State of Maine are eligible for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have been made final for the communities listed in the table below.
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that a community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report are used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for buildings and the contents of those buildings.
The date of October 5, 2018 has been established for the FIRM and, where applicable, the supporting FIS report showing the new or modified flood hazard information for each community.
The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the final flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or modified flood hazard information for each community listed. Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds and/or communities listed in the table below.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments.
The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until July 16, 2018. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, must be directed to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer via email at
You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make. For additional information please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529-2140, Telephone number (202) 272-8377 (This is not a toll-free number; comments are not accepted via telephone message.). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS website at
The information collection notice was previously published in the
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments.
The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until July 16, 2018.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, must be directed to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer via email at
You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make. For additional information please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529-2140, Telephone number (202) 272-8377 (This is not a toll-free number; comments are not accepted via telephone message.). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS website at
The information collection notice was previously published in the
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
USCIS ICAM currently grants access to myUSCIS and the USCIS information collections available for e-filing.
(5)
(6)
(7)
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) are proposing to renew an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before August 13, 2018.
Send your comments on this information collection request (ICR) by mail to the Chief, Division of Tribal Government Services, Office of Indian Services, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW, Mail Stop 3645-MIB, Washington, DC 20240; or by email to Laurel Iron Cloud at
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Laurel Iron Cloud by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
We are soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the BIA; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the BIA enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the BIA minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
BIA requires the tribe to submit a formal request for Secretarial election, including: A tribal resolution; the document or language to be voted on in the election; a list of all tribal members who are age 18 or older in the next 120 days (when the election will occur), including their last known addresses, voting districts (if any), and dates of birth, in an electronically sortable format.
While much of the information the tribe prepares for a Secretarial election (
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of request for nominations.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 (IDEA), the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) requests nominations of individuals to serve on the Advisory Board for Exceptional Children (Advisory Board). There will be eight positions available. Advisory Board members shall serve a staggered term of two years or three years from the date of their appointment. The BIE will consider nominations received in response to this request for nominations, as well as other sources.
The
Please submit nominations by July 16, 2018.
Please submit nominations to Ms. Jennifer Davis, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), Bureau of Indian Education, Division of Performance and Accountability, 2600 N Central Ave., Suite 800, Phoenix, AZ 85004, Telephone (602) 265-1592 or (480) 777-7986; Fax to (602) 265-0293.
Ms. Jennifer Davis, DFO, at the above listed address and telephone number.
The Advisory Board was established in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463. The following provides information about the Committee, the membership and the nomination process.
(a) Members of the Advisory Board will provide guidance, advice and recommendations with respect to special education and related services for children with disabilities in BIE-funded schools in accordance with the requirements of IDEA;
(b) The Advisory Board will: (1) Provide advice and recommendations for the coordination of services within the BIE and with other local, State and Federal agencies; (2) Provide advice and recommendations on a broad range of policy issues dealing with the provision of educational services to American Indian children with disabilities; (3) Serve as advocates for American Indian students with special education needs by providing advice and recommendations regarding best practices, effective program coordination strategies, and recommendations for improved educational programming; (4) Provide advice and recommendations for the preparation of information required to be submitted to the Secretary of Education under 20 U.S.C. 1411 (h)(2); (5) Provide advice and recommend policies concerning effective inter/intra agency collaboration, including modifications to regulations, and the elimination of barriers to inter- and intra-agency programs and activities; and (6) Will report and direct all correspondence to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs through the Director, BIE with a courtesy copy to the Designated Federal Officer (DFO).
(a) Pursuant to 20 U.S.C. 1411(h)(6), the Advisory Board will be composed of up to 15 individuals involved in or concerned with the education and provision of services to Indian infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities. The Advisory Board composition will reflect a broad range of viewpoints and will include at least one member representing each of the following interests: Indians with disabilities; teachers of children with disabilities; Indian parents or guardians of children with disabilities; service providers, state education officials; local education officials; state interagency coordinating councils (for states having Indian reservations); tribal representatives or tribal organization representatives; and other members representing the various divisions and entities of the BIE. (b) The Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs may provide the Secretary of the Interior recommendations for the chairperson; however, the chairperson and other Advisory Board members will be appointed by the Secretary of the Interior. Advisory Board members shall serve staggered terms of two years or three years from the date of their appointment.
(a) Members of the Advisory Board will not receive compensation, but will be reimbursed for travel, including subsistence, and other necessary expenses incurred in the performance of their duties in the same manner as persons employed intermittently in Government Service under 5 U.S.C. 5703. (b) A member may not participate in matters that will directly affect, or appear to affect, the financial interests of the member or the member's spouse or minor children, unless authorized by the appropriate ethics official. Compensation from employment does not constitute a financial interest of the member so long as the matter before the committee will not have a special or distinct effect on the member or the member's employer, other than as part of a class. The provisions of this paragraph do not affect any other statutory or regulatory ethical obligations to which a member may be subject. (c) The Advisory Board meets at least twice a year, budget permitting, but additional meetings may be held as deemed necessary by the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs or the DFO. (d) All Advisory Board meetings are open to the public in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act regulations.
(a) Nominations are requested from individuals, organizations, and federally recognized tribes, as well as from State Directors of Special Education (within the 23 states in which BIE-funded schools are located) concerned with the education of Indian children with disabilities as described above. (b) Nominees should have expertise and knowledge of the issues and/or needs of American Indian children with disabilities. Such knowledge and expertise are needed to provide advice and recommendations to the BIE regarding the needs of American Indian children with disabilities. (c) A summary of the candidates' qualifications (resume or curriculum vitae) must be included with the nomination application, which can be found on the Bureau of Indian Education website. Nominees must have the ability to attend Advisory Board meetings, carry out Advisory Board assignments, participate in teleconference calls, and work in groups. (d) The Department of the Interior is committed to equal opportunities in the workplace and seeks diverse Committee membership, which is bound by Indian Preference Act of 1990 (25 U.S.C. 472).
If you wish to nominate someone for appointment to the Advisory Board, please do not make the nomination until the person has agreed to have his or her name submitted to the BIE for this purpose.
Please fill out the application form completely and include a copy of the nominee's resume or curriculum vitae. The membership nomination form can be found on the BIE website at
This collection of information is authorized by OMB Control Number
Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.
Notice of availability.
Reclamation has made available to the public seven Rural Water Supply Program approved appraisal reports.
The approved appraisal reports may be downloaded from Reclamation's website at
Mr. Max Millstein by telephone at (303) 445-2853, or by email at
The Reclamation Rural Water Supply Act of December 22, 2006 (Pub. L. 109-451, Title I, 120 Stat. 3346, 43 U.S.C. 2401,
Applicants submitted initial appraisal investigations for review of technical adequacy and completeness. Once reviewed, Reclamation prepared appraisal reports to document the findings and conclusions of the appraisal investigations that identified the water supply problems, needs, and opportunities in the planning study areas. Based on meeting the appraisal and eligibility criteria, as specified in Public Law 109-451, Reclamation determined the following seven appraisal investigations were complete; copies of the appraisal reports are available at
• Lower Clearwater Exchange Project Appraisal Report, Bureau of Reclamation, Snake River Area Office, 230 West Collins Road, Boise, ID 83702; (208) 383-2246.
• Jemez Water Supply Appraisal Report, Bureau of Reclamation, Albuquerque Area Office, 555 Broadway NE, Suite 100, Albuquerque, NM 87102-2352; (505) 462-3540.
• Nye County Water District Water Supply Appraisal Report, Bureau of Reclamation, Phoenix Area Office, 6150 West Thunderbird Road, Glendale, AZ 85306-4001; (623) 773-6200.
• Platte Alliance Water System Rural Water Supply Project Appraisal Report, Bureau of Reclamation, Wyoming Area Office, 705 Pendell Boulevard, Mills, WY 82644; (307) 261-5671.
• San Juan—Mexican Hat to Kayenta Rural Water Supply Program Appraisal Report, Bureau of Reclamation, Provo Area Office, 302 East 1860 South, Provo, UT 84606-7317; (801) 379-1101.
• Southwestern Navajo Rural Water Supply Program Appraisal Report, Bureau of Reclamation, Phoenix Area Office, 6150 West Thunderbird Road, Glendale, AZ 85306-4001; (623) 773-6200.
• Sulphur Pipeline Regional Rural Water Supply Project Appraisal Report, Bureau of Reclamation, Great Plains Regional Office, 2021 4th Avenue North, Billings, MT 59101; (406) 247-7600.
Reclamation Rural Water Supply Act of December 22, 2006 (Pub. L. 109-451, Title I, 120 Stat. 3346, 43 U.S.C. 2401,
United States International Trade Commission.
June 20, 2018 at 11:00 a.m.
Room 101, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.
Open to the public.
1. Agendas for future meetings: None.
2. Minutes.
3. Ratification List.
4. Vote on Inv. Nos. 731-TA-1374-1376 (Final) (Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from Belgium, Colombia, and Thailand). The Commission is currently scheduled to complete and file its determinations and views of the Commission by July 6, 2018.
5. Vote on Inv. No. 731-TA-921 (Third Review) (Folding Gift Boxes from China). The Commission is currently scheduled to complete and file its determination and views of the Commission by July 2, 2018.
6. Outstanding action jackets: None.
In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at
The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of Electrolux Home Products, Inc. and KX Technologies, LLC on June 8, 2018. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain water filters and components thereof. The complaint names as respondents: Shenzen Calux Purification Technology Co., Limited of China; Guangzhou Zhixun Xingyi Information Technology Co., Ltd. of China; Ningbo Pureza Limited of China; JiangSu Angkua Environmental Technical Co., Ltd. of China; Ecopure Filter Co., Ltd. of China; Shenzhen Dakon Purification Tech Co., Ltd. of China; HongKong Ecoaqua Co., Limited of China; Ecolife Technologies, Inc. of City of Industry, CA; Ecolife Technologies, LLC of Brighton, CO; and Crystala Filters LLC of Totowa, NJ. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a general exclusion order, or in the alternative, a limited exclusion order, and cease and desist orders.
Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five (5) pages in length, inclusive of attachments, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.
Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to § 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3322) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
By order of the Commission.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
30-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 collection OMB 1140-0067 (Report of Multiple Sale or Other Disposition of Pistols and Revolvers—ATF F 3310.4) is being revised due to a change in burden, since there is an increase in the number of respondents, responses, and total burden hours. The proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until July 16, 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 other additional information, please contact Ed Stely, Branch Chief, Tracing Operations and Records Management Branch, National Tracing Center Division either by mail at 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)
On May 16, 2018, the Department of Justice (DOJ) lodged a proposed consent decree with the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia in the lawsuit entitled
The proposed consent decree would require defendant Hercules LLC to implement the interim remedy selected by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the outfall, known as Operable Unit 1, of the Terry Creek Dredge Spoil Areas/Hercules Outfall Site (“Site”) in Brunswick, in Glynn County, Georgia. The consent decree would also require the defendant to reimburse EPA $153,009.48 in past response costs at the Site, and to pay future response costs incurred by the United States in connection with this consent decree. Notice of the lodging of the decree was originally published in the
Comments concerning the consent decree should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the consent decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department website:
Please enclose a check or money order for $146.25 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury. For a paper copy without the exhibits and signature pages, the cost is $17.25.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Request for public comments.
OSHA solicits public comments concerning the proposal to extend OMB approval of the information collection requirements specified in the Asbestos in Construction Standard.
Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by August 13, 2018.
Thomas Mockler or Christie Garner, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, telephone (202) 693-2222.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (
OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
• Whether the proposed information collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions, including whether the information is useful;
• The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the information collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply—for example, by using automated or other technological information collection and transmission techniques.
The Asbestos in Construction Standard (29 CFR 1926.1101) protects workers from adverse health effects arising from workplace exposure to asbestos, including lung cancer, mesothelioma, asbestosis (an emphysema-like condition) and gastrointestinal cancer. The standard requires employers to monitor worker exposure, provide medical surveillance, and maintain accurate records of worker exposure to asbestos. These records will be used by employers, workers, and the
The Agency is requesting a burden hour adjustment decrease of 115,504 (from 3,881,183 hours to 3,765,679). Using updated data, and the fact that much of the remediation of asbestos products has likely taken place, the Agency estimates a decrease in employment from 1,338,403 to 1,301,735 workers. Also, the number of employers has decreased from 1,046,897 to 1,018,215.
You may submit comments in response to this document as follows: (1) Electronically at
Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand, express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-2350; TTY (877) 889-5627. Comments and submissions are posted without change at
Loren Sweatt, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506
National Archives and Records Administration.
Notice of Advisory Committee meeting.
The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) announces a meeting of the Advisory Committee on the Records of Congress. The committee advises NARA on the full range of programs, policies, and plans for the Center for Legislative Archives within NARA's Office of Legislative Archives, Presidential Libraries, and Museum Services (LPM).
The meeting will be held on June 18, 2018 from 10:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.
The Capitol Visitor Center, Congressional Meeting Room South.
Center for Legislative Archives (202) 357-5350 Sharon Shaver,
The meeting is open to the public. NARA announces advisory committee meetings in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app 2). Due to unavoidable schedule conflicts and room limitations, this announcement is publishing with fewer than 15 days' notice of the meeting.
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on June 8, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on June 8, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Wednesday, June 20, 2018, at 9:00 a.m.
Washington, DC.
Closed.
Wednesday, June 20, 2018, at 9:00 a.m.
1. Financial Matters.
2. Strategic Items.
3. Executive Session—Discussion of prior agenda items and Temporary Emergency Committee governance.
The General Counsel of the United States Postal Service has certified that the meeting may be closed under the Government in the Sunshine Act.
Michael J. Elston, Acting Secretary of the Board, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Washington, DC 20260-1000. Telephone: (202) 268-4800.
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on June 8, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on June 8, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth Reed, 202-268-3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on June 8, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The proposed rule change consists of modifications to the Rules and Procedures of NSCC (“Rules”) in order to enhance the procedures that describe the process by which Members may submit debt securities, specifically transactions in corporate bonds, municipal bonds, and unit investment trusts (referred to as “CMU securities”), for comparison and recording by (1) making certain clarifications and corrections to these procedures, and (2) adding a comparison tolerance of 20 business days for the trade dates of transactions submitted for comparison, as described below.
In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency 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 clearing agency has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
NSCC is proposing to make certain revisions to Procedure II, Section C and Section D of the Rules, which describes the service provided by NSCC that allows Members to submit transactions in CMU securities for comparison and recording. These sections of Procedure II describe the rules that govern comparison of submitted trade data, including the information that must be included in these submissions and the timing of the submission, how the resulting compared trades are reported by NSCC, and how eligible compared trades may be processed for clearance and settlement through NSCC's facilities, among other related matters.
NSCC is proposing to make a number of revisions to these sections of Procedure II in order to (1) clarify and enhance the disclosures, correct typographical and drafting errors, and update descriptions that no longer reflect current processing in order to improve the transparency of these provisions; and (2) include in the Rules a matching tolerance of 20 business days for the trade dates of submitted transactions in order to improve the accuracy of trade matching. Each of these proposed changes is described below.
NSCC is proposing to make a number of technical, non-substantive revisions to Sections C and D of Procedure II in order to improve the descriptions of these procedures and enhance the transparency of the rules that apply to the comparison and recording of CMU securities at NSCC. These proposed changes are described below.
NSCC is proposing to revise the verb tense in order to use a present verb tense rather than a future verb tense, and to correct typographical errors. The proposed changes to revise the verb tense used in these procedures would align Sections C and D of Procedure II with other provisions within the Rules and, by using a present tense, would utilize more appropriate language for the description of procedures.
NSCC is also proposing to correct typographical errors in order to improve the descriptions of these procedures and avoid confusion in a Member's understanding of these procedures. For example, NSCC is proposing to correct a typographical error by revising the term “insure” to the term “ensure” in Procedure II, Section C, 1(a). NSCC is also proposing to correct the reference in the renumbered Procedure II, Section C, 1(k)(i) from “price” to “amount” to more accurately describe the information that is reported on the Consolidated Trade Summary (“CTS”).
NSCC is also proposing to change the term “deleted” to “reversed” in Procedure II, Section C, 2(e). While Members may submit an instruction to delete an uncompared trade if the firm does not agree with the terms of the trade, as described in Procedure II, Section C, 2(b), this sentence in Section C, 2(e) describes a different process by which a Member may submit an instruction to reverse a previously compared trade. As such, the proposed rule change would correct a typographical error and avoid any confusion about these two actions that may be caused by the misuse of this term. In connection with this proposed change, NSCC would also add “reversed” to the following Section C, 2(f), as the provisions of that section apply to both deleted and reversed transactions. This proposed change would clarify the applicability of this section to transactions that are reversed by a Member.
By correcting typographical errors in these procedures, the proposed rule changes would make the Rules accurate and clearer to Members regarding their rights and obligations in connection with the use of this service.
NSCC is proposing rule changes that would enhance the descriptions of these procedures by disclosing additional information, and is also proposing rule changes that would simplify these descriptions by removing unnecessary information, as described below.
NSCC is proposing to add MPID (the market participant identifier that is issued by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. and used to report trades) to the list of identifying trade data details required to be submitted for comparison processing in Procedure II, Section C, 1(b). This section includes a non-exhaustive list of trade data that NSCC may require to be submitted in connection with the use of this service, and provides that NSCC may require or permit Members to submit other identifying trade details. NSCC currently requires MPIDs among the trade data details that must be submitted for comparison purposes, and
NSCC is proposing to revise the reference to “OTC” transactions to “corporate bond security transactions” and the reference to “unit trust fund transactions” to “unit investment trust transactions” in Procedure II, Section C, 1(f). “OTC” or “over-the-counter” securities are securities that are not traded on an exchange, and include debt securities such as corporate bonds. Therefore, while “OTC” is not incorrect in this context, NSCC believes the use of this term may imply that other transactions are being referred to in this subsection of the Rules. Therefore, NSCC is proposing to revise the term to more specifically refer to “corporate bond security transactions.” Additionally, the term “unit trust fund transactions” is not a term that is commonly used to refer to unit investment trust transactions. While these securities may be considered funds, the correct term for describing these transactions is “unit investment trust transactions.” Therefore, while these proposed revisions would not change what is intended by these terms, they would enhance the transparency of this section by using terminology that would be more clearly recognizable to Members.
NSCC is proposing to clarify the language in Procedure II, Section C, 1(h) to make clear that trades submitted for comparison may be identified as “CNS-eligible,” which would flag these trades to be processed through the CNS Accounting System; “non-CNS-eligible,” which would flag these trades to be processed through the Balance Order Accounting System; or “Special Trade,” which could flag these trades either for trade-for-trade processing, which normally settle outside of NSCC's facilitates, or for comparison-only processing. The proposed rule changes would add transparency to the Rules regarding how these designations impact the processing of trades submitted to NSCC.
NSCC is proposing to add a sentence to Procedure II, Section C, 1(i)(ii) to make clear that trades submitted for comparison-only processing are subject to the rules of the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (“MSRB”). NSCC believes that this clarification is appropriate because these submissions are not required to meet the eligibility requirements for clearance or settlement through NSCC's facilities, but must comply with the rules of the MSRB. Therefore, NSCC believes this proposed change would enhance the transparency of the Rules and would assist Members to understand the requirements that apply to these trades.
NSCC is proposing to add a reference to the “Balance Order Accounting System” to the renumbered subsection (k)(ii) of Procedure II, Section C, 1, which describes how eligible, compared trades may be further processed within NSCC's facilities. Currently, this subsection is incomplete and does not include reference to the Balance Order Accounting System, where eligible compared trades that are not eligible to be processed in the CNS Accounting System may be processed for clearance and settlement. Therefore, the proposed change would enhance this subsection by including this additional reference.
NSCC is proposing to add a sentence to the renumbered subsection (m) of Procedure II, Section C, 1 that would describe the process by which NSCC would convert a bilateral trade that matches a Qualified Special Representative (“QSR”) trade submission in all respects (other than its designation as a bilateral trade) into a QSR trade. NSCC is also proposing to add a new subsection (vi) to renumbered Procedure II, Section D, 2(g) that would describe the process by which NSCC would convert a bilateral trade that matches a syndicate takedown trade or reversal in all respects (other than its designation as a bilateral trade) into a syndicate takedown trade or reversal, as appropriate. These two automatic conversions are a part of NSCC's existing processes, but, because these conversions occur automatically and do not require any action by Members, these processes are not described in these sections of the Rules. NSCC believes these proposed changes to describe these automatic conversions would improve the transparency of the Rules and provide Members with notice that these conversions would occur in the described circumstances.
NSCC is proposing to revise the renumbered subsection (p) of Procedure II, Section C, 1 to clarify that NSCC processes cash transactions where the trade date for the submitted transaction is the same as the settlement date for comparison-only processing. Currently, this section of the Rules refers to these transactions as “cash transactions,” and the proposed change would improve the transparency of this section by including a further description of these transactions. This proposed change would provide Members with additional information regarding the types of transactions that are referred to in this section and, therefore, would improve the transparency of the Rules.
NSCC is proposing to revise Procedure II, Section C, 2(g) to make it clearer that NSCC permits certain trade details for uncompared trades to be modified by the submitter, provided, however, that trade details for syndicate takedown submissions are only permitted to be modified on the submission date. The proposed rule changes would also clarify that NSCC may limit the trade data that can be modified after a trade is matched. Although Section C, 2(g) currently describes these rules relating to the modification of submitted trade details, NSCC believes that the proposed revisions would improve those descriptions and thereby make such rules clearer to Members and improve the overall transparency of the Rules.
NSCC is proposing to revise Procedure II, Section C, 2(h), which provides that transactions that compare after a cutoff time designated by NSCC on the date the transaction was scheduled to settle are assigned a settlement date of the next business day after the day the transaction is compared. The proposed rule changes would clarify that these rules apply to any transactions that compare after the set cutoff time, and not only to transactions that compare for the first time (meaning, transactions that have not been previously submitted and reversed by the counterparties pursuant to the Rules). These proposed changes, and the other marked revisions to this section would clarify the applicability of these rules and would improve the readability, clarity and transparency of this Section C, 2(h).
NSCC is proposing to remove the following sentence from Procedure II, Section C, 1(h), “Depending upon whether trade data is submitted on T or T+n and the format in which output is produced with respect to such data, the output may reflect totals.” NSCC believes that this sentence is unnecessary for purposes of describing the procedures applicable to comparison and recording of CMU securities transactions. Therefore, the proposed rule change to remove this sentence would simplify the Rules and remove unnecessary statements that do not provide Members with important
NSCC is proposing to remove from Procedure II, Section C, 2(c) a statement that a Member may submit an instruction to delete an uncompared trade if it finds that the trade data is incorrect. The immediately prior Section C, 2(b) of Procedure II states that a Member may submit an instruction to delete a trade if it does not agree with the terms of the trade. While the fact that the data is incorrect is most likely the basis for a Member to disagree with the terms of the trade, NSCC does not believe the statement it is proposing to remove from Procedure II, Section C, 2(c) adds to the rules, and believes this statement could indicate to a Member that its ability to delete an uncompared trade is limited to circumstances when the trade data is incorrect. NSCC believes the proposed rule change to remove this additional and unnecessary language would clarify Members' ability to submit a delete instruction.
NSCC is proposing to remove reference to comparison-only trades from the renumbered subsection (l) of Procedure II, Section C, 1, which incorrectly states that the rules of the MSRB are not applicable to comparison-only trades. This subsection describes certain rules that are applicable to trades that are designated as Special Trades, including the fact that these trades are subject to the rules of the MSRB. Currently, this subsection includes language that expressly excludes comparison-only trades. NSCC believes that expressly excluding comparison-only trades from this subsection could incorrectly imply to Members that the rules described in this subsection, including the applicability of the MSRB rules, do not apply to comparison-only trades. Procedure II, Section C, 1(i)(ii) describes the rules that apply to comparison-only trades, including the fact that these trades are subject to the rules of the MSRB. Therefore, NSCC is proposing to remove the express exclusion of comparison-only trades from the renumbered subsection (l) of Procedure II, Section C, 1, which is unnecessary and could cause confusion.
NSCC is proposing to remove from Procedure II, Section D, 2(A)(2)(b) the description of the timing by which an eligible transaction may enter the CNS Accounting Operation. The rules applicable to the CNS Accounting Operation, including, as applicable, any relevant timing of processing in that service, is described in Procedure VII. This information is not necessary for the operation of the comparison services, and removing this information would simplify these rules, improving their clarity to Members.
NSCC is also proposing to remove subsection 2(A)(2)(c) from Procedure II, Section D, which describes information included in the output NSCC produces in connection with the comparison service. As currently written, this subsection is incomplete and does not list all of the information that may be included in this output. Therefore, the current description could create confusion among Members regarding what information may be included in these reports. NSCC believes it is in Members' best interest that NSCC retain flexibility to add or remove information from these reports, for example, in response to Members' requests. As such, NSCC does not believe it is necessary to specify for Members the information that may be included in these reports. Therefore, NSCC believes the proposed change to remove the unnecessary section would simplify and improve the Rules.
NSCC is also proposing a number of revisions to the descriptions of the rules regarding submission and processing of syndicate takedown trades and syndicate takedown reversals in renumbered Procedure II, Section D, 2(A)(2)(g). The proposed revisions would not change the rules that apply to how these trades and reversals are processed, but would re-order the descriptions of these rules in order to simplify, clarify and improve the transparency of these provisions.
NSCC is proposing rule changes that would update the procedures in order to accurately describe current processing and correct descriptions that have become outdated. Each of these proposed rule changes would improve the Rules by correcting these errors.
NSCC is proposing to amend Procedure II, Section C, 1(c)(1) and (2) in order to clarify that the tolerances for comparison of contract amounts apply only to bilateral trades, and state that the QSR's or syndicate manager's contract amount is used for QSR and syndicate trades for comparison purposes. Currently, these two subsections of the Rules describe the contract amount tolerances that are applicable to bilateral trades, but fail to specify which tolerances apply to bilateral trades, and which tolerances apply to QSR and syndicate trades. The proposed rule change would clarify that the tolerances currently described in these subsections apply only to bilateral trades, and would add to these subsections a description of the rules for comparing contract amounts applicable to QSR and syndicate trades.
NSCC is proposing to remove subsection (j) from Procedure II, Section C, 1, which states that Members may override clearing agent designations by submitting trade input for comparison using the appropriate Trade-for-Trade Indicator. NSCC is also proposing to remove from the renumbered Procedure II, Section C, 1(k)(i) the reference to “any clearing agent indicated by the applicable contra party” as an example of information that NSCC may provide on the CTS. Members that are Municipal Comparison Only Members may use another Member as their “clearing agent” to access NSCC's clearing and settlement services, and, historically, clearing agent designations had been reported on the CTS. However, in connection with its recent updates to the CTS, in response to Member feedback that it is no longer necessary to report these clearing agent designations, NSCC removed the designations from the CTS.
Finally, NSCC is proposing two changes that would correct errors that it has identified in the Rules. The proposed changes would correct descriptions in these sections of the Rules in order to accurately describe processing that has been effective since this service was implemented over 10 years ago. While these changes would revise the Rules as written, the changes would not result in any change in the current operation of the service. NSCC does not believe that either of these changes would significantly affect the respective rights or obligations of NSCC or Members using this service.
First, NSCC is proposing to remove from Procedure II, Section C, 1(g) an incorrect statement that trades in municipal bonds must be submitted in multiples of a thousand. Municipal bonds may be submitted in quantities other than multiples of a thousand, and such submissions would be subject to the other provisions of this section that are applicable to submissions of trades in quantities other than multiples of a thousand (specifically, that such submissions be divided into separate
Second, NSCC is proposing to revise Procedure II, Section D, 2(A), which specifically describes processing of when-issued securities. The special processing rules within this section do not apply to when-issued corporate bonds, which are instead processed in the same manner as all other transactions in corporate bonds. Therefore, this Procedure II, Section D, 2(A) incorrectly refers to corporate bonds and the proposed change to remove references to corporate bonds would correct this error. This proposed rule change would clarify that the provisions of this subsection apply only to transactions in municipal securities. NSCC does not believe that this change would significantly affect the respective rights or obligations of NSCC or Members using this service because Members would be able to continue to submit when-issued corporate bonds, and such securities would be processed through the regular processing rules.
NSCC is also proposing to amend Section C of Procedure II to include a comparison tolerance of 20 business days in order to improve the accuracy of the matching of submitted trade data. Currently, if two transactions are submitted that match in all other aspects as required by the Rules, but have different trade dates, NSCC uses the earlier of the two submitted trade dates in producing and recording a matched trade. Members that do not agree with the terms of a matched trade may submit an instruction to reverse a matched trade pursuant to Procedure II, Section C, 2(e). Therefore, this procedure will result in a matched trade if the counterparties submitted different trade dates in error, and Members are able to reverse that trade if the different trade dates were not submitted in error and the matched trade is incorrect.
NSCC is now proposing to include a tolerance of 20 business days to the comparison criteria for trade dates in order to improve the accuracy of its trade comparison service. In order to implement this change, NSCC is proposing to amend Procedure II, Section C, 1(d) to make clear a trade would be deemed compared if the submitted trade data matches in all required respects other than trade date, and the trade dates submitted are within 20 business days of each other. Under the proposed rule change, NSCC would continue to use the earlier of the submitted trade dates in the resulting compared trade. The proposed rule change would also make clear that a trade would remain uncompared if the trade dates submitted are not within the 20 business day tolerance. Members would still have the ability to submit instructions to reverse a trade if they disagree with the terms of a matched trade.
NSCC believes trade dates submitted for a trade that matches in all other required respects but are different by more than 20 business days are more likely submitted in error. For example, one counterparty may enter a trade date of March 1, 2018 and the other counterparty may enter for the same trade a trade date of March 1, 2008 by mistyping the year of the trade date. Under the current rules, NSCC would match the trade data and report a compared trade with a trade date of March 1, 2008, the earlier of the submitted trade dates, and the counterparties would have to submit instructions to either delete or reverse that trade, as appropriate. NSCC believes the proposed rule change would result in fewer trades that are compared using an earlier trade date that was submitted in error, and would result in more accurate comparison processing.
NSCC believes that the proposed changes are consistent with the Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act, which requires, in part, that the rules of a registered clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions, for the reasons described below.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(23)(i) under the Act requires, in part, that NSCC establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to provide for publicly disclosing all relevant rules and material procedures.
NSCC does not believe that the proposed rule changes would have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition. The proposed rule changes would improve Members' understanding of their rights and obligations with respect to the use of this service, and would improve the accuracy of the comparison service with respect to trade dates. These proposed changes would be applicable to all Members that utilize this comparison service, and would not alter Members' rights or obligations. Therefore, NSCC does not believe that the proposed rule changes would have any impact on competition.
NSCC has not solicited or received any written comments relating to this proposal. NSCC will notify the
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On April 19, 2018, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission has determined that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the issues raised by the proposed rule change. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) a proposed rule change to amend the Fee Schedule on the BOX Market LLC (“BOX”) options facility. While changes to the fee schedule pursuant to this proposal will be effective upon filing, the changes will become operative on June 1, 2018. The text of the proposed rule change is available from the principal office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the Exchange's internet website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to make changes to Section I. (Electronic Transaction Fees).
The Exchange proposes to adjust certain fees for Non-Auction Transactions. Currently, for all non-auction transactions, fees and credits are assessed depending upon three factors: (i) The account type of the Participant submitting the order; (ii) whether the Participant is a liquidity provider or liquidity taker; and (iii) the account type of the contra party. Non-Auction Transactions in Penny Pilot Classes are assessed different fees or credits than Non-Auction Transactions in Non-Penny Pilot Classes.
The current fees for Non-Auction Transactions are:
First, the Exchange proposes to remove the fees assessed for Public Customers that make or take liquidity against Public Customers in Penny Pilot and Non-Penny Pilot Classes. Next, the Exchange proposes to eliminate the fees assessed to Public Customers that make liquidity against Professional Customers/Broker Dealers and Market Makers in Penny Pilot and Non-Penny Pilot Classes. Lastly, the Exchange proposes to assess a $0.20 credit for Public Customers that take liquidity from Professional Customers/Broker Dealers and Market Makers in Penny Pilot Classes and a $0.50 credit for Public Customers that take liquidity from Professional Customers/Broker Dealers and Market Makers in Non-Penny Pilot Classes.
The Exchange proposes to adjust the fees assessed for Professional Customers and Broker Dealers. In Penny Pilot Classes, the Exchange proposes to adjust the fees assessed for Professional Customers and Broker Dealers that that take liquidity from all other Participants. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to increase the fee assessed to Professional Customers and Broker Dealers that take liquidity from Public Customers, Professional Customers/Broker Dealers and Market Makers to $0.50 from $0.45 in Penny Pilot Classes. Additionally, the Exchange proposes to increase the fees assessed for Professional Customers and Broker Dealers making liquidity against Professional Customers and Broker Dealers and Market Makers in Penny Pilot Classes to $0.15 from $0.05. For Non-Penny Pilot Classes, the Exchange proposes to increase the fees assessed for Professional Customers and Broker Dealers making liquidity against Non-Public Customers to $0.15 from $0.05. The Exchange also proposes to increase the fees assessed for Professional Customers and Broker Dealers taking liquidity from Public Customers to $0.95 from $0.85 in Non-Penny Pilot Classes. Lastly, with regard to Professional Customers/Broker Dealers taking liquidity from Professional Customers/Broker Dealers and Market Makers in Non-Penny Pilot Classes, the Exchange proposes to increase the fees assessed to $0.85 from $0.60.
The Exchange then proposes to adjust the fees assessed for Market Makers in Non-Auction Transactions. First, the Exchange proposes to increase the fees assessed on Market Makers making liquidity against a Public Customer to $0.50 from $0.27 in Penny Pilot Classes. With regard to Market Makers taking liquidity against Public Customers in Penny Pilot Classes, the Exchange proposes to increase the fee to $0.50 from $0.43. Further, the Exchange proposes to increase the fee for Market Makers taking liquidity against Professional Customers and Broker Dealers and Market Makers in Penny Pilot Classes to $0.50 from $0.29. Lastly, the Exchange proposes to adjust the fees assessed to Market Makers in Non-Penny Pilot Classes. Specifically, the
The fees for Non-Auction Transactions will be as follows:
The Exchange proposes to amend Section I.A.1. of the BOX Fee Schedule, Tiered Volume Rebate for Non-Auction Transactions. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to adjust the rebates in the Tiered Volume Rebate for Public Customers in Non Auction Transactions. The current Tiered Volume Rebate for Public Customers in Non-Auction Transactions is as follows:
The Exchange proposes to adjust certain maker and taker rebates in Tiers 2 through 4 of the Tiered Volume Rebate structure for Public Customers in both Penny Pilot Classes and Non-Penny Pilot Classes. The new per contract rebate for Public Customers in Non-Auction Transactions as set forth in Section I.A.1. of the BOX Fee Schedule will be as follows:
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act, in general, and Section 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5)of the Act,
The Exchange believes it is equitable, reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory to assess fees according to the account type of the Participant originating the order and the contra party. This fee structure has been in place on the Exchange since 2014 and the Exchange is simply adjusting certain fees within the structure.
The Exchange believes removing non-auction transaction fees for Public Customers making or taking liquidity against Public Customers in Penny and Non-Penny Pilot Classes, as well as Public Customers making liquidity against Professional Customers, Broker Dealers and Market Makers is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. Further, the Exchange believes that providing a $0.20 and $0.50 credit to Public Customers that take liquidity from Professional Customers, Broker Dealers and Market Makers in Penny Pilot Classes and Non-Penny Pilot Classes, respectively, is also reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. The Exchange notes that it has either not charged or provided a credit to Public Customers for Non-Auction Transactions on BOX in the past.
Finally, the Exchange believes it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to give Public Customers a credit (or charge no fee) when their orders execute against a non-Public Customer and, accordingly, charge non-Public Customers a higher fee when their orders execute against a Public Customer. As stated above, the Exchange aims to improve markets by developing features for the benefit of its Public Customers. Similar to the payment for order flow and other pricing models that have been adopted by the Exchange and other exchanges to attract Public Customer order flow, the Exchange increases fees to non-Public Customers in order to provide incentives for Public Customers. Further, the Exchange believes that providing a higher credit in Non-Penny Pilot Classes is reasonable. As discussed herein, Non-Penny Pilot Classes are traded less actively and the Exchange believes that providing this higher credit in Non-Penny Pilot Classes will provide incentive for Public Customers to trade in these classes. The Exchange believes that providing incentives for Non-Auction Transactions by Public Customers is reasonable and, ultimately, will benefit all Participants trading on the Exchange by attracting Public Customer order flow.
The Exchange believes that the proposed fees for Professional Customers and Broker Dealers in Non-Auction Transactions are reasonable. Under the proposed fee structure, a Professional Customer or Broker Dealer making liquidity and interacting with a Professional Customer, Broker Dealer or Market Marker will now be charged a fee of $0.15 in both Penny and Non-Penny Pilot Classes. If the Professional Customer or Broker Dealer is instead taking liquidity in the Penny Pilot, it will be charged $0.50 against any other Participant. If the Professional Customer or Broker Dealer is taking liquidity in the Non-Penny Pilot, it will be charged $0.95 if it interacts with a Public Customer and $0.85 if it interacts with a Professional Customer/Broker Dealer or Market Maker. The Exchange believes that the proposed fees are reasonable as they are in line with the current fees assessed by another competing exchange.
The Exchange believes that charging Professional Customers and Broker Dealers higher fees than Public Customers for their Non-Auction Transactions is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. Professional Customers, while Public Customers by virtue of not being Broker Dealers, generally engage in trading activity more similar to Broker Dealer proprietary trading accounts. The Exchange believes that the higher level of trading activity from these Participants will draw a greater amount of BOX system resources; the Exchange aims to recover its costs by assessing Professional Customers and Broker Dealers higher fees for transactions.
The Exchange believes that the proposed fees for Market Makers in Non-Auction Transactions are reasonable. With the proposed fee changes, a Market Maker making liquidity will now be charged a higher fee of $0.50 (Penny Pilot) and $0.95 (Non-Penny Pilot) for interacting with a Public Customer. Further, a Market Maker taking liquidity against a Public Customer will now be charged $0.50 in Penny Pilot Classes and $0.95 in Non-Penny Pilot Classes. If a Market Maker is taking liquidity in Penny Pilot Classes and interacts with a Professional Customer/Broker Dealer or Market Maker they will now be charged a fee of $0.50. Lastly, if a Market Maker is taking liquidity in Non-Penny Pilot Classes and interacts with a Professional Customer/Broker Dealer or Market Maker, they will now be charged $0.75. The Exchange believes the fees listed above are reasonable and appropriate as they are in line with what is currently charged by the industry.
Further, the Exchange believes it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to charge the Market Maker equal or less for making or taking liquidity than Professional Customers or Broker Dealers. Specifically, Market Makers have certain obligations that other Participants do not and can ultimately provide more value by directing liquidity to the Exchange, which the Exchange believes will benefit all Participants trading on BOX.
The Exchange believes it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory for Professional Customers, Broker Dealers and Market Makers to be charged higher fees when interacting with Public Customers than interacting with other Participants on BOX. The Exchange believes they are reasonable as they are in a similar range with the fees in the options industry.
The Exchange believes it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory that Professional Customers, Broker Dealers and Market Makers be charged a higher fee for certain orders removing liquidity, when compared to the fee they receive for orders that add liquidity. Charging a lower fee for orders that add liquidity will promote liquidity on the Exchange and ultimately benefit all participants on BOX. Further, the concept of incentivizing orders that add liquidity over orders that remove liquidity is commonly accepted within the industry as part of the “Make/Take” liquidity model.
The Exchange believes that providing a credit to Public Customers that take liquidity from Professional Customers/Broker Dealers and Market Makers in Penny and Non-Penny Pilot Classes, compared to the $0.00 fee they are assessed when making liquidity against Professional Customers/Broker Dealers and Market Makers, is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. Instead of providing a credit for both making and taking liquidity, the Exchange believes the high credit for taking liquidity will attract Public Customer order flow to BOX which, in turn, will lead to more robust market making on the Exchange, thus benefitting all market participants. The securities markets generally, and BOX in particular, have historically aimed to improve markets for investors and develop various features within the market structure for Public Customer benefit. As such, the Exchange believes the proposed credit to Public Customers that take liquidity from Professional Customers/Broker Dealers and Market Makers in Penny and Non-Penny Pilot classes is reasonable.
Finally, the Exchange also believes it is reasonable to charge Professional Customers and Broker Dealers and Market Makers less for certain executions in Penny Pilot issues compared to Non-Penny Pilot issues because these classes are typically more actively traded; assessing lower fees will further incentivize order flow in Penny Pilot issues on the Exchange, ultimately benefiting all Participants trading on BOX.
BOX believes it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to adjust certain rebates in the volume based thresholds for Public Customers in all Non-Auction Transactions. The volume based thresholds and applicable rebates are meant to incentivize Public Customers to direct order flow to the Exchange to obtain the benefit of the rebate, which will in turn benefit all market participants by increasing liquidity on the Exchange. Other exchanges employ similar incentive programs;
The Exchange believes it is reasonable to offer a higher per contract rebate for transactions in Non-Penny Pilot Classes compared to Penny Pilot Classes because Non-Penny Pilot Classes are typically less actively traded and have wider spreads. The Exchange believes that offering a higher rebate will incentivize Public Customer order flow in Non-Penny Pilot issues on the Exchange, ultimately benefitting all Participants trading on BOX.
The Exchange believes it is reasonable to adjust certain rebates in Tiers 2 through 4 of the Tiered Volume Rebate for Public Customers making and taking liquidity in Non-Auction Transactions. The rebates are meant to incentivize Public Customers to direct order flow to the Exchange to obtain the benefit of the rebate, which will in turn benefit all market participants by increasing liquidity on the Exchange.
The Exchange continues to believe it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to have these rebate structures for Public Customers in Non-Auction transactions. The practice of incentivizing increased Public Customer order flow is common in the options markets. While the Exchange proposes to decrease some of the Public Customer rebates in Penny and Non-Penny Pilot Classes, the Exchange believes that Public Customers will still benefit from the opportunity to obtain a rebate. Additionally, most Public Customers currently achieve a volume based rebate in their Non-Auction transactions.
Further, the Exchange believes that providing a higher per contract rebate for Public Customers taking liquidity in Penny and Non-Penny Pilot Classes compared to making liquidity is reasonable and appropriate. As discussed above, the Exchange believes the proposed rebates for taking liquidity in Penny and Non-Penny Pilot Classes will attract Public Customer order flow to BOX which, in turn, will lead to more robust market making on the Exchange, thus benefitting all market participants. As such, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes are reasonable and appropriate.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange believes that the proposed adjustments to fees in the Non-Auction Transactions fee structure will not impose a burden on competition among various Exchange Participants. Rather, BOX believes that the changes will result in the Participants being charged appropriately for these transactions and are designed to enhance competition in Non-Auction transactions on BOX. Submitting an order is entirely voluntary and Participants can determine which type of order they wish to submit, if any, to the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that amending the proposed rebate structure for Public Customer Non-Auction Transactions will not impose a burden on competition among various Exchange Participants. The Exchange believes that the proposed changes will result in Public Customers being rebated appropriately for these transactions. Further, the Exchange believes that this proposal will enhance competition between exchanges because it is designed to allow the Exchange to better compete with other exchanges for order flow.
Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing exchanges. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually review, and consider adjusting, its fees and credits to remain competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment.
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 Exchange Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend the rule change if it appears to the Commission that the action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or would otherwise further 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 Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On April 27, 2018, Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (“FICC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) proposed rule change SR-FICC-2018-003, pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The proposed rule change would amend the FICC Government Securities Division (“GSD”) Rulebook (“GSD Rules”)
The proposed GSD Fee Structure would, in effect, establish 4 new fees, modify 1 existing fee, and eliminate 12 fees.
In proposed Section I of the GSD Fee Structure, FICC would replace the seven-tiered trade submission fees for both dealer accounts and broker accounts with a single transaction processing fee that would be charged to GSD members (“Members”) upon the comparison of a side of a buy/sell transaction or a Repo Transaction in the DVP service.
FICC also would add two position management fees applicable to the DVP service in proposed Section II of the GSD Fee Structure.
The second position management fee would be the end of day position fee of $0.115 per million par value that would be calculated for a Member each business day based on the end of day gross position of the Member (including positions of any non-Member that the Member is clearing for) that business day.
FICC would modify the existing minimum monthly fee in proposed Section V of the GSD Fee Structure.
FICC is proposing to delete fees in Section I of the GSD Fee Structure that are no longer applicable.
FICC would eliminate all netting fees provided in renumbered Section IV of the GSD Fee Structure, including (i) the two seven-tiered netting fees for both broker accounts and dealer accounts; (ii) the “into the net” fees of $0.015 per one million of par value for broker accounts and $0.016 per one million of par value for dealer accounts for each compared trade, start leg of a Repo Transaction, close leg of a Repo Transaction, fail deliver obligation, and fail receive obligation; and (iii) the “out of the net” fees of $0.175 per one million of par value for each deliver obligation and receive obligation created as a result of the netting process.
In addition, FICC would delete from renumbered Section IV.C. of the GSD Fee Structure the Repo Transaction processing fees and related language for Term Repo Transactions in the DVP service that have been compared and netted but not yet settled.
Additionally, FICC would eliminate fees applicable to additional accounts from current Section V of the GSD Fee Structure.
As described below, FICC proposes to make a number of conforming, clarifying, and technical changes.
First, FICC would rename the heading of Section I of the GSD Fee Structure from “Trade Comparison Fees” to “Transaction Fees.”
FICC would rename the heading of Section I.A. of the GSD Fee Structure from “Trade Submission” to “Transaction Processing.”
Additionally, FICC would update the format of (i) the “$.50” rejection fee to “$0.50” in Section I.A. of the GSD Fee Structure; (ii) the “15 cents” yield-to-price conversion charge to “$0.15” in the proposed Section I.B. of the GSD Fee Structure; (iii) the “25 cents” and “5
FICC states that for better organization of the GSD Fee Structure, FICC would relocate current Sections III.B. (Auction Takedown Process), III.F. (Coupon Pass-Through Fee), and III.G. (Repo Collateral Substitution Fees), which cover fees associated with the Auction Takedown Service, pass-through of coupon payments, and the processing of repurchase agreement collateral substitution requests, to proposed Sections I.F., I.D., and I.E., respectively, of the GSD Fee Structure because each of these fees is a type of transaction fee.
In addition, FICC would revise the section on Auction Takedown Process (proposed Section I.D. of the GSD Fee Structure) by replacing the words “locked-in trades” with “buy/sell transactions” because, FICC states, all trades associated with the Auction Takedown Service are locked-in.
FICC would make a conforming change in the proposed Section I.G. of the GSD Fee Structure by deleting the reference to “Trade Submission” fee schedule and replacing it with “Transaction Processing” fees.
FICC would renumber current Section II of the GSD Fee Structure to proposed Section III of the GSD Fee Structure.
FICC would rename the heading of renumbered Section IV of the GSD Fee Structure from “Netting Fee and Charges (in addition to the comparison fee)” to “Other Charges (in addition to the transaction fees)” to, FICC states, better reflect the proposed changes to this section, as described above.
As described above, FICC would relocate current Sections III.B. (Auction Takedown Process), III.F. (Coupon Pass-Through Fee), and III.G. (Repo Collateral Substitution Fees) to proposed Sections I.F., I.D., and I.E., respectively, of the GSD Fee Structure.
In addition, FICC would rename the heading of renumbered Section IV.C. of the GSD Fee Structure from “Repo Transaction Processing Fee” to “GCF Repo Transaction and CCIT Transaction Processing Fee” to better reflect the proposed changes to this section.
In addition, FICC would make a conforming change in renumbered Section IV.D. of the GSD Fee Structure to reflect the proposed renumbering of sections in the GSD Fee Structure by changing a reference from “Section III” to “Section IV.”
FICC would add a sentence to proposed Section V of the GSD Fee Structure that, FICC states, would make it clear to Members that the minimum monthly fee would not apply to an account if the total monthly fees incurred by the account pursuant to Sections I, II (a proposed new section), and IV (renumbered from III) of the GSD Fee Structure exceed $2,500.
FICC would make changes in Section VI of the GSD Fee Structure to, FICC states, clarify that references to “trades” means “buy/sell transactions and Repo Transactions.”
FICC would make two changes to Section VII of the GSD Fee Structure. FICC would delete the reference to the fee for additional accounts, which is being eliminated under the proposal.
In current Section VIII of the GSD Fee Structure, FICC would (i) make a technical change to reflect the reference to the GSD Fee Structure as “Fee Structure” instead of “fee structure,” and (ii) make changes to clarify that references to a “trade” means a “buy/sell transaction.”
FICC would make a conforming change in current Section XII of the GSD Fee Structure by deleting the reference to “comparison and netting fees” and replacing it with “transaction fees.”
FICC plans to implement all of the above proposed changes on July 2, 2018.
The Commission received one comment letter to the proposed rule change.
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act directs the Commission to approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and rules and regulations thereunder applicable to such organization.
Section 17A(b)(3)(D) of the Act requires that the rules of a clearing agency, such as FICC, provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its participants.
As discussed above, the proposed rule change would make a number of changes to the GSD Fee Structure. Specifically, FICC would, in effect, create 4 new fees, modify 1 existing fee, and eliminate 12 fees. The proposed fee changes are designed, in part, to (i) shift the GSD Fee Structure regarding the DVP service away from a transaction or volume-driven approach to a more position-based approach, and (ii) align GSD's revenue with the approximate 30/70 split between transaction processing and position management costs, respectively. Despite the proposed changes, FICC expects GSD's net revenue to remain relatively unchanged as a result of this proposal.
The Commission believes that adding the 4 proposed fees and eliminating the 12 existing fees is equitable and reasonable because these changes are designed to apply to all Members in a manner that better aligns the fees (
With respect to the proposed modification to the minimum monthly fee, each account of every comparison-only Member and every netting Member would be subject to a minimum monthly fee of $2,500. This proposed fee is designed to be commensurate with the minimum costs to FICC associated with monitoring a Member's account.
Therefore, for the above reasons, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(D) of the Act, as the proposal would provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among Members.
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, in part, that the rules of a clearing agency, such as FICC, be designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions.
As described above, FICC proposes to, effectively, establish 4 new fees, modify 1 existing fee, eliminate 12 fees, and make conforming, clarifying, and technical changes to the GSD Rules. These proposed changes are designed to reduce the complexity of the GSD Fee Structure by helping to ensure that the GSD Fee Structure is more transparent and clear to Members.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(23)(ii) under the Act requires each covered clearing agency
As described above, FICC proposes to, effectively, establish 4 new fees, modify 1 existing fee, eliminate 12 fees, and make conforming, clarifying, and technical changes to the GSD Rules. These proposed changes are designed to reduce the complexity of the GSD Fee Structure by helping to ensure that the GSD Fee Structure is more transparent and clear to Members. Having a more transparent and clear GSD Fee Structure would help Members and other stakeholders to better understand GSD's fees and help provide Members with increased predictability and certainty regarding the fees they incur in participating in GSD.
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of the
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Social Security Administration.
Notice of rescission of SSRs.
We give notice of the rescission of SSRs 96-3p and 96-4p.
We will apply this rescission notice on June 14, 2018.
Dan O'Brien, Office of Vocational, Evaluation, and Process Policy in the Office of Disability Policy, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, (410) 597-1632. For information on eligibility or filing for benefits, call our national toll-free number, 1-800-772-1213 or visit our internet site, Social Security Online, at
We use SSRs to make available to the public precedential decisions relating to the Federal old-age, survivors, disability, supplemental security income, and special veterans benefits programs. We may base SSRs on determinations or decisions made in our administrative review process, Federal court decisions, decisions of our Commissioner, opinions from our Office of the General Counsel, or other interpretations of law and regulations.
In accordance with 20 CFR 402.35(b)(1), we give notice that we are rescinding the following SSRs:
• SSR 96-3p: Titles II and XVI: Considering Allegations of Pain and Other Symptoms in Determining Whether a Medically Determinable Impairment is Severe.
• SSR 96-4p: Titles II and XVI: Symptoms, Medically Determinable Physical and Mental Impairments, and Exertional and Nonexertional Limitations.
These SSRs are unnecessarily duplicative of SSR 16-3p
SSR 96-3p clarified how adjudicators should consider allegations of pain and other symptoms in determining whether a medically determinable impairment (MDI) is severe. SSR 16-3p explains our two-step process for evaluating an individual's symptoms where, at the first step, we determine whether the individual has an MDI that could reasonably be expected to produce the individual's alleged symptoms. At the second step,
SSR 96-4p explained that no symptom, by itself, could establish the existence of a medically determinable physical or mental impairment. In SSR 16-3p, we clarified that an individual's symptoms alone are not enough to establish the existence of a physical or mental impairment or disability, and that we will not find an individual disabled based on alleged symptoms alone. Therefore, the information contained in SSR 96-4p duplicates policy in SSR 16-3p. Consequently, we are rescinding SSRs 96-3p and 96-4p.
Deputy Commissioner of Budget, Finance, and Management, Social Security Administration (SSA).
Notice of a new system of records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act, we are issuing public notice of our intent to establish a new system of records entitled, Social Security Administration Violence Evaluation and Reporting System (SSAvers) (60-0379). We are establishing SSAvers to cover information we collect about employees, contractors, and members of the public who are allegedly involved in, or witness incidents of, workplace and domestic violence.
The System of Records Notice (SORN) is applicable upon its publication in today's
The public, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and Congress may comment on this publication by writing to the Executive Director, Office of Privacy and Disclosure, Office of the General Counsel, SSA, Room G-401 West High Rise, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235-6401, or through the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal at
Navdeep Sarai, Government Information Specialist, Privacy Implementation Division, Office of Privacy and Disclosure, Office of the General Counsel, SSA, Room G-401 West High Rise, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235-6401, telephone: (410) 965-2997, email:
On April 18, 2012, the President issued the memorandum,
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), we have provided a report to OMB and Congress on this new system of records.
Social Security Administration Violence Evaluation and Reporting System (SSAvers), 60-0379.
Unclassified.
Social Security Administration, Deputy Commissioner of Budget, Finance, and Management, Office of Security and Emergency Preparedness, Office of Emergency Management, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235.
Social Security Administration, Deputy Commissioner of Budget, Finance, and Management, Office of Security and Emergency Preparedness, Office of Emergency Management, Workplace Violence Program Manager, 6301 Security Boulevard, 201 Supply Building, Baltimore, MD 21235,
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; Congressional Accountability Act of 1995; 29 U.S.C. 51, Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970; 29 CFR 1960, Basic Program Elements for Federal Employee Occupational Safety and Health Programs and Related Matters; 41 CFR 102-74, Subpart C, Conduct on Federal Property; 5 CFR 735, Employee Responsibilities and Conduct; 5 CFR 2635, Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch; and various other statutes related to handling incidents of workplace and domestic violence.
We will use the information in this system to record, review, investigate, and respond to allegations of workplace and domestic violence affecting our employees and contractors.
Individuals who are involved in alleged incidents of workplace and domestic violence, who could be witnesses, alleged offenders, alleged victims, or others involved in the alleged incident or incident response. These individuals may include, but are not limited to, SSA employees, contractors, and members of the public.
This system maintains information collected or generated in response to alleged incidents of workplace and domestic violence. The information may include name and contact information of individuals involved; facts and documentation related to alleged behaviors of concern, such as protective orders and alleged offender photographs; and additional documents and information related to assessing the risk of violence and the agency's response and recommendations to mitigate risks of violence.
We obtain information in this system from current and former employees and contractors; members of the public; other Federal, state, and local agencies; private entities; and other agency sources, such as the Identity Protection Program System, Identity Management System, and the Safety Management Information System, to help respond to allegations of workplace and domestic violence affecting our employees and contractors.
We will disclose records pursuant to the following routine uses, however, we will not disclose any information defined as “return or return information” under 26 U.S.C. 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code, unless authorized by statute, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), or IRS regulations.
1. To a congressional office in response to an inquiry from that office made on behalf of, and at the request of, the subject of the record or third party acting on the subject's behalf.
2. To the Office of the President in response to an inquiry from that office made on behalf of, and at the request of, the subject of the record or a third party acting on the subject's behalf.
3. To the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) under 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
4. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when:
(a) SSA suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records;
(b) SSA has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach, there is a risk of harm to individuals, SSA (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and
(c) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connections with SSA's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
5. To another Federal agency or Federal entity, when SSA determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in:
(a) Responding to a suspected or confirmed breach; or
(b) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
6. To officials of labor organizations recognized under 5 U.S.C. Chapter 71 when relevant and necessary to their duties of exclusive representation concerning personnel policies, practices, and matters affecting conditions of employment or when representing an employee regarding a domestic or workplace violence incident.
7. To the Department of Justice (DOJ), a court or other tribunal, or another party before such court or tribunal, when:
(a) SSA, or any component thereof; or
(b) any SSA employee in his/her official capacity; or
(c) any SSA employee in his/her individual capacity where DOJ (or SSA, where it is authorized to do so) has agreed to represent the employee; or
(d) the United States or any agency thereof where SSA determines the litigation is likely to affect SSA or any of its components,
is a party to the litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and SSA determines that the use of such records by DOJ, a court or other tribunal, or another party before the tribunal is relevant and necessary to the litigation, provided, however, that in each case, the agency determines that disclosures of the records to DOJ, court or other tribunal, or another party is a use of the information contained in the records that is compatible with the purpose for which the records were collected.
8. To Federal, State and local law enforcement agencies and private security contractors, as appropriate, information necessary:
(a) To enable them to protect the safety of SSA employees and customers, the security of the SSA workplace, the operation of SSA facilities, or
(b) to assist investigations or prosecutions with respect to activities that affect such safety and security or activities that disrupt the operations of SSA facilities.
9. To the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) when requested in connection with investigations into alleged or possible discriminatory practices in the Federal sector, examination of Federal affirmative employment programs, compliance by Federal agencies with the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, or other functions vested in the Commission.
10. To OPM, the Merit Systems Protection Board, or the Office of Special Counsel in connection with appeals, special studies, of the civil service and other merit systems, review of rules and regulations, investigations of alleged or possible prohibited practices, and other such functions promulgated in 5 U.S.C. Chapter 12, or as may be required by law.
11. To contractors and other Federal agencies, as necessary, for the purpose of assisting SSA in the efficient administration of its programs. We disclose information under this routine use only in situations in which SSA may enter into a contractual or similar agreement with a third party to assist in accomplishing an agency function relating to this system of records.
12. To student volunteers, individuals working under a personal services contract, and other workers who technically do not have the status of Federal employees when they are performing work for SSA, as authorized by law, and they need access to personally identifiable information (PII) in SSA records in order to perform their assigned agency functions.
13. To any agency, person, or entity in the course of an investigation to the extent necessary to obtain information pertinent to the investigation.
We will maintain records in this system in paper and electronic form.
We will retrieve records by the names of reporters, witnesses, alleged offenders, alleged victims, Crisis Advisory Team personnel, and management officials involved in and responding to alleged incidents of workplace and domestic violence.
These records are currently unscheduled. We retain records in accordance with NARA-approved records schedules. In accordance with NARA rules codified at 36 CFR 1225.16, we maintain unscheduled records until NARA approves an agency-specific records schedule or publishes a corresponding General Records Schedule.
We retain electronic and paper files with personal identifiers in secure storage areas accessible only by our authorized employees and contractors who have a need for the information when performing their official duties. Security measures include the use of codes and profiles, personal identification number and password, and personal identification verification cards. We keep paper records in locked cabinets within secure areas, with access limited to only those employees who have an official need for access in order to perform their duties.
We annually provide our employees and contractors with appropriate security awareness training that includes reminders about the need to protect PII and the criminal penalties that apply to unauthorized access to, or disclosure of, PII (
This system of records has been exempted from the Privacy Act's access, contesting, and notification provisions as stated below. However, individuals may submit requests for information about whether this system contains a record about them by submitting a written request to the system manager at the above address, which includes their name, Social Security number (SSN), or other information that may be in this system of records that will identify them. Individuals requesting notification of, or access to, a record by mail must include (1) a notarized statement to us to verify their identity or (2) must certify in the request that they are the individual they claim to be and that they understand that the knowing and willful request for, or acquisition of, a record pertaining to another individual under false pretenses is a criminal offense.
Individuals requesting notification of, or access to, records in person must provide their name, SSN, or other information that may be in this system of records that will identify them, as well as provide an identity document, preferably with a photograph, such as a driver's license. Individuals lacking identification documents sufficient to establish their identity must certify in writing that they are the individual they claim to be and that they understand that the knowing and willful request for, or acquisition of, a record pertaining to another individual under false pretenses is a criminal offense.
These procedures are in accordance with our regulations at 20 CFR 401.40 and 401.45.
Same as record access procedures. Individuals should also reasonably identify the record, specify the information they are contesting, and state the corrective action sought and the reasons for the correction with supporting justification showing how the record is incomplete, untimely, inaccurate, or irrelevant. These procedures are in accordance with our regulations at 20 CFR 401.65(a).
Same as record access procedures. These procedures are in accordance
This system of records has been exempted from certain provisions of the Privacy Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2). Rules have been promulgated in accordance with the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553(b), (c), and (e) and have been published in today's
None.
Notice of request for public comment.
The Department of State is seeking Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we are requesting comments on this collection from all interested individuals and organizations. The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
The Department will accept comments from the public up to August 13, 2018.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You must include the DS form number (if applicable), information collection title, and the OMB control number in any correspondence.
Direct requests for additional information regarding the collection listed in this notice, including requests for copies of the proposed collection instrument and supporting documents, to Lea Rivera, PRM/Admissions, 2025 E Street NW, SA-9, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20522-0908, who may be reached on 202-453-9255 or at
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department.
• Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please note that comments submitted in response to this Notice are public record. Before including any detailed personal information, you should be aware that your comments as submitted, including your personal information, will be available for public review.
The information requested will be used to verify the employment of Iraqi citizens and nationals for the processing and adjudication of other refugee, asylum, special immigrant visa, and other immigration claims and applications.
The method for the collection of information will be via electronic submission. The format for compiling the information will be the Department of State's myData application. Contracting officers and Grants officers will distribute the DS-7655 by email to contractors, grantees and cooperative agreement partners under their authority. Respondents complete the form, and email it to their Contracting Officers or Grant Officers.
The Surface Transportation Board (STB) is publishing the annual inflation-adjusted index factors for 2017. These factors are used by the railroads to adjust their gross annual operating revenues for classification purposes. This indexing methodology ensures that railroads are classified based on real business expansion and not on the effects of inflation. Classification is important because it determines the extent to which individual railroads must comply with STB reporting requirements.
The STB's annual inflation-adjusted factors are based on the annual average Railroad Freight Price Index developed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The STB's deflator factor is used to deflate revenues for comparison with established revenue thresholds.
The base year for railroads is 1991. The inflation index factors are presented as follows:
Application of the annual deflator factors results in the following annual revenue thresholds:
Board decisions and notices are available on our website at
By the Board, William Brennan, Acting Director, Office of Economics.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of Intent to Rule on Request to Release Airport Property at the Curtis Municipal Airport (47V), Curtis, Nebraska.
The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the release of land at the Curtis Municipal Airport, Curtis, Nebraska.
Comments must be received on or before July 16, 2018.
Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to the FAA at the following address: Lynn D. Martin, Airports Compliance Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Airports Division, ACE-610C, 901 Locust, Room 364, Kansas City, MO 64106.
In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to: Mr. Douglas Schultz, City Clerk, P.O. Box 6, Curtis, NE 69025-0006 (308) 367-4122.
Lynn D. Martin, Airports Compliance Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Airports Division, ACE-610C, 901 Locust, Room 364, Kansas City, MO 64106, (816) 329-2644,
The request to release property may be reviewed, by appointment, in person at this same location.
The FAA invites public comment on the request to release approximately 0.81 ± acres of airport property at the Curtis Municipal Airport (47V) under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 47107(h)(2). On April 30, 2018, Mr. Schultz, the City Clerk of Curtis, NE requested from the FAA that approximately 0.81± acres of airport property be released for sale to the City of Curtis for them to sell to the Welch Seed LLC for a portion of their agricultural seed sales business. On June 7, 2018, the FAA determined that the request to release property at the Curtis Municipal Airport (47V) submitted by the Sponsor meets the procedural requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration 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 Curtis Municipal Airport (47V) is proposing the release of airport property totaling 0.81 acres, more or less. This land is to be used for a portion of an agricultural seed sales business. The release of land is necessary to comply with Federal Aviation Administration Grant Assurances that do not allow federally acquired airport property to be used for non-aviation purposes. The sale of the subject property will result in the land at the Curtis Municipal Airport (47V) being changed from aeronautical to non-aeronautical use and release the lands from the conditions of the Airport Improvement Program Grant Agreement Grant Assurances. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 47107(c)(2)(B)(i) and (iii), the airport will receive fair market value for the property, which will be subsequently reinvested in another eligible airport improvement project for general aviation facilities at the Curtis Municipal Airport.
Any person may inspect, by appointment, the request in person at the FAA office listed above under
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. The collection involves the submission of FAA Form 8420-8, which is used as the base document to initiate and/or confirm the status of the schools' eligibility to hold an FAA Form 8000-4, Air Agency Certificate.
Written comments should be submitted by August 13, 2018.
Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Barbara Hall, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.
Barbara Hall by email at:
We estimate that of the 31 new applications for pilot school certificates, 25% will have special curricula courses that will need to be accounted for in the passage rate required for issuance of a certificate in § 141.5(d). Of the 291 applications for renewal of pilot school certificates, approximately 25% would include special curricula courses that must now be accounted for in the passage rate for renewal of a certificate under § 141.5(d). We estimate that it would take .1 hours to add this special curricula course information to both initial and renewal applications.
The FAA is also making a burden adjustment to the number of pilot schools, increasing the population from 546 pilot schools to 581 pilot schools.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. The revision of this collection involves the logging of training time in aviation training devices under the provisions of current regulations, and the logging of flight time as a second in command (SIC) under the provisions of current regulations.
Written comments should be submitted by August 13, 2018.
Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Barbara Hall, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.
Barbara Hall by email at:
The FAA estimates that, of the 102,811 active pilots with an instrument rating, that approximately 50% are maintaining currency. It is likely that only 15% of those pilots (approximately 15,422 pilots) are using an aviation training device exclusively to maintain their instrument currency. For those pilots, this change will reduce the recordkeeping requirements of logging time from 6 times a year to two times a year, when logging instrument currency exclusively in an aviation training device. The FAA estimates this burden reduction to be 6168.8 hours annually.
Additionally, the final rule amends § 135.99 by adding paragraph (c) to allow a certificate holder to receive approval of a second in command (SIC) professional development program (SIC PDP) via operations specifications (Ops Specs) to allow the certificate holder's pilots to log SIC time in operations conducted under part 135 in an airplane or operation that does not otherwise require a SIC. Specifically, with this
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. The revision of this collection involves the amendment of current regulations, which allows a certificate holder's pilots to log second-in-command (SIC) time in operations conducted under part 135 in an airplane or operation that does not otherwise require a SIC. This revision also removes the burden for initial certification under current regulations, as that is already counted under ICR 2120-0593 (Part 119).
Written comments should be submitted by August 13, 2018.
Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Barbara Hall, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.
Barbara Hall by email at:
The FAA is also changing certain logging requirements to enable the logging of SIC time obtained under a SIC PDP. Those changes are reflected in a revision to information collection 2120-0021.
The FAA estimates that approximately 20 operators would be required to submit a newly developed SIC Professional Development Training Program for approval in the first year that the program is available. The FAA estimates that 50 operators will request an amendment to their existing PIC/SIC training program. This time burden is reflected in § 135.325, Training program and revision.
The FAA estimates that 20 operators will take approximately 40 hours each to develop and submit an acceptable new SIC training program. This program change will result in a burden increase of 800 hours in the first year of information collection only.
The FAA estimates that 50 operators will take approximately 20 hours each to revise and submit an acceptable SIC training program. This program change will result in a burden increase of 1000 hours.
The new or revised SIC training program will result in a burden of 1800 total hours in the first year of information collection.
In addition, the FAA has revised the burden in section 135.325 to remove the calculation of the burden for new applicants (for initial approval of training programs); this burden should not be reflected in this collection as it is already addressed in a previously approved collection (2120-0593 Certification: Air Carriers and Commercial Operators—FAR Part 119). This change is necessary to avoid double-counting the burden.
Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Office of the Secretary of Transportation, DOT.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) is launching the Solving for Safety Visualization Challenge to incentivize the use of safety data in the development of innovative analytical visualization tools that will reveal insights into serious crashes and improve understanding of transportation safety. The Challenge serves as a platform to capture the imaginations of technology and data firms, transportation stakeholders, and state and local agencies to unlock their creativity, and empower them to develop innovative new data visualization tools that can help improve road and rail user safety, to benefit all transportation users.
The Challenge is open to individuals and teams (Solvers) from the business and research communities, including technology companies, analytics firms, transportation carriers, industry associations, research institutions, universities, mapping and visualization providers. Solvers will compete for cash prizes that will be awarded throughout the multi-stage Challenge. The Challenge prize purse is $350,000, with four semi-finalists competing for a portion of the $100,000 interim prize and two final-stage Solvers competing for a portion of the $250,000 final prize.
The Challenge will begin on June 14, 2018. After the launch, USDOT will accept Stage I submissions up to 11:59 p.m. EDT on July 31, 2018. A panel of judges will review team submissions and announce Stage I finalists in August 2018.
For more information, and to register your intent to compete individually or as part of a team, visit
In 2017, motor vehicle traffic crashes resulted in an estimated 37,150 fatalities.
The USDOT's transportation safety programs have decades of research and design behind them and have proven effective in reducing injuries and fatalities by 40% between 1990 and 2011. In recent years, these advances have leveled off, and new insights and strategies are required to make further advances.
Traditional factors do not fully explain the causes of the recent significant increase in traffic fatalities. Increases in driving are one factor; however, the rate of fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) also increased from 1.08 fatalities per 100 million VMT in 2014 to an estimated 1.17 in 2017.
USDOT seeks to reverse the current trend, rapidly detect changes that indicate unsafe conditions, and reduce transportation-related fatalities and serious injuries across the transportation system. The Department is pursuing data-informed decision-making to help strategically prioritize and address transportation safety risks. One pillar of this approach is data visualization. USDOT seeks clear, compelling data visualization tools that make data analysis and insights accessible to policy-makers, transportation providers and the public who make safety choices every day.
Currently transportation decision makers have a limited number of analytical visualization tools available that reveal insights, and even fewer focused on safety and prevention of serious crashes. A new opportunity lies in the rapid growth and advancement in technology and analytics markets combined with the volume and variety of transportation and other data now collected by the public and private sectors.
For this reason, Solving for Safety Visualization Challenge is looking for the best innovators from the business and research communities, including technology companies, analytics firms, transportation carriers, industry associations, research institutions, universities, mapping and visualization providers, to tackle this challenge. Analytical visualization tools can cast new light on the data to reveal insights not seen though tabular analysis. The Challenge has been created to advance the use of safety data visualizations for answering analytical questions related to surface transportation system safety.
In this challenge, Solvers will compete for cash prizes by developing innovative analytical visualization tools to gain insights into fatalities and serious injuries on the U.S. road and rail systems that policymakers, providers, and operators can use to inform the development of safety solutions.
Challenge Solvers will choose to develop one of two types of analytical visualization tools:
USDOT is looking for Solvers to bring novel concepts and perspectives to existing models and data to develop analytical visualization tools that provide life-saving insights and solutions for transportation safety. Solvers should use innovation and creativity to further define the tools. Tools can range from dashboards using disparate data sets, to spatial analysis via maps, virtual or augmented reality scenarios, image and image analysis, social media mining and beyond. The tools can be powered by models and data provided by USDOT, Challenge Innovation Agents and/or resources to which Solvers have access to through their organizations, partners, and other sources. See
Challenge Solvers will develop analytical visualization tools to complement existing USDOT projects while addressing one or more of the following safety focus areas:
1.
• Between 2013 and 2016 there was a 25-percent increase in pedestrians killed in traffic crashes.
• A Crash Modification Factor (CMF) is a multiplicative factor that indicates the proportion of crashes that would be expected after implementing a countermeasure. Examples of countermeasures include installing a traffic signal, increasing the width of road edge lines, and installing a median barrier. We have proven that different countermeasures work, and we know the CMFs for each countermeasure, but how could we help decision makers choose among appropriate countermeasures?
2.
• Much of the nation is built around the railroad system. By developing around this infrastructure, we have unintentionally created conflict points that users are drawn to, often putting communities at greatest risk. How can data visualization tools better support urban planners identifying which grade crossings are more prone to accidents and the best risk reduction strategies to employ?
• In the United States, over the last several years an average of one-quarter of traffic fatalities and roughly half of all traffic injuries are attributed to intersections.
3.
• There is a misalignment between human behavior and judgment, and roadway and vehicle design. New, young drivers have a higher crash risk than any other age group. How can data visualization tools support and educate people to improve their driving behaviors?
• In 2015, alcohol-impaired driving fatalities accounted for 29 percent of the total motor vehicle traffic fatalities. How can data visualization tools support first responders' on-site interventions?
Challenge Solvers will also focus their analytical visualization tools by designing them for use by one of the following audiences:
All ideas will compete against the full pool of entries regardless of the type of
The Challenge invites creative minds from across the Nation to reveal these missing links. The business and research communities have the unique set of skills and creativity to step up and revolutionize transportation safety. The transportation safety community has welcomed innovation, but will benefit further from the perspective and skills of other subject areas. To foster new, novel, and innovative analytical visualization tools, USDOT is looking for Solvers and data from a variety of sectors. The USDOT encourages the participation of Solvers from outside the traditional transportation safety arena who will bring innovative methods, procedures, techniques, and strategies when developing solutions. The USDOT also has an interest in stimulating the integration of new or private sector data sources into the Solvers' analytical visualization tools.
The USDOT Solving for Safety Visualization Challenge can act as an engine in driving serious crash reduction. By incentivizing innovation, USDOT will attract the best Solvers from around the nation to come up with new tools for visualizing the risks of serious crashes. As with other government competitions, the USDOT Solving for Safety Visualization Challenge aims to create a vibrant community of thinkers and doers who drive revolutionary innovation.
Technology has already changed how most of us get around. Let's leverage it to change how we view transportation safety.
The Challenge consists of three stages. Individuals/teams (Solvers) will compete for an overall prize purse of $350,000. Four semi-finalists will compete for a portion of the $100,000 interim prize and two final stage Solvers will compete for a portion of the $250,000 final prize.
•
Eligible Solvers are individuals or teams from the business and research communities in the United States or US territory. This includes but is not limited to organizations such as: technology companies, analytics firms, transportation carriers, industry associations, research institutions, universities, mapping and visualization providers. Teams are encouraged to organize themselves in a manner that best fits meeting the Challenge.
USDOT will be carrying out this challenge prize competition under the authority of 15 U.S.C. 3719.
Challenge Innovation Agents are companies and organizations interested in providing real-world knowledge, guidance, insight, issues, and data to Solvers, especially those new to the transportation safety space. USDOT will provide a public listing of all organizations and companies who identify as Challenge Innovation Agents. This listing will provide a brief description and contact information for each Innovation Agent to assist Solvers that are interested in talking to or partnering with Innovation Agents for the Challenge. USDOT will list two types of Challenge Innovation Agents: Technical Assistance and Data.
Technical Assistance (T.A.) Innovation Agents can provide interested Solvers with knowledge, guidance, insight and issues related to transportation safety. T.A. Innovation Agents may be able to provide technical assistance related to key safety issues impacting their members or employees, transportation safety techniques, transportation system characteristics, users and operations, approaches from other industries and sectors.
Data Innovation Agents can provide interested Solvers with access to data or analytic techniques that can be used in the analytical visualization tools. Use of a wide variety of disparate data is encouraged to gain insights into reducing fatalities and serious injuries on the U.S. road and rail systems.
Challenge Innovation Agents will have the opportunity to explain their expertise and capacity to interested Solvers who will be designing tools that can prove useful in furthering the Innovation Agents or other user's efforts to reduce fatalities and serious injuries. Innovation Agents providing data access will benefit from national recognition and highlight of their data asset, and the exploration and testing of their data by Solvers for use by the transportation safety community.
Solvers are encouraged to seek support from Innovation Agents to strengthen their individual/team expertise. Innovation Agents may register their support throughout the Challenge by signing up at
To be eligible to win a prize under this Challenge, an individual or entity—
(1) Shall register to participate in the Competition under the rules promulgated by the USDOT Bureau of Transportation Statistics;
(2) Shall comply with all the requirements under this announcement and any subsequently announced rules for the competition;
(3) In the case of a private entity, shall be incorporated in and maintain a primary place of business in the United States or US territory, and in the case of an individual, whether participating singly or in a group, shall be a citizen or permanent resident of the United States or US territory;
(4) Shall not be a USDOT employee; and
(5) Shall not be another federal entity or federal employee acting within the scope of their employment (all non-USDOT federal employees must consult with their agency Ethics Official to determine whether the federal ethics rules will limit or prohibit the acceptance of a cash prize stemming from a federally sponsored prize competition);
(1) Federal grantees may not use federal funds to develop submissions unless consistent with the purpose of their grant award; and
(2) Federal contractors may not use federal funds from a contract to develop prize competition applications or to
An individual or entity shall not be deemed ineligible because the individual or entity used federal facilities or consulted with federal employees or USDOT Challenge Innovation Agents during a competition if the facilities and employees are made available to all individuals and entities participating in the competition on an equitable basis.
Participants must also agree to assume all risks and waive claims against the federal government and its related entities, except in the case of willful misconduct, for any injury, death, damage, or loss of property, revenue, or profits, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, arising from my participation in this prize competition, whether the injury, death, damage, or loss arises through negligence or otherwise.
Participants must also agree to indemnify the Federal Government against third party claims for damages arising from or related to Challenge activities.
If any potential finalist is found to be ineligible, has not complied with the Official Rules, Terms and Conditions, or declines the cash prize for any reason prior to award, an alternate finalist may be selected. If any potential winner is found to be ineligible, has not complied with the Official Rules, Terms & Conditions, or declines the cash prize for any reason prior to award, an alternate winner may be selected. Please refer to the Official Rules, Terms & Conditions for further details.
Cash prizes awarded under this challenge will be paid to the individual or Team Lead directly by USDOT through electronic funds transfer. Finalists and winner(s) will be responsible for any applicable local, state, and federal taxes and reporting that may be required under applicable tax laws.
To be eligible to win a prize under this stage, an individual or entity must submit:
1.
• Team name, participant names, organization (s), and primary point of contact
• Challenge tracks they are solving for:
• Tools:
○ Discover Insights Tool
○ Simulation Tool
• Safety Focus Areas:
○ Vulnerable System Users
○ Conflict Points
○ High Risk Factors
• Tool End-User:
○ Policymakers
○ Providers/Operators
○ Public
• Submission title. Proposed name for your concept.
• Submission description. What is the headline for your idea? Briefly describe your idea, concept and approach. (15 words)
This includes a detailed description of the proposed solution idea. Summary should discuss in detail the functionality and capabilities of the analytical visualization tool. The Solver must describe, in a high level of technical detail, how the proposed solution will meet each of the Solution Requirements and the Judging Criteria for this stage. The Summary must not exceed the character length of the online submission form. The Solver should understand that their submittal will be reviewed by technical experts in transportation safety analysis, data, IT and visualization. If the level of detail is deemed insufficient by the experts, the proposed solution will not be regarded as feasible.
All written work shall be phrased in layperson English language. Geospatial, visualization, statistical and technical terminology, including program coding language, shall not be used without providing an explanation of terms.
Solvers should respond to the judging criteria specified in the Judging Criteria Section.
Please include a résumé or bio of key individual(s) who would be responsible for developing the idea into a proof of concept with a detailed system design and prototype.
If you plan to work with a Technical Assistance or Data Innovation Agent, please indicate which Innovation Agent(s) you are or will be working with and their role in tool development.
(a) Video of Submission Idea
○ Provide a link to a 30 second video of solution idea.
(b) Additional Assets
○ If available, upload or link to additional research abstracts, presentations, data visualizations, or other supporting visual information that may help us better understand your concept. Accepted upload file formats include: .ppt, .pptx, .doc, .docx, .pdf, .jpg, .png (50 MB max).
To be eligible to win a prize under this stage, an individual or entity must be invited to submit a proof of concept with a detailed system design and prototype. Applicants must provide the following as part of the application process.
(1)
Solvers should respond to the judging criteria specified in the Judging Criteria Section.
(2)
The prototype must provide an idea of the proposed design, navigation and layout of the tool. It must demonstrate the functionality and verify that the analytical visualization tool idea and concept can be achieved in full development.
(3)
To be eligible to win a prize under this stage, an individual or entity must be invited to submit a full working tool. Applicants must provide the following as part of the application process.
(1)
(2)
Solvers should respond to the judging criteria specified in the Judging Criteria Section.
(3)
(4)
These criteria area weighted equally. The evaluation panels will consider each proposal's alignment with each of these criteria and make recommendations to the Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy. The Under Secretary selects as semi-finalists those proposals that best advance the purposes of this competition, as described in this notice.
•
•
•
•
•
•
Stage II and Stage III judging criteria are preliminary. Final judging criteria for Stages II and III will be provided to Solvers advancing to these stages and posted on the Challenge website.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
USDOT will accept Stage I Ideation submissions that are received no later than 11:59 p.m. EDT on July 31, 2018.
Responses to the Challenge solicitation and communication with USDOT are subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). If the application includes information that the applicant considers to be a trade secret or confidential commercial or financial information, the proposer should do the following: (1) Note on the front cover that the submission “Contains Confidential Business Information (CBI)”; (2) mark each affected page “CBI”; and (3) highlight or otherwise denote the CBI portions. USDOT protects such information from disclosure to the extent allowed under applicable law. In the event USDOT receives a FOIA request for the information, USDOT will follow the procedures described in its FOIA regulations at 49 CFR 7.17. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under that procedure will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA. USDOT may proactively publish any application information that is not marked as CBI.
By entering the Challenge, each applicant represents, warrants and covenants as follows:
• Participant is the sole author, creator, and owner of the Submission;
• The Submission is not the subject of any actual or threatened litigation or claim;
• The Submission does not and will not violate or infringe upon the intellectual property rights, privacy rights, publicity rights, or other legal rights of any third party;
• The Submission does not and will not contain any harmful computer code (sometimes referred to as “malware,” “viruses,” or “worms”); and
• The Submission, and contestants' use of the Submission, does not and will
Contestants must indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the Federal Government from and against all third-party claims, actions, or proceedings of any kind and from any and all damages, liabilities, costs, and expenses relating to or arising from participant's submission or any breach or alleged breach of any of the representations, warranties, and covenants of participant hereunder. Contestants are financially responsible for claims made by a third party.
USDOT reserves the right to disqualify any submission that it deems, in its discretion, to violate these Official Rules, Terms & Conditions.
As part of their acceptance of the Stage I prize, each semi-finalist grants to USDOT and its designees a worldwide, non-exclusive, sub-licensable, transferable, fully paid-up, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable right to use, reproduce, distribute, modify, create derivative works, publicly perform, publicly display, digitally perform, make, have made, distribute and import their Stage I submission and other data submitted, in any media now known or hereafter developed, for any purpose whatsoever, commercial or otherwise, without further approval by or payment to the semi-finalist, and represents that he/she/it has the unrestricted right to grant that license. Furthermore, the semi-finalist grants the government and its designees a worldwide, non-exclusive, sub-licensable, transferable, fully paid-up, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, unlimited rights to the government or its designees to apply or utilize the submission, modified submission, or derivative work with other data not owned by the semi-finalist and that all resulting data output is available to the government for unlimited use.
Stage II and Stage III intellectual property terms are preliminary. Final intellectual property terms for Stages II and III will be provided to Solvers advancing to these stages and posted on the Challenge website.
As part of their acceptance of the Stage II cash prize, each Finalist grants to USDOT and its designees a worldwide, non-exclusive, sub-licensable, transferable, fully paid-up, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable right to use, reproduce, distribute, modify, create derivative works, publicly perform, publicly display, digitally perform, make, have made, distribute and import their Stage II submission and other data submitted, in any media now known or hereafter developed, for any purpose whatsoever, commercial or otherwise, without further approval by or payment to the Finalist, and represents that he/she/it has the unrestricted right to grant that license. Furthermore, the Finalist grants the government and its designees a worldwide, non-exclusive, sub-licensable, transferable, fully paid-up, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, unlimited rights to the government or its designees to apply or utilize the submission, modified submission, or derivative work with other data not owned by the Finalist and that all resulting data output is available to the government for unlimited use.
As part of their acceptance of the Stage III cash prize, each Winner grants to USDOT and its designees a worldwide, non-exclusive, sub-licensable, transferable, fully paid-up, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable right to use, reproduce, distribute, modify, create derivative works, publicly perform, publicly display, digitally perform, make, have made, distribute and import their Stage III submission and other data submitted, in any media now known or hereafter developed, for any purpose whatsoever, commercial or otherwise, without further approval by or payment to the Winner, and represents that he/she/it has the unrestricted right to grant that license. Furthermore, the Winner grants the government and its designees a worldwide, non-exclusive, sub-licensable, transferable, fully paid-up, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, unlimited rights to the government or its designees to apply or utilize the submission, modified submission, or derivative work with other data not owned by the Finalist and that all resulting data output is available to the government for unlimited use.
For more information, and to register your intent to compete as a Solver or to commit your support of the Challenge as an Innovation Agent, visit
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.
See
OFAC: Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202-622-2490; Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480; or the Department of the Treasury's Office of the General Counsel: Office of the Chief Counsel (Foreign Assets Control), tel.: 202-622-2410.
The Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website (
On May 24, 2018, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authorities listed below.
1. YEGANE, Gulnihal (a.k.a. YEGANE AKSIT, Gulnihal; a.k.a. YEGANE, Gulnihal Kulak), Merkez Mah. Hasat Sok. No. 52/6 Sisli, Istanbul 21344, Turkey; Egs Bloklari B-1 Blok K.1 No: 114, Yesilkoy-Bakirkoy, Istanbul, Turkey; DOB 15 Sep 1975; POB Karabuk, Kula, Turkey; alt. POB Manisa, Kula, Turkey; nationality Turkey; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions; Gender Female; Passport 791029 (Turkey); National ID No. 27224237098 (Turkey) (individual) [SDGT] [IFSR] (Linked To: MAHAN AIR).
Designated pursuant to section 1(d)(i) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism,” (E.O. 13224) for assisting in, sponsoring, or providing financial, material, technological support for, or financial or other services to or in support of, Iran's MAHAN AIR, a person determined to be subject to E.O. 13224.
2. RONAGHI, Iraj, No. 3-11 Tower B, Tehran Towers, Hormozan St. Phase 2, Shahrak, Qods, Tehran, Iran; DOB 18 Nov 1952; POB Tehran, Iran; citizen Iran; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions; Gender Male (individual) [SDGT] [IFSR] (Linked To: MERAJ AIR).
Designated pursuant to sections 1(c) of E.O. 13224 for acting for or on behalf of Iran's MERAJ AIR, a person determined to be subject to E.O. 13224.
3. ZANGANEH, Touraj (a.k.a. ZANGANEH, Tooraj Dehghani; a.k.a. ZANGENE, Touraj Dehgani; a.k.a. ZANGENEH, Touraj Dehghani), Iran; DOB 05 Aug 1958; POB Kermanshah, Iran; citizen Iran; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions; Gender Male (individual) [SDGT] [IFSR] (Linked To: MERAJ AIR).
Designated pursuant to sections 1(c) of E.O. 13224 for acting for or on behalf of Iran's MERAJ AIR, a person determined to be subject to E.O. 13224.
1. BLUE AIRWAYS (a.k.a. BLUE SKY SZE), Mahan Air Tower, Azadegn Street, Karaj Highway, Tehran, Iran; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions [SDGT] [IFSR] (Linked To: MAHAN AIR).
Designated pursuant to section 1(c) of E.O. 13224 for acting for or on behalf of Iran's MAHAN AIR, a person determined to be subject to E.O. 13224.
Also designated pursuant to section 1(d)(i) for assisting in, sponsoring, or providing financial, material, technological support for, or financial or other services to or in support of, Iran's MAHAN AIR, a person determined to be subject to E.O. 13224.
2. OTIK AVIATION (a.k.a. OTIK HAVACILIK SANAYI VE TICARET LIMITED SIRKETI), Kent Pasaji C Blok No: 2/33-3, Halaskargazi Caddesi Eftal Sokak Sisli, Istanbul 34371, Turkey; Halaskar Gazi Cad. Eftal Sk. Kent Pasaji No: 2/33 Sisli, Istanbul 31371, Turkey; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions; Registration ID 844437 (Turkey) [SDGT] [IFSR] (Linked To: MAHAN AIR).
Designated pursuant to section 1(d)(i) of E.O. 13224 for assisting in, sponsoring, or providing financial, material, technological support for, or financial or other services to or in support of, Iran's MAHAN AIR, a person determined to be subject to E.O. 13224.
3. TRIGRON LOJISTIK KARGO LIMITED SIRKETI (a.k.a. TRIGRON CARGO LOGISTICS LTD.; a.k.a. TRIGRON KARGO; a.k.a. TRIGRON KARGO LOJISTIK), Airport Hill Sitesi C Blok D. 6, NO: 11-D, Degirmenbahce Caddesi 11-D-C Blok, Bahcelievler, Istanbul 34180, Turkey; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions; Business Registration Document # 846711 (Turkey) [SDGT] [IFSR] (Linked To: MAHAN AIR; Linked To: YEGANE, Gulnihal).
Designated pursuant to section 1(c) of E.O. 13224 for being owned or controlled by GULNIHAL YEGANE, a person determined to be subject to E.O. 13224.
Also designated pursuant to section 1 (d)(i) of E.O. 13224 for assisting in, sponsoring, or providing financial, material, technological support for, or financial or other services to or in support of, MAHAN AIR, a person determined to be subject to E.O. 13224.
4. 3G LOJISTIK VE HAVACILIK HIZMETLERI LTD. SIRKETI, No. 3/182 Altintepe Bagdat Cad. Istasyon Yolu Sok., Istanbul 34840, Turkey; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions [SDGT] [IFSR] (Linked To: MAHAN AIR).
Designated pursuant to section 1(d)(i) of E.O. 13224 for assisting in, sponsoring, or providing financial, material, technological support for, or financial or other services to or in support of, MAHAN AIR, a person determined to be subject to E.O. 13224.
5. RA HAVACILIK LOJISTIK VE TASIMACILIK TICARET LIMITED SIRKETI, No: 3/101, Yesilce Mahallesi Dalgic Sokak, Kagithane, Istanbul, Turkey; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions; Business Registration Document #49840 (Turkey); Tax ID No. 7340903161 (Turkey) [SDGT] [IFSR] (Linked To: MAHAN AIR).
Designated pursuant to section 1(d)(i) of E.O. 13224 for assisting in, sponsoring, or providing financial, material, technological support for, or financial or other services to or in support of, MAHAN AIR, a person determined to be subject to E.O. 13224.
6. DENA AIRWAYS (a.k.a. DENA AIRLINES), Tehran, Iran; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions [SDGT] [IFSR] (Linked To: MERAJ AIR; Linked To: RONAGHI, Iraj; Linked To: ZANGANEH, Touraj).
Designated pursuant to section 1(c) of E.O. 13224 for being owned or controlled by IRAJ RONAGHI, a person determined to be subject to E.O. 13224.
Also designated pursuant to section 1(c) of E.O. 13224 for being owned or controlled by TOURAJ ZANGANEH, a person determined to be subject to E.O. 13224.
Also designated pursuant to section 1(c) of E.O. 13224 for acting for or on behalf of Iran's MERAJ AIR, persons determined to be subject to E.O. 13224.
1. EP-CAQ; Aircraft Manufacture Date 01 Oct 1992; Aircraft Model B737; Aircraft Operator Caspian Air; Aircraft Manufacturer's Serial Number (MSN) 26467; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions (aircraft) [SDGT] [IFSR] (Linked To: CASPIAN AIRLINES).
Blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224 for being property in which CASPIAN AIR, a person whose property and interest in property are blocked, has an interest.
2. EP-CAR; Aircraft Manufacture Date 21 Jun 1993; Aircraft Model B737; Aircraft Operator Caspian Air; Aircraft Manufacturer's Serial Number (MSN) 26451; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions (aircraft) [SDGT] [IFSR] (Linked To: CASPIAN AIRLINES).
Blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224 for being property in which CASPIAN AIR, a person whose property and interest in property are blocked, has an interest.
3. EP-CAS; Aircraft Manufacture Date 31 Aug 1999; Aircraft Model DC-9; Aircraft Operator Caspian Air; Aircraft Manufacturer's Serial Number (MSN) 53623; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions (aircraft) [SDGT] [IFSR] (Linked To: CASPIAN AIRLINES).
Blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224 for being property in which CASPIAN AIR, a person whose property and interest in property are blocked, has an interest.
4. EP-CPD; Aircraft Manufacture Date Aug 1995; Aircraft Model DC-9; Aircraft Operator Caspian Air; Aircraft Manufacturer's Serial Number (MSN) 53188; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions (aircraft) [SDGT] [IFSR] (Linked To: CASPIAN AIRLINES).
Blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224 for being property in which CASPIAN AIR, a person whose property and interest in property are blocked, has an interest.
5. EP-CPU; Aircraft Manufacture Date Apr 1994; Aircraft Model DC-9; Aircraft Operator Caspian Air; Aircraft Manufacturer's Serial Number (MSN) 53223; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary
Blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224 for being property in which CASPIAN AIR, a person whose property and interest in property are blocked, has an interest.
6. EP-CAP; Aircraft Manufacture Date 18 Sep 1992; Aircraft Model B737; Aircraft Operator Caspian Air; Aircraft Manufacturer's Serial Number (MSN) 26466; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions (aircraft) [SDGT] [IFSR] (Linked To: CASPIAN AIRLINES).
Blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224 for being property in which CASPIAN AIR, a person whose property and interest in property are blocked, has an interest.
7. EP-CPV; Aircraft Manufacture Date 20 Oct 1990; Aircraft Model DC-9; Aircraft Operator Caspian Air; Aircraft Manufacturer's Serial Number (MSN) 49938; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions (aircraft) [SDGT] [IFSR] (Linked To: CASPIAN AIRLINES).
Blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224 for being property in which CASPIAN AIR, a person whose property and interest in property are blocked, has an interest.
8. EP-CPX; Aircraft Manufacture Date Jul 1994; Aircraft Model DC-9; Aircraft Operator Caspian Air; Aircraft Manufacturer's Serial Number (MSN) 53463; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions (aircraft) [SDGT] [IFSR] (Linked To: CASPIAN AIRLINES).
Blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224 for being property in which CASPIAN AIR, a person whose property and interest in property are blocked, has an interest.
9. EP-CPZ; Aircraft Manufacture Date Aug 1994; Aircraft Model DC-9; Aircraft Operator Caspian Air; Aircraft Manufacturer's Serial Number (MSN) 53464; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions (aircraft) [SDGT] [IFSR] (Linked To: CASPIAN AIRLINES).
Blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224 for being property in which CASPIAN AIR, a person whose property and interest in property are blocked, has an interest.
10. EP-MOS; Aircraft Manufacture Date 15 Mar 1999; Aircraft Model BAe RJ85; Aircraft Operator Mahan Air; Aircraft Manufacturer's Serial Number (MSN) 2347; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions (aircraft) [SDGT] [IFSR] (Linked To: MAHAN AIR).
Blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224 for being property in which MAHAN AIR, a person whose property and interest in property are blocked, has an interest.
11. EP-MOR; Aircraft Manufacture Date 20 Nov 2001; Aircraft Model BAe RJ85; Aircraft Operator Mahan Air; Aircraft Manufacturer's Serial Number (MSN) 2392; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions (aircraft) [SDGT] [IFSR] (Linked To: MAHAN AIR).
Blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224 for being property in which MAHAN AIR, a person whose property and interest in property are blocked, has an interest.
12. EP-MOQ; Aircraft Manufacture Date 24 Mar 1995; Aircraft Model BAe RJ85; Aircraft Operator Mahan Air; Aircraft Manufacturer's Serial Number (MSN) 2261; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions (aircraft) [SDGT] [IFSR] (Linked To: MAHAN AIR).
Blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224 for being property in which MAHAN AIR, a person whose property and interest in property are blocked, has an interest.
13. EP-MOP; Aircraft Manufacture Date 14 Mar 1995; Aircraft Model BAe RJ85; Aircraft Operator Mahan Air; Aircraft Manufacturer's Serial Number (MSN) 2257; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions (aircraft) [SDGT] [IFSR] (Linked To: MAHAN AIR).
Blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224 for being property in which MAHAN AIR, a person whose property and interest in property are blocked, has an interest.
14. EP-MOM; Aircraft Manufacture Date 12 May 1990; Aircraft Model BAe 146-300; Aircraft Operator Mahan Air; Aircraft Manufacturer's Serial Number (MSN) 3165; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions (aircraft) [SDGT] [IFSR] (Linked To: MAHAN AIR).
Blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224 for being property in which MAHAN AIR, a person whose property and interest in property are blocked, has an interest.
15. EP-MOD; Aircraft Manufacture Date 12 Nov 1990; Aircraft Model BAe 146-300; Aircraft Operator Mahan Air; Aircraft Manufacturer's Serial Number (MSN) 3162; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions (aircraft) [SDGT] [IFSR] (Linked To: MAHAN AIR).
Blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224 for being property in which MAHAN AIR, a person whose property and interest in property are blocked, has an interest.
16. EP-MNF; Aircraft Manufacture Date 07 Aug 1990; Aircraft Model A310-304; Aircraft Operator Mahan Air; Aircraft Manufacturer's Serial Number (MSN) 547; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions (aircraft) [SDGT] [IFSR] (Linked To: MAHAN AIR).
Blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224 for being property in which MAHAN AIR, a person whose property and interest in property are blocked, has an interest.
17. EP-MMV; Aircraft Manufacture Date 12 Aug 1987; Aircraft Model BAe 146-200; Aircraft Operator Mahan Air; Aircraft Manufacturer's Serial Number (MSN) 2079; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions (aircraft) [SDGT] [IFSR] (Linked To: MAHAN AIR).
Blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224 for being property in which MAHAN AIR, a person whose property and interest in property are blocked, has an interest.
18. EP-MMJ; Aircraft Manufacture Date 05 Oct 1989; Aircraft Model A310-304; Aircraft Operator Mahan Air; Aircraft Manufacturer's Serial Number (MSN) 526; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions (aircraft) [SDGT] [IFSR] (Linked To: MAHAN AIR).
Blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224 for being property in which MAHAN AIR, a person whose property and interest in property are blocked, has an interest.
19. EP-MMC; Aircraft Manufacture Date 18 Jun 1999; Aircraft Model A340-313X; Aircraft Operator Mahan Air; Aircraft Manufacturer's Serial Number (MSN) 282; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions (aircraft) [SDGT] [IFSR] (Linked To: MAHAN AIR).
Blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224 for being property in which MAHAN AIR, a person whose property and interest in property are blocked, has an interest.
20. EP-MMB; Aircraft Manufacture Date 07 Dec 1994; Aircraft Model A340-311; Aircraft Operator Mahan Air; Aircraft Manufacturer's Serial Number (MSN) 56; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions (aircraft) [SDGT] [IFSR] (Linked To: MAHAN AIR).
Blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224 for being property in which MAHAN AIR, a person whose property and interest in property are blocked, has an interest.
21. EP-MMA; Aircraft Manufacture Date 08 Sep 1993; Aircraft Model A340-311; Aircraft Operator Mahan Air; Aircraft Manufacturer's Serial Number (MSN) 20; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions (aircraft) [SDGT] [IFSR] (Linked To: MAHAN AIR).
Blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224 for being property in which MAHAN AIR, a person whose property and interest in property are blocked, has an interest.
22. EP-SIG; Aircraft Manufacture Date 15 Feb 1995; Aircraft Model A300; Aircraft Operator Meraj Air; Aircraft Manufacturer's Serial Number (MSN) 750; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions (aircraft) [SDGT] [IFSR] (Linked To: MERAJ AIR).
Blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224 for being property in which MERAJ AIR, a person whose property and interest in property are blocked, has an interest.
23. EP-SIF; Aircraft Manufacture Date 19 Oct 1995; Aircraft Model A300; Aircraft Operator Meraj Air; Aircraft Manufacturer's Serial Number (MSN) 762; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions (aircraft) [SDGT] [IFSR] (Linked To: MERAJ AIR).
Blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224 for being property in which MERAJ AIR, a person whose property and interest in property are blocked, has an interest.
24. EP-AJI; Aircraft Manufacture Date 11 Aug 2000; Aircraft Model A320; Aircraft Operator Meraj Air; Aircraft Manufacturer's Serial Number (MSN) 1300; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions (aircraft) [SDGT] [IFSR] (Linked To: MERAJ AIR).
Blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224 for being property in which MERAJ AIR, a person whose property and interest in property are blocked, has an interest.
25. EP-AJH; Aircraft Manufacture Date 27 Oct 2000; Aircraft Model A320; Aircraft Operator Meraj Air; Aircraft Manufacturer's Serial Number (MSN) 1353; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions (aircraft) [SDGT] [IFSR] (Linked To: MERAJ AIR).
Blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224 for being property in which MERAJ AIR, a person whose property and interest in property are blocked, has an interest.
26. EP-AJC; Aircraft Manufacture Date 28 Feb 1995; Aircraft Model A320; Aircraft Operator Meraj Air; Aircraft Manufacturer's Serial Number (MSN) 530; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions (aircraft) [SDGT] [IFSR] (Linked To: MERAJ AIR).
Blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224 for being property in which MERAJ AIR, a person whose property and interest in property are blocked, has an interest.
27. EP-PUM; Aircraft Manufacture Date 2002; Aircraft Model An-74; Aircraft Operator Pouya Air; Aircraft Manufacturer's Serial Number (MSN) 3654701211059; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions (aircraft) [SDGT] [IRGC] [IFSR] (Linked To: POUYA AIR).
Blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224 for being property in which POUYA AIR, a person whose property and interest in property are blocked, has an interest.
28. EP-PUL; Aircraft Manufacture Date 1983; Aircraft Model IL-76; Aircraft Operator Pouya Air; Aircraft Manufacturer's Serial Number (MSN) 33448393; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions (aircraft) [SDGT] [IRGC] [IFSR] (Linked To: POUYA AIR).
Blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224 for being property in which POUYA AIR, a person whose property and interest in property are blocked, has an interest.
29. EP-PUA; Aircraft Manufacture Date 1998; Aircraft Model An-74; Aircraft Operator Pouya Air; Aircraft Manufacturer's Serial Number (MSN) 3654701211055; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions (aircraft) [SDGT] [IRGC] [IFSR] (Linked To: POUYA AIR).
Blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224 for being property in which POUYA AIR, a person whose property and interest in property are blocked, has an interest.
30. EP-LDC; Aircraft Manufacture Date 26 Sep 1997; Aircraft Model ERJ-145; Aircraft Operator Pouya Air; Aircraft Manufacturer's Serial Number (MSN) 145026; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions (aircraft) [SDGT] [IRGC] [IFSR] (Linked To: POUYA AIR).
Blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224 for being property in which POUYA AIR, a person whose property and interest in property are blocked, has an interest.
31. EP-LDA; Aircraft Manufacture Date 17 Sep 1997; Aircraft Model ERJ-145; Aircraft Operator Pouya Air; Aircraft Manufacturer's Serial Number (MSN) 145025; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions (aircraft) [SDGT] [IRGC] [IFSR] (Linked To: POUYA AIR).
Blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224 for being property in which POUYA AIR, a person whose property and interest in property are blocked, has an interest.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.
See
The Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website (
On June 11, 2018, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authority listed below.
1. CHIRIKOV, Oleg Sergeyevich (a.k.a. CHIRIKOV, Oleg); DOB 26 Nov 1984; Passport 715896188 (Russia) (individual) [CYBER2] (Linked To: DIVETECHNOSERVICES).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(C) of E.O. 13694, as amended, for having acted for or on behalf of, DIVETECHNOSERVICES, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13694.
2. KAGANSKIY, Vladimir Yakovlevich (a.k.a. KAGANSKIY, Vladimir), Russia; DOB 23 Dec 1957; Gender Male; Passport 726105847 (Russia) (individual) [CYBER2] (Linked To: DIVETECHNOSERVICES).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(C) of E.O. 13694, as amended, for having acted for or on behalf of, DIVETECHNOSERVICES, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13694.
3. TRIBUN, Aleksandr Lvovich (Cyrillic: ТРИБУН, Александр Львович) (a.k.a. TRIBUN, Aleksandr; a.k.a. TRIBUN, Alexandr Lvovich), Russia; DOB 29 Aug 1969; Passport 7195142631 (Russia) (individual) [CYBER2] (Linked To: DIVETECHNOSERVICES).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(C) of E.O. 13694, as amended, for having acted for or on behalf of, DIVETECHNOSERVICES, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13694.
1. DIGITAL SECURITY (a.k.a. DIGITAL SECURITY RESEARCH GROUP; a.k.a. OOO DIGITAL SECURITY; a.k.a. “DSEC”), Saint Petersburg, Russia; Moscow, Russia [CYBER2] (Linked To: FEDERAL SECURITY SERVICE).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(B) of E.O. 13694, as amended, for having materially assisted, sponsored or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, the FEDERAL SECURITY SERVICE, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13694.
2. EMBEDI, Russia; Herzliya, Israel [CYBER2] (Linked To: DIGITAL SECURITY).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(C) of E.O. 13694, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, directly or indirectly, DIGITAL SECURITY, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13694.
3. ERPSCAN (Cyrillic: ERPCKAH), Russia; Amsterdam, Netherlands; Prague, Czech Republic; Tel Aviv, Israel [CYBER2] (Linked To: DIGITAL SECURITY).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(C) of E.O. 13694, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, directly or indirectly, DIGITAL SECURITY, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13694.
4. KVANT SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH INSTITUTE (a.k.a. NAUCHNO-ISSLEDOVATELSKIY INSTITUT KVANT; a.k.a. NII KVANT; a.k.a. RUSSIAN FEDERAL STATE UNITARY ENTERPRISE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH INSTITUTE KVANT), Khovrino District, Moscow, Russia; St. Petersburg, Russia [CYBER2] [CAATSA—RUSSIA] (Linked To: FEDERAL SECURITY SERVICE).
Designated pursuant to section 224(a)(1)(B) of the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, (CAATSA), Public Law 115-44, for being owned or controlled by, directly or indirectly, the FEDERAL SECURITY SERVICE, a person designated under section 224(a)(1)(A) of CAATSA.
Also designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(C) of E.O. 13694, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, directly or indirectly, the FEDERAL SECURITY SERVICE, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13694.
Also designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(B) of E.O. 13694, as amended, for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, the FEDERAL SECURITY SERVICE, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13694.
5. DIVETECHNOSERVICES (a.k.a. DAIVTEKHNOSERVIS, OOO; a.k.a. DAYVTEKHNOSERVIS; a.k.a. DIVE TECHNO SERVICES), d. 18 korp. 2 litera A, ul. Zheleznovodskaya, St. Petersburg 199155, Russia [CYBER2] (Linked To: FEDERAL SECURITY SERVICE).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(B) of E.O. 13694, as amended, for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, the FEDERAL SECURITY SERVICE, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13694.
Loan Guaranty Service, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Loan Guaranty Service, Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden and it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before July 16, 2018.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-5870 or email
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden; it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before July 16, 2018.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor, Office of Quality, Privacy and Risk (OQPR), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-5870 or email
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule; availability of supplemental information.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (hereinafter the Service or we) proposes to establish annual hunting regulations for certain migratory game birds for the 2019-20 hunting season. We annually prescribe outside limits (frameworks) within which States may select hunting seasons. This proposed rule provides the regulatory schedule, announces the Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee (SRC) and Flyway Council meetings, describes the proposed regulatory alternatives for the 2019-20 duck hunting seasons, and requests proposals from Indian tribes that wish to establish special migratory game bird hunting regulations on Federal Indian reservations and ceded lands. Migratory bird hunting seasons provide opportunities for recreation and sustenance; aid Federal, State, and tribal governments in the management of migratory game birds; and permit harvests at levels compatible with migratory game bird population status and habitat conditions.
You may submit comments on the proposals by one of the following methods:
•
•
We will not accept emailed or faxed comments. We will post all comments on
Ron W. Kokel at: Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, MS: MB, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041; (703) 358-1714.
As part of DOI's retrospective regulatory review, 3 years ago we developed a schedule for migratory game bird hunting regulations that is more efficient and provides hunting season dates earlier than was possible under the old process. The new process makes planning easier for the States and all parties interested in migratory bird hunting. Beginning in the summer of 2015, with the development of the 2016-17 hunting seasons, we started promulgating our annual migratory game bird hunting regulations using a new schedule that combines the previously used early- and late-season regulatory processes into a single process. We make decisions for harvest management based on predictions derived from long-term biological information and established harvest strategies and, therefore, can establish migratory bird hunting seasons earlier than the system we used for many years. Under the new process, we develop proposed hunting season frameworks for a given year in the fall of the prior year. We then finalize those frameworks a few months later, thereby enabling the State agencies to select and publish their season dates in early summer. This proposed rule is the first in a series of proposed and final rulemaking documents for the establishment of the 2019-20 hunting seasons.
Migratory game birds are those bird species so designated in conventions between the United States and several foreign nations for the protection and management of these birds. Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712), the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to determine when “hunting, taking, capture, killing, possession, sale, purchase, shipment, transportation, carriage, or export of any * * * bird, or any part, nest, or egg” of migratory game birds can take place, and to adopt regulations for this purpose. These regulations are written after giving due regard to “the zones of temperature and to the distribution, abundance, economic value, breeding habits, and times and lines of migratory flight of such birds” and are updated annually (16 U.S.C. 704(a)). This responsibility has been delegated to the Service as the lead Federal agency for managing and conserving migratory birds in the United States. However, migratory game bird management is a cooperative effort of State, Tribal, and Federal governments.
The Service develops migratory game bird hunting regulations by establishing the frameworks, or outside limits, for season lengths, bag limits, and areas for migratory game bird hunting. Acknowledging regional differences in hunting conditions, the Service has administratively divided the Nation into four Flyways for the primary purpose of managing migratory game birds. Each Flyway (Atlantic, Mississippi, Central, and Pacific) has a Flyway Council, a formal organization generally composed of one member from each State and Province in that Flyway. The Flyway Councils, established through the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, also assist in researching and providing migratory game bird management information for Federal, State, and Provincial governments, as well as private conservation entities and the general public.
The process for adopting migratory game bird hunting regulations, located in title 50 of the Code of Federal
For the regulatory cycle, Service biologists gather, analyze, and interpret biological survey data and provide this information to all those involved in the process through a series of published status reports and presentations to Flyway Councils and other interested parties. Because the Service is required to take abundance of migratory game birds and other factors into consideration, the Service undertakes a number of surveys throughout the year in conjunction with Service Regional Offices, the Canadian Wildlife Service, and State and Provincial wildlife-management agencies. To determine the appropriate frameworks for each species, we consider factors such as population size and trend, geographical distribution, annual breeding effort, condition of breeding and wintering habitat, number of hunters, and anticipated harvest. After frameworks are established for season lengths, bag limits, and areas for migratory game bird hunting, States may select season dates, bag limits, and other regulatory options for the hunting seasons. States may always be more conservative in their selections than the Federal frameworks, but never more liberal.
The SRC will conduct an open meeting on July 10, 2018, to discuss preliminary issues for the 2019-20 regulations, and on October 16-17, 2018, to review information on the current status of migratory game birds and develop 2019-20 migratory game bird regulations recommendations for these species. In accordance with Departmental policy, these meetings are open to public observation. You may submit written comments to the Service on the matters discussed. See
Service representatives will be present at the individual meetings of the four Flyway Councils this August and September. Although agendas are not yet available, these meetings usually commence at 8 a.m. on the days indicated.
This document announces our intent to establish open hunting seasons and daily bag and possession limits for certain designated groups or species of migratory game birds for 2019-20 in the contiguous United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, under §§ 20.101 through 20.107, 20.109, and 20.110 of subpart K of 50 CFR part 20. For the 2019-20 migratory game bird hunting season, we will propose regulations for certain designated members of the avian families Anatidae (ducks, geese, and swans); Columbidae (doves and pigeons); Gruidae (cranes); Rallidae (rails, coots, moorhens, and gallinules); and Scolopacidae (woodcock and snipe). We describe these proposals under Proposed 2019-20 Migratory Game Bird Hunting Regulations (Preliminary) in this document. We annually publish definitions of flyways and management units, and a description of the data used in and the factors affecting the regulatory process (see May 30, 2017,
This document is the first in a series of proposed, supplemental, and final rulemaking documents for migratory game bird hunting regulations. We will publish additional supplemental proposals for public comment in the
Later sections of this and subsequent documents will refer only to numbered items requiring your attention. Therefore, it is important to note that we will omit those items requiring no attention, so remaining numbered items will be discontinuous, making the list appear incomplete.
The proposed regulatory alternatives for the 2019-20 duck hunting seasons are contained at the end of this document. We plan to publish final regulatory alternatives in late-August. We plan to publish proposed season frameworks in mid-December 2018. We plan to publish final season frameworks in late February 2019.
This proposed rulemaking contains the proposed regulatory alternatives for the 2019-20 duck hunting seasons. This proposed rulemaking also describes other recommended changes or specific preliminary proposals that vary from the 2018-19 regulations and issues requiring early discussion, action, or the attention of the States or tribes. We will publish responses to all proposals and written comments when we develop final frameworks for the 2019-20 season. We seek additional information and comments on this proposed rule.
For administrative purposes, this document consolidates the notice of our intent to establish open migratory game bird hunting seasons and the request for tribal proposals with the preliminary proposals for the annual hunting regulations-development process. We will publish the remaining proposed and final rulemaking documents separately. For inquiries on tribal guidelines and proposals, tribes should contact the following personnel:
Region 1 (Idaho, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, and the Pacific Islands)—Nanette Seto, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 911 NE 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232-4181; (503) 231-6164.
Region 2 (Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas)—Scott Carleton, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 500 Gold Avenue SW, Albuquerque, NM 87102; (505) 248-6639.
Region 3 (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin)—Tom Cooper, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 5600 American Blvd. West, Suite 990, Bloomington, MN 55437-1458; (612) 713-5101.
Region 4 (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, South Carolina, and Tennessee)—Laurel Barnhill, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1875 Century Boulevard, Room 324, Atlanta, GA 30345; (404) 679-4000.
Region 5 (Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia)—Pam Toschik, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 300 Westgate Center Drive, Hadley, MA 01035-9589; (413) 253-8610.
Region 6 (Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming)—Brian Smith, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 25486, Denver Federal Building, Denver, CO 80225; (303) 236-8145.
Region 7 (Alaska)—Eric Taylor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 East Tudor Road, Anchorage, AK 99503; (907) 786-3423.
Region 8 (California and Nevada)—Amedee Brickey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, CA 95825-1846; (916) 414-6480.
Beginning with the 1985-86 hunting season, we have employed guidelines described in the June 4, 1985,
(1) On-reservation hunting by both tribal and nontribal members, with hunting by nontribal members on some reservations to take place within Federal frameworks, but on dates different from those selected by the surrounding State(s);
(2) On-reservation hunting by tribal members only, outside of usual Federal frameworks for season dates, season length, and daily bag and possession limits; and
(3) Off-reservation hunting by tribal members on ceded lands, outside of usual framework dates and season length, with some added flexibility in daily bag and possession limits.
In all cases, tribal regulations established under the guidelines must be consistent with the annual March 11 to August 31 closed season mandated by the 1916 Convention Between the United States and Great Britain (for Canada) for the Protection of Migratory Birds (Convention). The guidelines are applicable to those tribes that have reserved hunting rights on Federal Indian reservations (including off-reservation trust lands) and ceded lands. They also may be applied to the establishment of migratory game bird hunting regulations for nontribal members on all lands within the exterior boundaries of reservations where tribes have full wildlife-management authority over such hunting, or where the tribes and affected States otherwise have reached agreement over hunting by nontribal members on non-Indian lands.
Tribes usually have the authority to regulate migratory game bird hunting by nonmembers on Indian-owned reservation lands, subject to our approval. The question of jurisdiction is more complex on reservations that include lands owned by non-Indians, especially when the surrounding States have established or intend to establish regulations governing migratory bird hunting by non-Indians on these lands. In such cases, we encourage the tribes and States to reach agreement on regulations that would apply throughout the reservations. When appropriate, we will consult with a tribe and State with the aim of facilitating an accord. We also will consult jointly with tribal and State officials in the affected States where tribes may wish to establish special hunting regulations for tribal members on ceded lands. It is incumbent upon the tribe and/or the State to request consultation as a result of the proposal being published in the
One of the guidelines provides for the continuation of tribal members' harvest of migratory game birds on reservations where such harvest is a customary practice. We do not oppose this harvest, provided it does not take place during the closed season required by the Convention, and it is not so large as to adversely affect the status of the migratory game bird resource. Since the inception of these guidelines, we have reached annual agreement with tribes for migratory game bird hunting by tribal members on their lands or on lands where they have reserved hunting rights. We will continue to consult with tribes that wish to reach a mutual agreement on hunting regulations for on-reservation hunting by tribal members. Tribes should not view the guidelines as inflexible. We believe that they provide appropriate opportunity to accommodate the reserved hunting rights and management authority of Indian tribes while also ensuring that the migratory game bird resource receives necessary protection. The conservation of this important international resource is paramount. Use of the guidelines is not required if a tribe wishes to observe the hunting regulations established by the State(s) in which the reservation is located.
Tribes that wish to use the guidelines to establish special hunting regulations for the 2019-20 migratory game bird hunting season should submit a proposal that includes: (1) The requested migratory game bird hunting season dates and other details regarding the proposed regulations; (2) Harvest anticipated under the proposed regulations; and (3) Tribal capabilities to enforce migratory game bird hunting regulations. For those situations where it could be shown that failure to limit Tribal harvest could seriously impact the migratory game bird resource, we also request information on the methods employed to monitor harvest and any potential steps taken to limit level of harvest.
A tribe that desires the earliest possible opening of the migratory game bird season for nontribal members
We will publish details of tribal proposals for public review in later
The Department of the Interior's policy is, whenever practicable, to afford the public an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process. Accordingly, we invite interested persons to submit written comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the proposed regulations. Before promulgation of final migratory game bird hunting regulations, we will take into consideration all comments we receive. Such comments, and any additional information we receive, may lead to final regulations that differ from these proposals.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in
For each series of proposed rulemakings, we will establish specific comment periods. We will consider, but may not respond in detail to, each comment. As in the past, we will summarize all comments we receive during the comment period and respond to them after the closing date in any final rules.
The programmatic document, “Second Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Issuance of Annual Regulations Permitting the Sport Hunting of Migratory Birds (EIS 20130139),” filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on May 24, 2013, addresses NEPA compliance by the Service for issuance of the annual framework regulations for hunting of migratory game bird species. We published a notice of availability in the
Before issuance of the 2019-20 migratory game bird hunting regulations, we will comply with provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; hereinafter the Act), to ensure that hunting is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species designated as endangered or threatened or modify or destroy its critical habitat and is consistent with conservation programs for those species. Consultations under section 7 of the Act may cause us to change proposals in this and future supplemental proposed rulemaking documents.
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review all significant rules. OIRA has reviewed this rule and has determined that this rule is significant because it would have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy.
E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
An economic analysis was prepared for the 2019-20 season. This analysis was based on data from the 2011 National Hunting and Fishing Survey, the most recent year for which data are available (see discussion in Regulatory Flexibility Act section below). This analysis estimated consumer surplus for three alternatives for duck hunting (estimates for other species are not quantified due to lack of data). The alternatives are (1) issue restrictive regulations allowing fewer days than those issued during the 2018-19 season, (2) issue moderate regulations allowing more days than those in alternative 1, and (3) issue liberal regulations identical to the regulations in the 2018-19 season. For the 2018-19 season, we chose Alternative 3, with an estimated consumer surplus across all flyways of $334-$440 million with a mid-point estimate of $387 million. We also chose alternative 3 for the 2009-10 through 2017-18 seasons. We will select regulations for the 2019-20 season in
The annual migratory bird hunting regulations have a significant economic impact on substantial numbers of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
We are required by E.O. 12866 and 12988 and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(a) Be logically organized;
(b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(c) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in
This proposed rule is a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. For the reasons outlined above, this rule would have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. However, because this rule would establish hunting seasons, we do not plan to defer the effective date under the exemption contained in 5 U.S.C. 808(1).
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. This rule does not contain any new collection of information that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
• 1018-0019, “North American Woodcock Singing Ground Survey” (expires 5/31/2018, and in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10, an agency may continue to conduct or sponsor this collection of information while the submission is pending at OMB).
• 1018-0023, “Migratory Bird Surveys, 50 CFR 20.20” (expires 8/31/2020). Includes Migratory Bird Harvest Information Program, Migratory Bird Hunter Surveys, Sandhill Crane Survey, and Parts Collection Survey.
• 1018-0171, “Establishment of Annual Migratory Bird Hunting Seasons, 50 CFR part 20” (expires 06/30/2021)
We have determined and certify, in compliance with the requirements of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502
The Department, in promulgating this proposed rule, has determined that this proposed rule will not unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988.
In accordance with E.O. 12630, this proposed rule, authorized by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, does not have significant takings implications and does not affect any constitutionally protected property rights. This rule would not result in the physical occupancy of property, the physical invasion of property, or the regulatory taking of any property. In fact, this rule would allow hunters to exercise otherwise unavailable privileges and, therefore, reduce restrictions on the use of private and public property.
E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. While this proposed rule is a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866, it is not expected to adversely affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175, and 512 DM 2, we have evaluated possible effects on Federally recognized Indian tribes and have determined that there are no effects on Indian trust resources. However, in this proposed rule, we solicit proposals for special migratory bird hunting regulations for certain tribes on Federal Indian reservations, off-reservation trust lands, and ceded lands for the 2019-20 migratory bird hunting season. The resulting proposals will be contained in a separate proposed rule. By virtue of these actions, we have consulted with tribes affected by this rule.
Due to the migratory nature of certain species of birds, the Federal Government has been given responsibility over these species by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. We annually prescribe frameworks from which the States make selections regarding the hunting of migratory birds, and we employ guidelines to establish special regulations on Federal Indian reservations and ceded lands. This process preserves the ability of the States and tribes to determine which seasons meet their individual needs. Any State or Indian tribe may be more restrictive than the Federal frameworks at any time. The frameworks are
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017) because it is issued with respect to routine hunting and fishing activities.
Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
The rules that eventually will be promulgated for the 2019-20 hunting season are authorized under 16 U.S.C. 703-711, 712, and 742 a-j.
Pending current information on populations, harvest, and habitat conditions, and receipt of recommendations from the four Flyway Councils, we may defer specific regulatory proposals. No changes from the 2018-19 frameworks in the Mississippi, Central, and Pacific Flyways are being proposed at this time. Other issues requiring early discussion, action, or the attention of the States or tribes are contained below:
Categories used to discuss issues related to duck harvest management are: (A) General Harvest Strategy, (B) Regulatory Alternatives, (C) Zones and Split Seasons, and (D) Special Seasons/Species Management. Only those categories containing substantial recommendations are discussed below.
We propose to continue using adaptive harvest management (AHM) to help determine appropriate duck-hunting regulations for the 2019-20 season. AHM permits sound resource decisions in the face of uncertain regulatory impacts and provides a mechanism for reducing that uncertainty over time. We use AHM to evaluate four alternative regulatory levels for duck hunting in the Mississippi, Central, and Pacific Flyways based on the population status of mallards. We are proposing to use AHM based on the population status of a suite of four species in the Atlantic Flyway (see below). We have specific hunting strategies for species of special concern, such as black ducks, scaup, and pintails.
The prescribed regulatory alternative for the Mississippi, Central, and Pacific Flyways is based on the status of mallard populations that contribute primarily to each Flyway. In the Central and Mississippi Flyways, we set hunting regulations based on the status and dynamics of mid-continent mallards. Mid-continent mallards are those breeding in central North America (Federal survey strata 13-18, 20-50, and 75-77, and State surveys in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan). In the Pacific Flyway, we set hunting regulations based on the status and dynamics of western mallards. Western mallards are those breeding in Alaska and the northern Yukon Territory (as based on Federal surveys in strata 1-12), and in California, Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia (as based on State- or Province-conducted surveys).
For the 2019-20 season, we recommend continuing to use independent optimization to determine the optimal regulatory choice for each mallard stock. This means that we would develop regulations for mid-continent mallards and western mallards independently, based upon the breeding stock that contributes primarily to each Flyway. We detailed implementation of this AHM decision framework for western and mid-continent mallards in the July 24, 2008,
Since 2000, the Service has used an AHM protocol based on the status of eastern mallards to establish the annual framework regulations for duck hunting seasons in the Atlantic Flyway. This protocol assumes that the mallard is an appropriate surrogate for other duck species in the Atlantic Flyway. By 2010 it was apparent that the biological models used in the AHM protocol were performing poorly in terms of accurately predicting the following year's eastern mallard breeding population, and this performance problem led to a comprehensive review of duck harvest management in the Atlantic Flyway. Following that review, the Atlantic Flyway Council (AFC) determined that eastern mallards do not adequately represent duck harvest dynamics throughout the entire flyway; they do not represent the breeding ecology and habitat requirements of other important Atlantic Flyway duck species because their breeding range does not overlap with that of other ducks that breed in the flyway; and their breeding and/or wintering habitat needs differ from many of the other duck species in the Flyway. Thus, although mallards comprise nearly 20 percent of the Atlantic Flyway's duck harvest, the status of eastern mallards does not necessarily reflect that of other Atlantic Flyway duck species. For example, mallards in eastern North America have declined at an annual rate of 1 percent since 1998, whereas over the same time period all other duck species in eastern North America for which robust population estimates are available are stable or increasing.
The AFC decided that a decision framework based upon a suite of duck species that better represents the habitat needs and harvest distribution of ducks in the Atlantic Flyway would be superior to the current eastern mallard AHM framework, and we concur. Accordingly, the Service and the AFC began working in 2013 to develop a multi-stock AHM protocol for setting annual duck hunting season frameworks for the Atlantic Flyway.
The multi-stock protocol development has now been completed, and we propose to adopt it in place of the eastern mallard AHM. The protocol is based on a suite of four species that represents the dynamics of duck harvest in the Atlantic Flyway and the various habitat types used by waterfowl throughout the Atlantic Flyway: Green-winged teal (
Species selection was also influenced by our need for sufficient time series of estimates of annual abundance and estimates of harvest rate or annual harvest. The proposed protocol has a harvest objective of no more than 98 percent of maximum sustainable long-term yield for any of the four species. Regulatory alternatives would be the same as those used in the eastern mallard AHM, except that the mallard bag limit would not be prescribed by the optimal regulatory alternative as determined by the multi-stock AHM protocol. Further details on biological models used in the protocol, data sources, optimization methods, and simulation results are available at
Although season length in the Atlantic Flyway would be determined by the proposed multi-stock protocol, the daily bag limit for black ducks will still be determined by the international black duck AHM harvest strategy. The mallard bag limit in the Atlantic Flyway will be based on a separate assessment of the harvest potential of eastern mallards.
We will detail the final AHM protocol for the 2019-20 season in the supplemental proposed rule, which we will publish in late August (see Schedule of Biological Information Availability, Regulations Meetings and
The basic structure of the current regulatory alternatives for AHM was adopted in 1997. In 2002, based upon recommendations from the Flyway Councils, we extended framework dates in the “moderate” and “liberal” regulatory alternatives by changing the opening date from the Saturday nearest October 1 to the Saturday nearest September 24, and by changing the closing date from the Sunday nearest January 20 to the last Sunday in January. These extended dates were made available with no associated penalty in season length or bag limits. At that time we stated our desire to keep these changes in place for 3 years to allow for a reasonable opportunity to monitor the impacts of framework-date extensions on harvest distribution and rates of harvest before considering any subsequent use (67 FR 12501; March 19, 2002).
For 2019-20, we propose to utilize the same regulatory alternatives that are in effect for the 2018-19 season (see accompanying table for specifics of the regulatory alternatives) for the Mississippi, Central, and Pacific Flyways. For the Atlantic Flyway, per our discussion above under section A. General Harvest Strategy, under the proposed multi-stock AHM protocol for the Atlantic Flyway, the mallard bag limit would not be prescribed by the regulatory alternative, but would instead be based on a separate assessment of the harvest potential of eastern mallards. We will propose a specific mallard bag limit for the Atlantic Flyway in December. Alternatives are specified for each Flyway and are designated as “RES” for the restrictive, “MOD” for the moderate, and “LIB” for the liberal alternative. Comments on the proposed alternatives will be accepted until July 18, 2018. Following receipt of public input, we will finalize the regulatory alternatives for each of the Flyways for the 2019-20 seasons in late-August 2018.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) will revise its Schedule of Regulatory Fees in order to recover an amount of $322,035,000 that Congress has required the Commission to collect for fiscal year 2018, as amended, provides for the annual assessment and collection of regulatory fees under and respectively, for annual “Mandatory Adjustments” and “Permitted Amendments” to the Schedule of Regulatory Fees.
Submit comments on or before June 21, 2018, and reply comments on or before July 6, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by MD Docket No. 18-175, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the
Roland Helvajian, Office of Managing Director at (202) 418-0444.
This is a summary of the Commission's
1. This
2.
•
•
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW, Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of
Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.
3.
4.
5. An initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) is contained in this summary. Comments to the IRFA must be identified as responses to the IRFA and filed by the deadlines for comments on the Notice. The Commission will send a copy of the Notice, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
6. This document does not contain proposed information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198,
7. In this
8. The Commission is required by Congress to assess regulatory fees each year in an amount that can reasonably be expected to equal the amount of its appropriation.
9. Congress sets the amount of regulatory fees the Commission must collect each year in the Commission's fiscal year appropriations. Section 9(a)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Communications Act or Act) requires the Commission to collect fees sufficient to offset the amount appropriated.
10. The Commission annually reviews the regulatory fee schedule, proposes changes to the schedule to reflect changes in the amount of its appropriation, and proposes increases or decreases to the schedule of regulatory fees.
11. As part of its annual review, the Commission regularly seeks to improve its regulatory fee analysis.
12. In this
13. In this
14. DBS service is a nationally distributed subscription service that delivers video and audio programming via satellite to a small parabolic dish antenna at the subscriber's location. The two DBS providers, AT&T and DISH Network, are multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs).
15. In 2015, the Commission adopted an initial regulatory fee for DBS, as a subcategory in the cable television and IPTV category, of 12 cents per year per subscriber, or one cent per month.
16. Based on our analysis of the cable television/IPTV category, we seek comment on whether Media Bureau resources devoted to MVPD proceedings, including DBS,
17. We seek comment on a DBS regulatory fee rate of 48 cents per subscriber per year, as set forth in the proposed fee schedule in Table 2. We invite comment on whether the proposed rate is appropriate. Ultimately, this will be an increase of ten cents from the FY 2017 DBS rate. Is such an increase justified based on Commission resources allocated to DBS, and the related benefits provided to DBS providers by the Commission's activities? Or is such an increase inappropriate because there is a reasonable basis to differentiate between DBS providers and cable television and IPTV?
18. On March 29, 2016, the Commission commenced the incentive auction to allow broadcast television stations to make their spectrum available for wireless broadband licensees. On April 13, 2017, the Commission released a Public Notice formally closing the auction,
19. In 2009, the Commission adopted a new methodology for calculating submarine cable international bearer circuits regulatory fees by eliminating the distinction between common carriers and non-common carriers and assessing a flat per cable landing license fee
20. In the
21. CenturyLink
22. SIA opposes a tiered approach for satellite IBC regulatory fees and contends that a tiered rate structure would result in “massive overcharges” and is “arbitrary and capricious.”
23. We do not, however, have sufficient information at this time to establish an appropriate tier structure for terrestrial and satellite IBCs. In the
24. Full service television station licensees are subject to regulatory fee payments based on the market served. Broadcast full service television stations pay regulatory fees based on the schedule of regulatory fees established in section 9(g) of the Communications Act, which consolidated stations into market groupings 1-10, 11-25, 26-50, 51-100, and remaining markets.
25. We seek comment on whether we can more accurately ascertain the actual market served by a station for purposes of assessing regulatory fees by examining the actual population covered by the station's contours rather than using DMAs. If adopted, this proposal would constitutes a permitted amendment as defined in section 9(b)(3) of the Act,
26. If adopted, this proposal would enable broadcasters to review population data for their service area. The data would be extracted from the TVStudy database, based on a station's projected noise-limited service contour, consistent with our rules.
27. Alternatively, we seek comment on whether, under the proposed methodology, we should calculate regulatory fees based on the specific population covered by the contour for each station, or whether we should group broadcast stations into tiers, based on the population, with the same
28. We tentatively conclude that revising our methodology for assessing regulatory fees for broadcast television stations would be a permitted amendment as defined in section 9(b)(3) of the Act,
29. The Commission recently proposed revisions to our rules to facilitate commercial deployment of a class of satellites known colloquially as “small satellites.”
30. We tentatively conclude that adopting a new regulatory fee category for small satellites would be a permitted amendment as defined in section 9(b)(3) of the Act,
31. Pursuant to an Office of Management and Budget (OMB) directive,
32. Since June 1, 2015, in accordance with U.S. Treasury Announcement No. A-2014-04 (July 2014), the amount that can be charged on a credit card for transactions with federal agencies has is $24,999.99.
33. During the fee season for collecting FY 2018 regulatory fees, regulatees can pay their fees by credit card through
34. Under the Commission's de minimis rule for regulatory fee payments, a regulatee is exempt from paying regulatory fees if the sum total of all of its annual regulatory fee liabilities is $1,000 or less for the fiscal year. The de minimis threshold applies only to filers of annual regulatory fees, not regulatory fees paid through multi-year filings, and it is not a permanent exemption. Each regulatee will need to reevaluate the total annual fee liability each fiscal year to determine whether they meet the de minimis exemption.
35. The Commission will accept fee payments made in advance of the window for the payment of regulatory fees. The responsibility for payment of fees by service category is as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
36. The Commission will compile data from the Numbering Resource Utilization Forecast (NRUF) report that is based on “assigned” telephone number (subscriber) counts that have been adjusted for porting to net Type 0
37. A carrier wishing to revise its telephone number (subscriber) count can do so by accessing Fee Filer and follow the prompts to revise their telephone number counts. Any revisions to the telephone number counts should be accompanied by an explanation or supporting documentation.
38. Because some carriers do not file the NRUF report, they may not see their telephone number counts in Fee Filer. In these instances, the carriers should compute their fee payment using the standard methodology that is currently in place for CMRS Wireless services (
39. To be considered timely, regulatory fee payments must be made electronically by the payment due date for regulatory fees. Section 9(c) of the Act requires us to impose a late payment penalty of 25 percent of the unpaid amount to be assessed on the first day following the deadline for filing these fees.
40. In addition to financial penalties, section 9(c)(3) of the Act,
41. Pursuant to the “red light rule,” we will withhold action on any applications or other requests for benefits filed by anyone who is delinquent in any non-tax debts owed to the Commission (including regulatory fees) and will ultimately dismiss those applications or other requests if payment of the delinquent debt or other satisfactory arrangement for payment is not made.
Regulatory fees for the categories shaded in gray are collected by the Commission in advance to cover the term of the license and are submitted at the time the application is filed.
Regulatory fees for the categories shaded in gray are collected by the Commission in advance to cover the term of the license and are submitted at the time the application is filed.
In order to calculate individual service fees for FY 2018, we adjusted FY 2017 payment units for each service to more accurately reflect expected FY 2018 payment liabilities. We obtained our updated estimates through a variety of means. For example, we used Commission licensee data bases, actual prior year payment records and industry and trade association projections when available. The databases we consulted include our Universal Licensing System (ULS), International Bureau Filing System (IBFS), Consolidated Database System (CDBS) and Cable Operations and Licensing System (COALS), as well as reports generated within the Commission such as the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau's
We sought verification for these estimates from multiple sources and, in all cases, we compared FY 2018 estimates with actual FY 2017 payment units to ensure that our revised estimates were reasonable. Where appropriate, we adjusted and/or rounded our final estimates to take into consideration the fact that certain variables that impact on the number of payment units cannot yet be estimated with sufficient accuracy. These include an unknown number of waivers and/or exemptions that may occur in FY 2018 and the fact that, in many services, the number of actual licensees or station operators fluctuates from time to time due to economic, technical, or other reasons. When we note, for example, that our estimated FY 2018 payment units are based on FY 2017 actual
For stations with nondirectional daytime antennas, the theoretical radiation was used at all azimuths. For stations with directional daytime antennas, specific information on each day tower, including field ratio, phase, spacing, and orientation was retrieved, as well as the theoretical pattern root-mean-square of the radiation in all directions in the horizontal plane (RMS) figure (milliVolt per meter (mV/m) @1 km) for the antenna system. The standard, or augmented standard if pertinent, horizontal plane radiation pattern was calculated using techniques and methods specified in sections 73.150 and 73.152 of the Commission's rules. Radiation values were calculated for each of 360 radials around the transmitter site. Next, estimated soil conductivity data was retrieved from a database representing the information in FCC Figure R3. Using the calculated horizontal radiation values, and the retrieved soil conductivity data, the distance to the principal community (5 mV/m) contour was predicted for each of the 360 radials. The resulting distance to principal community contours were used to form a geographical polygon. Population counting was accomplished by determining which 2010 block centroids were contained in the polygon. (A block centroid is the center point of a small area containing population as computed by the U.S. Census Bureau.) The sum of the population figures for all enclosed blocks represents the total population for the predicted principal community coverage area.
The greater of the horizontal or vertical effective radiated power (ERP) (kW) and respective height above average terrain (HAAT) (m) combination was used. Where the antenna height above mean sea level (HAMSL) was available, it was used in lieu of the average HAAT figure to calculate specific HAAT figures for each of 360 radials under study. Any available directional pattern information was applied as well, to produce a radial-specific ERP figure. The HAAT and ERP figures were used in conjunction with the Field Strength (50-50) propagation curves specified in 47 CFR 73.313 of the Commission's rules to predict the distance to the principal community (70 dBu (decibel above 1 microVolt per meter) or 3.17 mV/m) contour for each of the 360 radials. The resulting distance to principal community contours were used to form a geographical polygon. Population counting was accomplished by determining which 2010 block centroids were contained in the polygon. The sum of the population figures for all enclosed blocks represents the total population for the predicted principal community coverage area.
Regulatory fees for the categories shaded in gray are collected by the Commission in advance to cover the term of the license and are submitted at the time the application is filed.
1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),
2. The
3. This action, including publication of proposed rules, is authorized under sections (4)(i) and (j), 9, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.
4. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules and policies, if adopted.
5. Small Entities. Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe here, at the outset, three comprehensive small entity size standards that could be directly affected by the proposals under consideration.
6. Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau defines this industry as “establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired communications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of
7. Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses specifically applicable to local exchange services. The closest applicable NAICS code category is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
8. Incumbent LECs. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for incumbent local exchange services. The closest applicable NAICS code category is Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
9. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (Competitive LECs), Competitive Access Providers (CAPs), Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and Other Local Service Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for these service providers. The appropriate NAICS code category is Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
10. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a definition for Interexchange Carriers. The closest NAICS code category is Wired Telecommunications Carriers as defined in paragraph 6 of this IRFA. The applicable size standard under SBA rules is that such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
11. Prepaid Calling Card Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for prepaid calling card providers. The appropriate NAICS code category for prepaid calling card providers is Telecommunications Resellers. This industry comprises establishments engaged in purchasing access and network capacity from owners and operators of telecommunications networks and reselling wired and wireless telecommunications services (except satellite) to businesses and households. Establishments in this industry resell telecommunications; they do not operate transmission facilities and infrastructure. Mobile virtual networks operators (MVNOs) are included in this industry.
12. Local Resellers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for Local Resellers. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for the category of Telecommunications Resellers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
13. Toll Resellers. The Commission has not developed a definition for Toll Resellers. The closest NAICS code Category is Telecommunications Resellers, and the SBA has developed a small business size standard for the category of Telecommunications Resellers.
14. Other Toll Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses specifically applicable to Other Toll Carriers. This category includes toll carriers that do not fall within the categories of interexchange carriers, operator service providers, prepaid calling card providers, satellite service carriers, or toll resellers. The closest applicable NAICS code category is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers, as defined in paragraph 6 of this IRFA. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
15. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular services, paging services, wireless internet access, and wireless video services.
16. Television Broadcasting. This Economic Census category “comprises establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting images together with sound. These establishments operate television broadcasting studios and facilities for the programming and transmission of programs to the public.”
17. In assessing whether a business concern qualifies as small under the above definition, business (control) affiliations
18. In addition, the Commission has estimated the number of licensed noncommercial educational (NCE) television stations to be 396.
19. Radio Broadcasting. This Economic Census category “comprises establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting programs by radio to the public. Programming may originate in their own studio, from an affiliated network, or from external sources.”
20. In assessing whether a business concern qualifies as small under the above size standard, business affiliations must be included.
21. Cable Television and other Subscription Programming. This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating studios and facilities for the broadcasting of programs on a subscription or fee basis. The broadcast programming is typically narrowcast in nature,
22. Cable Companies and Systems. The Commission has developed its own small business size standards for the purpose of cable rate regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a “small cable company” is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers nationwide.
23. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The Communications Act also contains a size standard for small cable system operators, which is “a cable operator that, directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed $250,000,000.”
24. Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) Service. DBS Service is a nationally distributed subscription service that delivers video and audio programming via satellite to a small parabolic dish antenna at the subscriber's location. DBS is now included in SBA's economic census category “Wired Telecommunications Carriers.” The Wired Telecommunications Carriers industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired telecommunications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including VOIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution; and wired broadband internet services. By exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry.
25. All Other Telecommunications. “All Other Telecommunications” is defined as follows: This U.S. industry is comprised of establishments that are primarily engaged in providing specialized telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities connected with one or more terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to, and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems. Establishments providing internet services or Voice over internet Protocol (VoIP) services via client-supplied telecommunications connections are also included in this industry.
26. RespOrgs. Responsible Organizations, or RespOrgs, are entities chosen by toll free subscribers to manage and administer the appropriate records in the toll free Service Management System for the toll free subscriber.
27. Carrier RespOrgs. Neither the Commission, the U.S. Census, nor the SBA have developed a definition for Carrier RespOrgs. Accordingly, the Commission believes that the closest NAICS code-based definitional categories for Carrier RespOrgs are Wired Telecommunications Carriers,
28. The U.S. Census Bureau defines Wired Telecommunications Carriers as establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired communications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution, and wired broadband internet services. By exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry.
29. The U.S. Census Bureau defines Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite) as establishments engaged in operating and maintaining switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the airwaves, such as cellular services, paging services, wireless internet access, and wireless video services.
30. Non-Carrier RespOrgs. Neither the Commission, the U.S. Census, nor the SBA have developed a definition of Non-Carrier RespOrgs. Accordingly, the Commission believes that the closest NAICS code-based definitional categories for Non-Carrier RespOrgs are “Other Services Related to Advertising”
31. The U.S. Census defines Other Services Related to Advertising as comprising establishments primarily engaged in providing advertising services (except advertising agency services, public relations agency services, media buying agency services, media representative services, display advertising services, direct mail advertising services, advertising material distribution services, and marketing consulting services).
32. The U.S. Census defines Other Management Consulting Services as establishments primarily engaged in providing management consulting services (except administrative and general management consulting; human resources consulting; marketing consulting; or process, physical distribution, and logistics consulting). Establishments providing telecommunications or utilities management consulting services are included in this industry.
33. In addition to the data contained in the four (see above) U.S. Census NAICS code categories that provide definitions of what services and functions the Carrier and Non-Carrier RespOrgs provide, Somos, the trade association that monitors RespOrg activities, compiled data showing that as of July 1, 2016 there were 23 RespOrgs operational in Canada and 436 RespOrgs operational in the United States, for a total of 459 RespOrgs currently registered with Somos.
34. This
35. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its approach, which may include the following four alternatives, among others: (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.
36. This
37. None.
38. Accordingly,
| 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 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR