| Page Range | 28351-28520 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 83 FR 28497 - Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects: Six Month Delay of the General Compliance Date of Revisions While Allowing the Use of Three Burden-Reducing Provisions During the Delay Period | |
| 83 FR 28429 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
| 83 FR 28418 - Applications for New Awards; Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (State Grants) | |
| 83 FR 28418 - Applications for New Awards; Child Care Access Means Parents in School Program | |
| 83 FR 28429 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 28402 - Air Plan Approval and Air Quality Designation; Florida: Redesignation of the Hillsborough County Lead Area to Attainment | |
| 83 FR 28441 - Extension of Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Law Enforcement (LEO) Reimbursement Request | |
| 83 FR 28444 - Intent To Request Extension From OMB of One Current Public Collection of Information: Security Programs for Foreign Air Carriers | |
| 83 FR 28442 - Revision of Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Maryland Three Airports: Enhanced Security Procedures for Operations at Certain Airports in the Washington, DC, Metropolitan Area Flight Restricted Zone | |
| 83 FR 28414 - 62nd Meeting of the NOAA Science Advisory Board | |
| 83 FR 28453 - Notice of Information Collection | |
| 83 FR 28431 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 83 FR 28443 - Extension of Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Security Threat Assessment for Individuals Applying for a Hazardous Materials Endorsement for a Commercial Driver's License | |
| 83 FR 28491 - Privacy Act of 1974; Matching Program | |
| 83 FR 28412 - Pure Magnesium From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017 | |
| 83 FR 28411 - Foreign-Trade Zone 163-Ponce, Puerto Rico; Application for Expansion | |
| 83 FR 28388 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery; Closure of the Closed Area I Scallop Access Area to General Category Individual Fishing Quota Scallop Vessels | |
| 83 FR 28488 - Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation Advisory Board-Notice of Public Meetings | |
| 83 FR 28411 - Notice of Petitions by Firms for Determination of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance | |
| 83 FR 28397 - Proposed Removal of Temporary Regulations on a Partner's Share of a Partnership Liability for Disguised Sale Purposes | |
| 83 FR 28351 - National Poultry Improvement Plan and Auxiliary Provisions | |
| 83 FR 28444 - Habitat Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment for Gavilan College San Benito Campus and Fairview Corners Residential Development | |
| 83 FR 28375 - Certifications and Exemptions Under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 | |
| 83 FR 28446 - Notice of Filing of Plats of Survey, New Mexico | |
| 83 FR 28415 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 28431 - Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program Parts A and B Integrated HIV Planning Implementation Cooperative Agreement to John Snow, Inc. (JSI), U69HA30144 | |
| 83 FR 28387 - Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region; Temporary Measures to Reduce Overfishing of Golden Tilefish | |
| 83 FR 28454 - NASA Astrophysics Advisory Committee; Meeting | |
| 83 FR 28452 - Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel; Meeting | |
| 83 FR 28432 - Notice of Meeting | |
| 83 FR 28409 - Notice of Intent To Request Renewal of a Currently Approved Information Collection | |
| 83 FR 28422 - Notice of Petition for Waiver of Jamison Door Company From the Department of Energy Walk-in Cooler and Walk-in Freezer Test Procedure, and Notice of Grant of Interim Waiver | |
| 83 FR 28451 - The 13 Carcinogens Standard; Extension of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork) Requirements | |
| 83 FR 28417 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 28376 - Safety Zone; Enbridge Anchoring Operations, Straits of Mackinac, MI | |
| 83 FR 28484 - Presidential Declaration of a Major Disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of New Jersey | |
| 83 FR 28484 - Presidential Declaration of a Major Disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Alaska | |
| 83 FR 28428 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Announcement of Board Approval Under Delegated Authority and Submission to OMB | |
| 83 FR 28485 - Presidential Declaration of a Major Disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of New Hampshire | |
| 83 FR 28416 - U.S. Army Science Board; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting | |
| 83 FR 28471 - Privacy Act of 1974, as Amended; Notice of Computer Matching Program (Railroad Retirement Board and Social Security Administration, Match Number 1007) | |
| 83 FR 28484 - Surrender of License of Small Business Investment Company | |
| 83 FR 28492 - Agency Information Collection Activity: Application in Acquiring Specially Adapted Housing or Special Adaptation Grant | |
| 83 FR 28449 - Office of Private Sector; Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; New Collection | |
| 83 FR 28430 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office of Management and Budget Approvals | |
| 83 FR 28454 - Notice of Intent To Grant Partially Exclusive License | |
| 83 FR 28455 - Records Schedules; Availability and Request for Comments | |
| 83 FR 28439 - Office for Interoperability and Compatibility Seeks Nominations for the Project 25 Compliance Assessment Program (P25 CAP) Advisory Panel | |
| 83 FR 28438 - Indiana; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
| 83 FR 28438 - Indiana; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration | |
| 83 FR 28432 - Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 83 FR 28435 - Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 83 FR 28470 - New Postal Products | |
| 83 FR 28468 - Exelon Generation Company, LLC; Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2; Byron Station, Units 1 and 2; Clinton Power Station, Unit 1; Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 1, 2, and 3; LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2; and Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2 | |
| 83 FR 28386 - NASA Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement | |
| 83 FR 28414 - Notice Inviting Preliminary Public Input on Transformation and Sustainability Plan | |
| 83 FR 28472 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Fees | |
| 83 FR 28477 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.; Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt the Route QCT Cross Routing Option | |
| 83 FR 28479 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Price List | |
| 83 FR 28481 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Position Limits and Exercise Limits for Options on the SPDR Exchange-Traded Fund | |
| 83 FR 28483 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change To Amend FINRA Rule 6433 To Adopt the OTC Quotation Tier Size Pilot as Permanent | |
| 83 FR 28474 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend The Nasdaq Options Market LLC (“NOM”) Rules at Supplementary Material to Chapter III, Section 7, Entitled “Position Limits,” and Section 9, Entitled “Exercise Limits” | |
| 83 FR 28490 - Proposed Extension of Information Collection Request Submitted for Public Comment; Form 712, Life Insurance Statement | |
| 83 FR 28489 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee | |
| 83 FR 28450 - Information Collection Activities; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 28490 - Proposed Extension of Information Collection Request Submitted for Public Comment; Hedging Transactions | |
| 83 FR 28488 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation Project | |
| 83 FR 28489 - Proposed Extension of Information Collection Request Submitted for Public Comment; Qualified Transportation Fringe Benefits | |
| 83 FR 28491 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 8881 | |
| 83 FR 28416 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 28410 - Notice of Public Meetings of the Ohio Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights | |
| 83 FR 28417 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 28378 - Safety Zones; Recurring Safety Zones in Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie Zone for Events Beginning in June 2018 | |
| 83 FR 28440 - Soft Target Countermeasure Surveys | |
| 83 FR 28486 - WTO Dispute Settlement Proceeding Regarding Korea-Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties on Certain Products and the Use of Facts Available | |
| 83 FR 28413 - Endangered Species; File No. 20561 | |
| 83 FR 28448 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993- Medical Technology Enterprise Consortium | |
| 83 FR 28449 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-National Spectrum Consortium | |
| 83 FR 28447 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Border Security Technology Consortium | |
| 83 FR 28446 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Medical CBRN Defense Consortium | |
| 83 FR 28430 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 28448 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Portable Lights American Trade Organization | |
| 83 FR 28447 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-3d Pdf Consortium, Inc. | |
| 83 FR 28410 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Georgia Advisory Committee | |
| 83 FR 28449 - Notice of Lodging Proposed Consent Decree | |
| 83 FR 28379 - Safety Zones; Recurring Events in Captain of the Port Duluth Zone | |
| 83 FR 28356 - Amendment of Class D Airspace and Class E Airspace, and Removal of Class E Airspace; Binghamton, NY | |
| 83 FR 28382 - Air Plan Approval; ID, Crop Residue Burning; Revision to Ozone Requirement | |
| 83 FR 28390 - Safety Standard for Stationary Activity Centers | |
| 83 FR 28358 - Safety Standard for High Chairs | |
| 83 FR 28485 - Notice of Issuance of a Presidential Permit to Borrego Crossing Pipeline, LLC | |
| 83 FR 28370 - Rough Diamonds Control Regulations | |
| 83 FR 28401 - Notification of Submission to the Secretary of Agriculture; Harmonization of Regulations Safeguarding Human Test Subjects | |
| 83 FR 28456 - Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations |
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Economic Research Service
Economic Development Administration
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Air Force Department
Army Department
Navy Department
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Transportation Security Administration
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
Antitrust Division
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Labor Statistics Bureau
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
Foreign Assets Control Office
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Final rule.
We are amending the regulations governing the National Poultry Improvement Plan (NPIP) by updating and clarifying several provisions, including those concerning NPIP participation, voting requirements, testing procedures, and standards. The changes in this final rule were voted on and approved by the voting delegates at the Plan's 2016 National Plan Conference.
Effective July 19, 2018.
Dr. Denise Heard, DVM, Senior Coordinator, National Poultry Improvement Plan, VS, APHIS, USDA, 1506 Klondike Road, Suite 101, Conyers, GA 30094-5104; (770) 922-3496.
The National Poultry Improvement Plan (NPIP, also referred to below as “the Plan”) is a cooperative Federal-State-industry mechanism for controlling certain poultry diseases. The Plan consists of a variety of programs intended to prevent and control poultry diseases. Participation in all Plan programs is voluntary, but breeding flocks, hatcheries, and dealers must first qualify as “U.S. Pullorum-Typhoid Clean” as a condition for participating in the other Plan programs.
The Plan identifies States, independent flocks, hatcheries, dealers, and slaughter plants that meet certain disease control standards specified in the Plan's various programs. As a result, customers can buy poultry that has tested clean of certain diseases or that has been produced under disease-prevention conditions.
The regulations in 9 CFR parts 145, 146, and 147 (referred to below as the regulations) contain the provisions of the Plan. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS or the Service) amends these provisions from time to time to incorporate new scientific information and technologies within the Plan.
On April 9, 2018, we published in the
We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 30 days ending May 9, 2018. We received two comments by that date. One individual was generally opposed to the rule and the poultry industry, but did not address any specific provisions of the proposed rule. The other commenter also did not address the provisions of the proposed rule, but instead addressed his comments to the statements made by the first commenter.
Therefore, for the reasons given in the proposed rule, we are adopting the proposed rule as a final rule, without change.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. Further, because this rule is not significant, it is not a regulatory action under Executive Order 13771.
We have prepared an analysis regarding the economic effects of this final rule on small entities. The analysis is summarized below. Copies of the full analysis are available on the
We are amending the NPIP, its auxiliary provisions, and the indemnity regulations for the control of H5 and H7 low pathogenic avian influenza to align the regulations with international standards and make them more transparent to stakeholders and the general public. The changes in this final rule were voted on and approved by the voting delegates at the 2016 NPIP National Plan Conference.
The establishments that will be affected by the rule—principally entities engaged in poultry production and processing—are predominantly small by Small Business Administration standards. In those instances in which an addition to or modification of requirements could potentially result in a cost to certain entities, we do not expect the costs to be significant. NPIP membership is voluntary. The changes contained in this final rule were decided upon by the NPIP General Conference Committee and voting delegates during the 2016 NPIP Biennial Conference; the changes were recognized by the poultry industry as being in their interest.
Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This program/activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 2 CFR chapter IV.)
This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State and local laws and regulations that are in conflict with this rule; (2) has no retroactive effect; and (3) does not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.
This final rule contains no new information collection or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Animal diseases, Poultry and poultry products, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, we are amending 9 CFR parts 145, 146, and 147 as follows:
7 U.S.C. 8301-8317; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
The revision reads as follows:
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) The RRT-PCR tests must be conducted using reagents approved by the Department and the Official State Agency. The RRT-PCR must be conducted using the National Veterinary Services Laboratories (NVSL) official protocol for RRT-PCR or a test kit licensed by the Department and approved by the Official State Agency and the State Animal Health Official, and must be conducted by personnel who have passed an NVSL proficiency test. For non-National Animal Health Laboratory Network (NAHLN) authorized laboratories:
(
(
(
(
(
(b) * * *
(1) It has been officially blood tested with either no reactors or reactors that, upon further bacteriological examination conducted in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter, fail to isolate
(b) * * *
(1) It has been officially blood tested with either no reactors or reactors that, upon further bacteriological examination conducted in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter, fail to isolate
(b) * * *
(1) It has been officially blood tested with either no reactors or reactors that, upon further bacteriological examination conducted in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter, fail to isolate
(5) It is a primary breeding flock located in a State determined to be in compliance with the provisions of paragraph (b)(4) of this section and in which a sample of 300 birds from flocks of more than 300, and each bird in flocks of 300 or less, has been officially tested for pullorum-typhoid with either no reactors or reactors that, upon further bacteriological examination conducted in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter, fail to isolate
The revision reads as follows:
(a)
(d) * * *
(7) The NPIP hatchery approval number of the shipping hatchery;
The revisions read as follows:
(b) * * *
(1) It has been officially blood tested within the past 12 months with either no reactors or reactors that, upon further bacteriological examination conducted in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter, fail to isolate
(5) It is a primary breeding flock located in a State determined to be in compliance with the provisions of paragraph (b)(4) of this section, and in which a sample of 300 birds from flocks of more than 300, and each bird in flocks of 300 or less, has been officially tested for pullorum-typhoid within the past 12 months with either no reactors or reactors that, upon further bacteriological examination conducted in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter, fail to isolate
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) It is a multiplier breeding flock which originated as U.S. M. Gallisepticum Clean baby poultry from primary breeding flocks and from which a random sample of birds has been tested for
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) It is a multiplier breeding flock that originated as U.S. M. Synoviae Clean chicks from primary breeding flocks and from which a random sample of birds has been tested for
(a) * * *
(1) It has been officially blood tested within the past 12 months with either no reactors or reactors that, upon further bacteriological examination conducted in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter, fail to isolate
(2) * * *
(i)(A) It is a multiplier or primary breeding flock of fewer than 300 birds in which a sample of 10 percent of the birds in a flock or at least 1 bird from each pen, whichever is more, has been officially tested for pullorum-typhoid within the past 12 months with either no reactors or reactors that, upon further bacteriological examination conducted in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter, fail to isolate
(B) It is a multiplier or primary breeding flock of 300 birds or more in which a sample of a minimum of 30 birds has been officially tested for pullorum-typhoid within the past 12 months with either no reactors or reactors that, upon further bacteriological examination conducted in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter, fail to isolate
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(b) * * *
(1) It has been officially blood tested with either no reactors or reactors that, upon further bacteriological examination conducted in accordance
(2) * * *
(ii) In the primary breeding flock, a sample of 300 birds from flocks of more than 300, and each bird in flocks of 300 or less, has been officially tested for pullorum-typhoid with either no reactors or reactors that, upon further bacteriological examination conducted in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter, fail to isolate
(g)
(1) A flock and the hatching eggs and chicks produced from it that have met the following requirements, as determined by the Official State Agency:
(i) The flock is maintained in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter with respect to flock sanitation, cleaning and disinfection, and Salmonella isolation, sanitation, and management.
(ii) Measures shall be implemented to control Salmonella challenge through feed, feed storage, and feed transport.
(iii) Chicks shall be hatched in a hatchery whose sanitation is maintained in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter and sanitized or fumigated in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter.
(iv) An Authorized Agent shall take environmental samples from the hatchery every 30 days;
(v) An Authorized Agent shall take environmental samples in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter from each flock at 4 months of age and every 30 days thereafter. An authorized laboratory for Salmonella shall examine the environmental samples bacteriologically. All Salmonella isolates from a flock shall be serogrouped and shall be reported to the Official State Agency on a monthly basis.
(vi) Owners of flocks may vaccinate with a paratyphoid vaccine:
(vii) Any flock entering the production period that is in compliance with all the requirements of this paragraph (g) with no history of Salmonella isolations shall be considered “Salmonella negative” and may retain this definition as long as no environmental or bird Salmonella isolations are identified and confirmed from the flock or flock environment by sampling on four separate collection dates over a minimum of a 2-week period. Sampling and testing must be performed as described in paragraph (g)(1)(vi) of this section. An unconfirmed environmental Salmonella isolation shall not change this Salmonella negative status.
(2) The Official State Agency may monitor the effectiveness of the sanitation practices in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter.
(3) In order for a hatchery to sell products of paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through (vii) of this section, all products handled shall meet the requirements of the classification.
(4) This classification may be revoked by the Official State Agency if the participant fails to follow recommended corrective measures.
i. Paragraph (a)(1) introductory text;
ii. Paragraph (a)(1)(iii) introductory text;
iii. Paragraph (a)(1)(v);
iv. Paragraph (a)(2)(iii); and
v. Paragraph (a)(4).
(d) Poultry must be protected from vectors known to be in the wild and thus must be housed in enclosed structures during brooding, rearing, grow-out, or laying periods with no intentional access to the outdoors, creatures found in the wild, or raised on open range or pasture, or be provided with untreated open source water such as that directly from a pond, stream, or spring that wild birds or vermin have access to for usage for drinking water, as a cooling agent, or during a wash down/clean out process.
(b) * * *
(1) It has been officially blood tested with either no reactors or reactors that, upon further bacteriological examination conducted in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter, fail to isolate
(2) * * *
(ii) In the primary breeding flock, a sample of 300 birds from flocks of more than 300, and each bird in flocks of 300 or less, has been officially tested for pullorum-typhoid with either no reactors or reactors that, upon further bacteriological examination conducted in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter, fail to isolate
i. Paragraph (a)(1) introductory text;
ii. Paragraph (a)(1)(iii) introductory text;
iii. Paragraph (a)(1)(v);
iv. Paragraph (a)(2)(iii); and
v. Paragraph (a)(4).
The revisions read as follows:
(b) * * *
(1) It has been officially blood tested within the past 12 months with either no reactors or reactors that, upon further bacteriological examination conducted in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter, fail to isolate
(5) It is a primary breeding flock located in a State determined to be in compliance with provisions of paragraph (b)(3) of this section, and in which a sample of 300 birds from flocks of more than 300, and each bird in flocks of 300 or less, has been officially tested for pullorum-typhoid within the past 12 months with either no reactors or reactors that, upon further bacteriological examination conducted in accordance with part 147 of this subchapter, fail to isolate
7 U.S.C. 8301-8317; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
7 U.S.C. 8301-8317; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
(b) * * * The ballots for electing regional committee members and their alternates will be printed in such a way as to allow the specific selection of one nominee for member, and one nominee for alternate from the remaining nominees. * * *
(d) * * * Once completed, the combined committee report will be distributed electronically to the Official State Agencies prior to the delegates voting on the final day of the biennial conference.
(a)
(a) * * *
(1) The sensitivity of the kit will be evaluated in at least three NPIP authorized laboratories by testing known positive samples, as determined by the official NPIP procedures found in the NPIP Program Standards or through other procedures approved by the Administrator. Field samples, for which the presence or absence of the target organism or analyte has been determined by the current NPIP test, are the preferred samples and should be used when possible. Samples from a variety of field cases representing a range of low, medium, and high analyte concentrations should be used. In some cases it may be necessary to utilize samples from experimentally infected animals. Spiked samples (clinical sample matrix with a known amount of pure culture added) should only be used in the event that no other sample types are available. When the use of spiked samples may be necessary, prior approval from the NPIP Technical Committee is required. Pure cultures should never be used. Additionally, laboratories should be selected for their experience with testing for the target organism or analyte with the current NPIP approved test. (
(3) The kit will be provided to the cooperating laboratories in its final form and include the instructions for use. The cooperating laboratories must perform the assay exactly as stated in the supplied instructions. Each laboratory must test a panel of at least 25 known positive samples. In addition, each laboratory must test at least 50 known negative samples obtained from several sources, to provide a representative sampling of the general population. The cooperating laboratories must perform a current NPIP procedure or NPIP approved test on the samples alongside the test kit for comparison and must provide an outline of the method on the worksheet for diagnostic test evaluation. Reproducibility and robustness data should also be included.
(4) Cooperating laboratories will submit to the kit manufacturer all compiled output data regarding the assay response. Each sample tested will be reported as positive or negative, and the official NPIP procedure used to classify the sample must be submitted in addition to the assay response value. A completed worksheet for diagnostic test evaluation is required to be submitted with the compiled output data and may be obtained by contacting the NPIP Senior Coordinator. Data and the completed worksheet for diagnostic test evaluation must be submitted to the NPIP Senior Coordinator 4 months prior to the next scheduled General Conference Committee meeting, which is when approval will be sought.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends Class D airspace, Class E surface airspace, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface; and removes Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D surface area; at Greater Binghamton Airport/Edwin A. Link Field (formerly Binghamton Regional Airport/Edwin A. Link Field), Binghamton, NY. This action accommodates airspace reconfiguration due to the decommissioning of the Binghamton VHF omni-directional radio range tactical air navigation aid (VORTAC), and cancellation of the VOR approaches. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport. This action also updates the geographic coordinates of the airport, and corrects the airport's name. Additionally, this action replaces the outdated term “Airport/Facility Directory” with the term “Chart Supplement” in Class D and E surface airspace descriptions.
Effective 0901 UTC, September 13, 2018. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1 Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701 Columbia Ave., College Park, GA 30337; telephone (404) 305-6364.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends Class D and Class E airspace at Greater Binghamton Airport/Edwin A. Link Field, Binghamton, NY, to support IFR operations at the airport.
The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. One comment was received requesting a graphic on the airspace proposal. The FAA has since posted a graphic to the docket.
Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000, 6002, 6004,and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11B dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the
This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 amends Class D airspace, Class E surface airspace, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface at Greater Binghamton Airport/Edwin A. Link Field, Binghamton, NY (formerly Binghamton Regional Airport/Edwin A. Link Field), due to the decommissioning of the Binghamton VORTAC, and cancellation of the VOR approaches. These changes enhance the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.
The Class D airspace area is amended to within a 4.4-mile radius (from a 4.3-mile radius) of Greater Binghamton Airport/Edwin A. Link Field.
The Class E surface area airspace is amended to within a 4.4-mile radius (increased from a 4.3-mile radius) of Greater Binghamton Airport/Edwin A. Link Field. The Binghamton VORTAC is removed as it is being decommissioned. The SMITE LOM, and ILS Runway 34 Localizer navigation aids are no longer needed in the airspace redesign.
The Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D surface area is removed as this airspace was only necessary for the cancelled approaches.
Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface is amended to within a 7-mile radius (initially from a boundary line formed by the geographic coordinates) of the airport. The exclusionary language contained in the legal description is removed to comply with FAA Order 7400.2L, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters. Also, an editorial change is made by adding the airport's geographic coordinates to the airspace designation.
The geographic coordinates of the airport also are adjusted in the classes of airspace listed above to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database, and the airport name is updated to Greater Binghamton Airport/Edwin A. Link Field, formerly Binghamton Regional Airport/Edwin A. Link Field.
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. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 4,100 feet MSL within a 4.4-mile radius of Greater Binghamton Airport/Edwin A. Link Field. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific days and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective days and times will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 4.4-mile radius of Greater Binghamton Airport/Edwin A. Link Field. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific days and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective days and times will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7-mile radius of Greater Binghamton Airport/Edwin A. Link Field.
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Final rule.
The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA) directs the Commission to issue standards for durable infant or toddler products. To comply with section 104 of the CPSIA, CPSC is issuing a safety standard for high chairs. This rule incorporates by reference ASTM F404-18,
The rule will become effective on June 19, 2019. The incorporation by reference of the publication listed in this rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of June 19, 2019.
Keysha Walker, Office of Compliance and Field Operations, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission; 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; email:
Congress enacted the CPSIA (Pub. L. 110-314, 122 Stat. 3016), as part of the Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act, on August 14, 2008. Section 104(b) of the CPSIA requires CPSC to: (1) Examine and assess the effectiveness of voluntary consumer product safety standards for durable infant or toddler products, in consultation with representatives of consumer groups, juvenile product manufacturers, and independent child product engineers and experts; and (2) promulgate consumer product safety standards for durable infant or toddler products. Any standard CPSC adopts under this mandate must be substantially the same as the applicable voluntary standard, or more stringent than the voluntary standard if CPSC determines that more stringent requirements would further reduce the risk of injury associated with the product. Section 104(f)(1) of the CPSIA defines the term “durable infant or toddler product” as “a durable product intended for use, or that may be reasonably expected to be used, by children under the age of 5 years,” and section 104(f)(2)(C) specifically identifies high chairs as a durable infant or toddler product.
On November 9, 2015, the Commission issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR), proposing to incorporate by reference the then-current voluntary standard for high chairs, ASTM F404-15, with more stringent requirements for rearward stability and warnings on labels and in instructional literature. 80 FR 69144; 81 FR 3354 (January 21, 2016) (correcting an error in the NPR). After the Commission issued the NPR, ASTM revised the voluntary standard several times, as discussed in section V of this preamble, and published the current version of the standard, ASTM F404-18, in March 2018.
In this final rule, the Commission is incorporating by reference ASTM F404-18, with no modifications, as the mandatory safety standard for high chairs. As section 104(b)(1)(A) of the CPSIA requires, CPSC staff consulted with manufacturers, retailers, trade organizations, laboratories, consumer advocacy groups, consultants, and the public to develop this standard, largely through the ASTM standard-development process. In addition, this final rule amends the list of NORs in 16 CFR part 1112 to include the standard for high chairs.
ASTM F404-18 defines a “high chair” as “a free standing chair for a child up to 3 years of age which has a seating surface more than 15 in. above the floor and elevates the child normally for the purposes of feeding or eating.” The ASTM standard further specifies that a high chair may be sold with or without a tray, have adjustable heights, or recline for infants.
High chairs are available in various designs, including four-legged A-frame styles, single-leg pedestals, Z-frame styles, and restaurant-style. Construction materials often include a plastic, wood, or metal frame, and a padded fabric seat. Some designs include a tray or mounted toy accessories, fold for storage and transport, or convert for continued use as a child grows. ASTM F404-18 requires high chairs to have a passive crotch restraint (
CPSC staff has identified 59 domestic firms that currently supply high chairs to the U.S. market. Thirty-three of these firms manufacture high chairs and the remaining 26 firms are importers. Forty-three of the firms (26 manufacturers and 17 importers) are small, according to the U.S. Small Business Administration's (SBA) standards,
At the time CPSC staff assessed the high chairs market, 13 of the 26 small domestic manufacturers, and 9 of the 17 small domestic importers, reported that they complied with the ASTM standard for high chairs.
CPSC receives data regarding product-related injuries from several sources.
The preamble to the NPR summarized reports of high chair-related incidents that occurred between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2014, which CPSC received through CPSRMS sources. For the final rule, CPSC staff has updated this information to reflect newly reported high chair incidents that occurred between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2014, as well as new incidents that occurred between January 1, 2015 and September 30, 2017. In total, CPSC has received 1,842 reports of high-chair related incidents that occurred between January 1, 2011 and September 30, 2017. These incidents involved 2 fatalities and 271 reported injuries.
The preamble to the NPR also summarized NEISS estimates for high chair-related incidents that occurred between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2014. After the Commission issued the NPR, complete injury data became available for 2015 and 2016, and CPSC staff has updated this information for the final rule. Including this new data and extrapolating from the probability sample, CPSC staff estimates that there were 49,900 high chair-related injuries treated in U.S. EDs between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2016. There were no deaths reported through NEISS for this period. There was no statistically significant increase or decrease in the estimated injuries from year-to-year between 2011 and 2016, and there was no statistically significant trend in the data over this period. Similarly to the CPSRMS data, of the incidents that reported the age of the child involved, most incidents involved children between 7 and 23 months old.
CPSC is aware of two fatal incidents that occurred between January 1, 2011 and September 30, 2017. As the NPR stated, CPSC staff has been unable to collect detailed information about the fatal incident that was reported in 2014. CPSC received another report of a high chair-related fatality in 2016; this incident involved strangulation, but CPSC staff was unable to obtain additional details about the incident.
Of the total 271 nonfatal injuries reported to CPSC through CPSRMS sources that occurred between January 1, 2011 and September 30, 2017, 1 involved a child who was admitted to the hospital with a skull fracture and retinal hemorrhage; 15 were treated in U.S. EDs for injuries including a puncture wound to the forehead, a broken collarbone, a compound fracture of the finger, lacerations, and contusions; and 1 reported a head injury and broken wrist, but did not indicate the treatment the child received. The remaining injuries primarily consisted of contusions, abrasions, and lacerations, resulting from falls or entrapment of limbs or extremities.
The injuries and treatments reported through NEISS for 2015 and 2016 were consistent with those for 2011 through 2014, described in the NPR. In most cases, the patient was treated in the U.S. ED and released (94 percent for 2011-2014, and 95 percent for 2015-2016). The most commonly injured body parts were the head (65 percent for 2011-2016) and face (17 percent for 2011-2016). The most common types of injuries were injuries to internal organs (48 percent for 2011-2014, and 51 percent for 2015-2016), contusions and abrasions (22 percent for 2011-2014, and 16 percent for 2015-2016), and lacerations (11 percent for 2011-2014, and 16 percent for 2015-2016).
CPSC staff also assessed NEISS data to determine the hazards associated with high chairs in restaurants. There were an estimated 1,600 injuries treated in U.S. EDs between 2011 and 2016, which were related to high chairs in restaurant settings. Most incidents involved users falling from the high chair. Of the reports that indicated the cause of the fall, it commonly occurred when a child attempted to climb into or out of the high chair; the high chair tipped over; or consumers did not use restraints or the restraints failed or were defeated.
The hazards reported in the new incidents are consistent with the hazard patterns staff identified in the incidents presented in the NPR. The hazard in nearly all reported incidents, both those discussed in the NPR (96 percent) and in the new incidents (95 percent), involved issues with specific components of the high chair, including the frame, seat, restraint system, armrest, tray, toy accessories, and footrest. Design, stability, and other general product issues accounted for 4 percent of incidents discussed in the NPR and 3 percent of the new incidents.
Most of the NEISS incidents reported for 2015 and 2016 involved falls from high chairs, often when a child attempted to climb into or out of the high chair; when the chair tipped over when a child pushed back or rocked while in the high chair; or when a component of the high chair (
In this final rule, the Commission incorporates by reference ASTM F404-18. The Commission is incorporating by reference ASTM F404-18 because it includes provisions that are the same as, or consistent with, the requirements proposed in the NPR, and CPSC staff believes that the standard addresses the hazards associated with high chairs.
ASTM F404,
After the Commission issued the NPR, ASTM revised ASTM F404 five times. CPSC staff worked with representatives of manufacturers, consumer groups, retailers, and other industry members and groups on the ASTM subcommittee on high chairs to develop requirements to address the hazards associated with high chairs, including issues and requirements raised in the NPR, concerns raised by members of the ASTM subcommittee, and comments on the NPR. CPSC staff also participated in the ASTM Ad Hoc Committee on Standardized Wording for Juvenile Product Standards (Ad Hoc TG) to finalize recommendations for warning labels, entitled, “Recommended
In the NPR, the Commission proposed to incorporate by reference ASTM F404-15, which addressed many of the hazard patterns associated with high chairs, with modifications to three areas of the standard. The Commission proposed more stringent requirements than those in ASTM F404-15 for rearward stability, warnings on labels, and instructional literature. Specifically, the Commission proposed:
• More stringent rearward stability requirements, including test procedures, a formula for determining a “rearward stability index” (RSI), and a requirement that high chairs have an RSI of at least 50;
• more stringent warning content, format, and placement requirements than those in ASTM F404-15; and
• warning content in instructional literature that aligned with the modified warning labels, as well as formatting requirements for warnings in instructions.
The requirements in ASTM F404-18 are largely the same as those the Commission proposed in the NPR. ASTM F404-18 includes the same scope, definitions, general requirements (
In the NPR, the Commission proposed to require the forward and sideways stability requirements in ASTM F404-15 and more stringent rearward stability requirements, consisting of a test method and formula for determining the RSI for a high chair, and a minimum RSI of 50. ASTM F404-18 includes these requirements, with some additional details and minor changes for clarification. First, ASTM F404-18 includes additional details about how to perform stability testing (
CPSC staff in the Division of Mechanical and Combustion Engineering has reviewed the stability requirements in ASTM F404-18 and believes that they adequately address the stability issues associated with high chairs. The stability requirements in ASTM F404-18 are largely the same as the more-stringent stability requirements the Commission proposed in the NPR (maintaining the same test method, formula, and RSI limit), which staff believes are effective, and the minor modifications added to ASTM F404-18 add clarity and detail.
In the NPR, the Commission proposed more stringent warning label content, format, and placement requirements than those in ASTM F404-15. ASTM F404-18 also includes more stringent warning label requirements than those in ASTM F404-15, but the requirements are not identical to those in the NPR.
CPSC staff in the Division of Human Factors (HF) has reviewed the warning label content requirements in ASTM F404-18 and believes that the warning content is largely consistent with that in the NPR, addressing the same general information, and staff concludes that the changes do not undermine the effectiveness of the warnings. Staff believes that warning of severe head injuries, coupled with citing skull fractures as one possible example of such an injury, is an effective way to warn users about the potential consequences of the fall hazard. Moreover, staff believes that this warning avoids the impression that the NPR language may have given, which is that skull fractures are the only type of potential injury. In addition, staff believes that the phrase, “Fall Hazard,” is unnecessary, but is not problematic.
The Ad Hoc TG recommendations are based largely on the requirements of ANSI Z535.4,
The warning format requirements in ASTM F404-18 align with the Ad Hoc TG recommendations. The warning format requirements in the NPR differ from ASTM F404-18 in the following ways:
• Where the NPR proposed a specific typeface and required certain words to be in bold, ASTM F404-18 only recommends avoiding certain kinds of typeface (
• where the NPR detailed specific requirements for colors, borders, typeface, and referred to ANSI Z535.4 for optional additional guidance, ASTM F404-18 simply requires conformance to ANSI Z535.4, which includes provisions on these topics.
HF staff has reviewed the warning label format requirements in ASTM
HF staff has reviewed the warning label placement requirements in ASTM F404-18 and believes that they are sufficient. In response to the NPR, commenters identified challenges the placement requirements in the NPR posed. For example, commenters noted that it would be difficult for high chair models with design or size limitations to meet the placement requirements proposed in the NPR because the proposal required a single label with more content that was visible during all stages of use. After considering these comments, staff agrees that the two warning labels ASTM F404-18 requires are justified. Staff believes that the placement requirements in ASTM F404-18 are adequate because they require each of the warnings to be visible at the time the information is most relevant.
First, ASTM F404-18 requires the fall-related warnings to be visible to caregivers when putting a child into the high chair. Warning caregivers of the hazard, potential injuries, and how to avoid the hazard is most relevant when they are placing the child into the high chair, because it informs them of the risks from the outset of use, and may motivate them to use restraints appropriately. Thus, it is likely more important to include these warnings on a label that is visible when placing a child in the high chair, than on a label that is visible during use. Second, ASTM F404-18 requires the warning to “stay near and watch child during use” to be visible when the child is in the high chair. Reminding caregivers to supervise children is most relevant when a child is already in the high chair, and the caregiver may become distracted or leave the child unattended. Accordingly, it is likely more important to include this warning on a label that is visible during use, rather than on a label that is visible when initially putting a child into the high chair. Thus, although staff believes it would be ideal to convey all warning information in a place that is visible during all stages of use, given design and space limitations, the placement requirements in ASTM F404-18 are appropriate.
In the NPR, the Commission proposed more stringent content and design requirements for warnings in instructional literature than those in ASTM F404-15. ASTM F404-18 also requires more stringent instructional literature requirements than ASTM F404-15, although the design requirements are not identical to those in the NPR.
The warning content requirements for instructional literature in ASTM F404-18 are consistent with those in the NPR. Both the NPR and ASTM F404-18 required instructional literature to contain the warning statements specified for on-product warning labels, by referencing the applicable sections regarding on-product warning labels
With respect to the design of warnings in instructional literature, the NPR proposed highly contrasting colors and referenced ANSI Z535.6,
HF staff has reviewed the instructional literature requirements in ASTM F404-18 and believes they are effective. The requirements in ASTM F404-18 are consistent with the types of formatting and content provisions proposed in the NPR and are based on the Ad Hoc TG recommendations, which staff believes are effective and resolve areas of confusion raised in the NPR comments.
The NPR discussed whether a mandatory standard should apply to restaurant-style high chairs (
CPSC has determined that restaurant-style high chairs should remain within the scope of the final rule, consistent with ASTM F404-18. NEISS data indicate that an estimated 1,600 incidents related to high chairs occurred in restaurants and were treated in U.S. EDs between 2011 and 2016. The hazard patterns in these incidents appear similar to those in homes, primarily involving children falling from high chairs due to issues with restraints, tip overs, or when a child was climbing into or out of the high chair. In addition, CPSC staff identified four firms that sell restaurant-style high chairs to both restaurants and consumers. Finally, section 104 of the CPSIA requires the Commission to adopt a mandatory standard that is substantially the same as the voluntary standard, or more stringent than the voluntary standard. Because the voluntary standard for high chairs applies to all high chairs, including those used in restaurants, excluding them from the final rule or applying less stringent requirements for restaurant-style high chairs would be inconsistent with the CPSIA.
The Office of the Federal Register (OFR) has regulations concerning incorporation by reference. 1 CFR part 51. These regulations require the preamble to a final rule to summarize the material and discuss the ways in which the material the agency incorporates by reference is reasonably available to interested persons, and how interested parties can obtain the material. 1 CFR 51.5(b). In accordance with the OFR regulations, this section summarizes ASTM F404-18, and describes how interested parties may obtain a copy of the standard.
ASTM F404-18 contains requirements concerning:
• Threaded fasteners;
• sharp edges and points;
• small parts;
• wood parts;
• latching or locking mechanisms;
• permanency of labels;
• openings;
• lead in paint;
• forward, sideways, and rearward stability;
• exposed coil springs;
• scissoring, shearing, and pinching;
• restraint systems;
• structural integrity;
• tray latch release mechanisms;
• side containment;
• protrusions;
• protective components;
• tray or front torso support;
• static loads on the seat, step, footrest, and tray;
• bounded openings;
• warnings and labels; and
• instructional literature.
The standard also includes test methods to assess conformance with these requirements.
Interested parties may obtain a copy of ASTM F404-18 from ASTM, through its website (
CPSC received 16 comments in response to the NPR. The comments are available in the docket for this rulemaking, CPSC-2015-0031, at:
Two commenters raised issues regarding the clarity and repeatability of the proposed rearward stability requirements.
CPSC received five comments that discussed issues related to warning content. One commenter supported the Commission's proposed warning content, particularly the statement: “Falls can happen quickly if child is not restrained properly.” Another
With respect to the length of warning content, the warnings the Commission proposed in the NPR were longer than the warnings in ASTM F404-15. ASTM F404-18 includes revised warning content that is consistent with the NPR. CPSC staff worked with ASTM to ensure that ASTM F404-18 includes the essentials of the warnings the NPR proposed, but also addresses comments submitted in response to the NPR, and ASTM subcommittee members' concerns. This final rule incorporates by reference ASTM F404-18, without modifications. CPSC staff maintains that the additional warning content proposed in the NPR, and the analogous content in ASTM F404-18, is appropriate, because it addresses deficiencies in the warning content in ASTM F404-15. For example, the description of injuries that could be sustained from high chair incidents in ASTM F404-15 (
Staff acknowledges that consumers are more likely to fully read short warnings than longer ones. However, brevity is only one factor to consider when designing a warning. A short warning is unlikely to be effective if it does not convey all key information about the hazards, and carefully selected additional content can enhance consumer compliance with warnings. In addition, staff does not consider the warnings in the NPR and ASTM F404-18 to be unusually long, or so long that they would dissuade consumers from reading the full content.
CPSC received several comments regarding the warning format requirements proposed in the NPR. A summary of the comments, and staff's responses, are below. First, however, is a general discussion of the changes to warning format requirements in the ASTM standard since the NPR. These changes are the result of the Ad Hoc TG's efforts and address comments CPSC received about warning format.
After the Commission issued the NPR, there were several developments related to warning format and design. In short, the Ad Hoc TG finalized and published recommendations for warning format, and ASTM revised the warning requirements in ASTM F404-18 to be consistent with the Ad Hoc TG recommendations.
The Ad Hoc TG was formed to develop standardized language across ASTM juvenile products standards, and was developing recommendations for warning format when the Commission issued the high chairs NPR. HF staff serves on the Ad Hoc TG, as well as the ANSI Z535 Committee on Safety Signs and Colors. In this capacity, staff collaborated with the other members of the Ad Hoc TG to develop the finalized recommendations for warning format.
With the goal of providing consistent formatting requirements for all juvenile-product standards and addressing warning format issues that impact the effectiveness of warnings, the Ad Hoc TG recommendations require warning content to be “easy to read and understand”; not contradict information elsewhere on the product; be in English (at a minimum); and meet various formatting requirements. The formatting requirements include minimum text size; text alignment; bullet, lists, outline, and paragraph forms for hazard-avoidance statements; and compliance with sections of ASNI Z535.4—specifically, sections 6.1 to 6.4 (which include requirements for safety alert symbols, signal words, and warning panel format, arrangement, and shape), 7.2 to 7.6.3 (which include color requirements), and 8.1 (which addresses letter style). The Ad Hoc TG recommendations also include
The Ad Hoc TG recommendations and the resulting changes to ASTM F404-18 address many of the comments filed in response to the proposed warning format requirements in the NPR. Below are the comments CPSC received on that topic, and staff's responses.
ASTM F404-18 also requires a second warning statement (which may appear on a separate label), instructing caregivers to “stay near and watch child during use.” This warning must be “conspicuous” (
To the contrary, CPSC has several reasons to believe that the final rule should apply to all high chairs, including restaurant-style high chairs. First, after issuing the NPR, CPSC staff further examined incident data to determine the extent to which high chair-related injuries occur in restaurant settings. Staff found that between 2011 and 2016, there were an estimated 1,600 injuries treated in U.S. EDs that involved high chairs in restaurant settings. Most incidents involved children falling from high chairs, commonly when climbing into or out of the high chair, when the high chair tipped over, or when restraints were not used, failed, or were defeated. These hazard patterns are consistent with high chair incidents in homes. As a result, CPSC believes that there is no safety justification to exclude restaurant-style high chairs from the final rule.
Second, although only a small number of firms sell restaurant-style high chairs directly to consumers for use in their homes, these sales indicate that the features and settings for restaurant-style high chairs do not provide a basis for distinguishing them from home-use high chairs. CPSC staff identified four firms that supply high chairs to the U.S. market that sell their high chairs to both consumers and restaurants.
Third, CPSIA section 104 requires the Commission to adopt a mandatory standard that is substantially the same as the voluntary standard, or more stringent than the voluntary standard. Because ASTM F404 applies to all high chairs, excluding restaurant-style products from the mandatory standard would make the mandatory standard less stringent than the voluntary standard, contrary to the CPSIA requirement.
Section 1231.2(a) of the final rule requires high chairs to comply with ASTM F404-18 and incorporates the standard by reference. Section V of this preamble describes the OFR requirements for incorporating material by reference. In accordance with those requirements, section V summarizes ASTM F404-18, explains how the standard is reasonably available to interested parties, and how interested parties may obtain a copy of the standard.
The final rule also amends 16 CFR part 1112 to add a new § 1112.15(b)(44) that lists 16 CFR part 1231,
The Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551-559) generally requires that agencies set an effective date for a final rule that is at least 30 days after the
This rule contains information collection requirements that are subject to public comment and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). Under the PRA, CPSC must estimate the “burden” associated with each “collection of information.” 44 U.S.C. 3506(c).
In this rule, section 8 of ASTM F404-18 contains labeling requirements that meet the definition of “collection of information” in the PRA. 44 U.S.C. 3502(3). In addition, section 9 of ASTM F404-18 requires instructions to be provided with high chairs; however, CPSC believes this requirement can be excluded from the PRA burden estimate. OMB allows agencies to exclude from the PRA burden estimate any “time, effort, and financial resources necessary to comply with a collection of information that would be incurred by persons in the normal course of their activities,” if the disclosure activities required to comply are “usual and customary.” 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2). Because high chairs generally require use and assembly instructions, and CPSC staff is not aware of high chairs that generally require instructions but lack them, CPSC believes that providing instructions with high chairs is “usual and customary.” For this reason, CPSC's burden estimate includes only the labeling requirements.
The preamble to the NPR discussed the information collection burden of the proposed rule and requested comments on the accuracy of CPSC's estimates. 80 FR 69158 to 69159. CPSC did not receive any comments about the information collection burden of the proposed rule. However, the information collection burden has changed since the NPR because CPSC staff has identified 68 high chair suppliers (59 domestic firms and 9 foreign firms), rather than the 62 firms identified in the NPR, that it estimates will be subject to the information collection burden. Accordingly, the estimated burden of this collection of information is as follows:
The estimated reporting burden is based on CPSC staff's expectation that all 68 high chair suppliers will need to modify their labels to comply with the final rule. CPSC staff estimates that it will take about 1 hour per model to make these modifications and, based on staff's evaluation of product lines, that each supplier has an average of 2 models of high chairs. As a result, CPSC estimates that the burden associated with the labeling requirements is: 68 entities × 1 hour per model × 2 models per entity = 136 hours. CPSC staff estimates that the hourly compensation for the time required to create and update labels is $34.21 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Employer Costs for Employee Compensation,” Sept. 2017, Table 9, total compensation for all sales and office workers in goods-producing private industries:
As the PRA requires, CPSC has submitted the information collection requirements of this final rule to OMB. 44 U.S.C. 3507(d). OMB has assigned control number 3041-0173 to this information collection.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires agencies to consider the potential economic impact of a proposed and final rule on small entities, including small businesses. Section 604 of the RFA requires agencies to prepare and publish a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) when they issue a final rule, unless the head of the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The FRFA must discuss:
• The need for and objectives of the rule;
• significant issues raised in public comments about the initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA), a response to comments from the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA, the agency's assessment of the comments, and any changes made to the rule as a result of the comments;
• the description and estimated number of small entities that will be subject to the rule;
• the reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements of the rule, as well as the small entities that would be subject to those requirements, and the types of skills necessary to prepare the reports or records;
• steps the agency took to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities; and
• the factual, policy, and legal reasons the agency selected the alternative in the final rule, and why it rejected other significant alternatives.
Based on an assessment by staff from CPSC's Directorate for Economic Analysis, CPSC cannot certify that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As a result, staff has prepared a FRFA. This section summarizes the FRFA for this final rule. The complete FRFA is available as part of the CPSC staff's briefing package at:
Section 104 of the CPSIA requires the Commission to issue a mandatory standard for high chairs that is substantially the same as the voluntary standard, or more stringent than the voluntary standard. In this final rule, the Commission incorporates by reference the voluntary standard, ASTM F404-18, as the mandatory safety standard for high chairs. This rule aims to address the safety hazards associated with high chairs that are demonstrated in incident data.
CPSC did not received any comments specifically addressing the IRFA that accompanied the proposed rule or from the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of SBA. However, CPSC received comments about the effective date of the final rule and restaurant-style high chairs, which are relevant to the FRFA insofar as they impact the costs associated with the rule.
In the NPR, the Commission proposed that the rule would take effect 6 months after publication in the
After considering these comments, and the potential economic impact of the rule on small firms, the Commission is extending the effective date for the final rule to 1 year. CPSC staff believes that this longer effective date will reduce the economic impact of the rule on firms, some of which may not be aware of the ASTM standard or the rulemaking, by reducing the potential for a lapse in production or imports while bringing products into compliance with the rule, and spreading the costs of compliance over a longer time period.
CPSC received three comments about restaurant-style high chairs. Section VI of this preamble detailed these comments. To summarize, commenters noted that it may be appropriate to apply only some requirements, no requirements, or to create new requirements for restaurant-style high chairs. Commenters noted that restaurant settings make certain features useful on a high chair, which may not comply with the standard, and that safety features may be less necessary in restaurants, where caregivers are likely to be near children and supervising them when they are in a high chair.
CPSC has considered this information and believes that it is appropriate to apply the final rule to all high chairs, including restaurant-style high chairs. The final rule may particularly impact firms that supply restaurant-style high chairs, because they have features intended to accommodate restaurant settings and these features may be difficult to retain while complying with the standard, thereby requiring more extensive changes than home-use models. Nevertheless, consumer safety, home-use of these products, and statutory limitations justify applying the rule to all high chairs. The rationale for including restaurant-style high chairs in the rule is discussed elsewhere in this notice.
CPSC staff identified 68 firms that supply high chairs to the U.S. market, of which 59 are domestic, and 9 are foreign. Of the 59 domestic firms, 33 manufacture high chairs, and 26 of those 33 manufacturers are small, according to SBA's standards. The remaining 26 domestic firms import high chairs, and 17 of those 26 importers are small, according to SBA's standards. Of the 59 domestic firms, 43 market their high chairs only to consumers, and 4 sell their high chairs to both consumers and restaurants. It is
Sections V and VII of this preamble describe the requirements in the final rule, which incorporates by reference ASTM F404-18. In addition, the final rule amends the regulations regarding third party conformity assessment bodies to include the safety standard for high chairs in the list of NORs.
For the FRFA, staff limited its analysis to the 59 domestic firms staff identified as supplying high chairs to the U.S. market because SBA guidelines and definitions apply to domestic entities. In assessing whether a rule will have a significant economic impact on small entities, staff generally considers impacts “significant” if they exceed 1 percent of a firm's revenue.
At the time staff prepared the FRFA, 13 of the 26 small manufacturers reported that their high chairs complied with the ASTM standard that was in effect for testing purposes. Staff believes that firms that report complying with the voluntary standard will continue to comply with the standard as it evolves, as part of an established business practice. Of these 13 firms, 2 manufacture compact high chairs with limited space for warning labels. In the IRFA, staff predicted that the proposed rule could have a significant impact on these two firms because the NPR required a single warning label to be visible when placing a child in the high chair and when the child was seated in the high chair. However, the final rule does not include this requirement, instead dividing the warning information over two labels, each with different placement requirements. This change reduces the burden on firms to modify their products to accommodate labeling requirements. Therefore, staff does not expect the final rule to have a significant economic impact on any of these 13 firms and third party testing costs are expected to be minimal because these firms already test their products for compliance with the voluntary standard.
The remaining 13 small manufacturers produce high chairs that do not comply with the voluntary standard. Seven of these firms manufacture high chairs for home use, and six produce restaurant-style high chairs. For the seven firms that manufacture high chairs for home use, the final rule could have a significant economic impact. The cost of redesigning their products to meet ASTM F404-18 could exceed 1 percent of each firm's respective revenue. In addition, these firms do not have extensive product lines; one of these firms produces only high chairs. For the six firms that manufacture high chairs for restaurant settings, the final rule could also have a significant economic impact. In particular, two of these firms make plastic high chairs, which could require them to create new molds for their products to comply with the rule. Staff believes that third party testing costs could potentially have a significant economic impact on some of these firms, but these costs would be small, relative to the overall impact of the rule.
At the time staff prepared the FRFA, 9 of the 17 small importers reported that their high chairs complied with the ASTM standard that was in effect for testing purposes. In the IRFA, staff anticipated that the proposed rule could have a significant economic impact on four of these firms because they imported compact high chairs that might have needed to be redesigned to create space for a label that met the proposed label placement requirements. Because the final rule does not include this requirement, allowing greater flexibility, staff does not expect that these firms will have to redesign their products. One importer supplies a relatively new type of high chair that includes a reclining seat insert, but preliminary staff testing indicates that the product meets the requirements in the final rule. In addition, staff believes that any third party testing costs these importers may incur would be limited to the incremental costs associated with third party testing over their current testing regimes. Therefore, staff does not expect the final rule to have a significant economic impact on any of these nine firms.
The remaining eight small importers supply high chairs that do not comply with the voluntary standard. Staff does not have sufficient information to conclude that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on these firms. The economic impact of the rule on importers depends on the extent of the changes needed for their products to comply with the rule and the response of their suppliers. Staff generally cannot determine this information for importers that do not already comply with the voluntary standard. Nevertheless, staff expects that the final rule will have a smaller economic impact than the proposed rule, because the final rule includes less-burdensome warning placement requirements than the NPR.
Suppliers are more likely to pass on the costs of producing or redesigning products to comply with the final rule to importers with whom they do not have direct ties. Six of the eight small importers of noncompliant high chairs do not have direct ties with their suppliers. To avoid these costs, the six importers may replace their suppliers, select alternative products, or stop supplying high chairs if they have diverse product lines. For the remaining two importers that have direct ties to their suppliers, finding an alternative supply source likely is not a viable alternative. However, these firms' foreign suppliers may absorb some of the costs to maintain a presence in the U.S. market. Alternatively, these two importers could stop supplying high chairs, although this may be unlikely because both firms have only a few products in their product lines.
In addition, staff believes that third party testing could result in significant costs for two of the firms that import noncompliant high chairs. For one of these firms, testing costs could exceed 1 percent of its gross revenue if it tests as few as two units per model. The second firm would need to test about three units per model before testing costs would exceed 1 percent of its gross revenue. For two additional small importers of noncompliant high chairs, each of which supply only one high chair model, staff could not obtain revenue data to determine the potential impact of third party testing.
Section 14 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA; 15 U.S.C. 2051-2089) requires all children's products that are subject to a children's product safety rule to be tested by a third party conformity assessment body (
In the IRFA for this rule, staff anticipated that the accreditation requirements would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small laboratories because: (1) The rule imposed requirements only on laboratories that intended to provide third party testing services; (2) laboratories would assume the costs only if they anticipated receiving sufficient revenue from the
In the NPR, the Commission discussed several alternatives to the proposed rule that would reduce the economic impact of the rule on small entities. In effect, the Commission has incorporated two of these alternatives into the final rule.
One option the Commission discussed in the NPR involved modifying the rule to require compliance with the ASTM standard, without the additional more stringent requirements proposed in the NPR, or at least without the more stringent label placement requirements in the NPR. This alternative would allow the Commission to meet the mandate in CPSIA section 104 to adopt a rule that is substantially the same as the voluntary standard, but reduce the economic impact of the rule by reducing the changes needed to conform to the rule.
ASTM F404-18 includes the more stringent requirements proposed in the NPR, except for the label placement requirements, which remain consistent with ASTM F404-15. Under the final rule, firms will not have to meet additional, more stringent requirements than those in the voluntary standard. Moreover, the warning label placement requirements in the final rule provide more flexibility than the NPR—allowing for two separate labels, each of which is subject to only one visibility requirement, rather than two—thereby requiring less-burdensome product changes than the proposed rule. Therefore, in effect, the Commission has adopted this alternative, by incorporating by reference ASTM F404-18 without additional, more stringent requirements, and eliminating the more stringent label placement requirements proposed in the NPR.
Another alternative CPSC considered was extending the effective date of the rule. In the NPR, the Commission proposed a 6-month effective date for the final rule, consistent with other durable infant and toddler product rules. CPSC received comments about the effective date, suggesting that firms need 1 year to modify products to meet the standard, as some firms will need to redesign their products, test new products, and modify their production processes. Based on this information, CPSC believes that 1 year is a reasonable amount of time to account for needed changes, and is extending the effective date of the rule to 1 year. This should reduce the economic costs of the rule for small entities. Setting a later effective date reduces the likelihood of a lapse in production or imports if firms cannot comply with the standard or obtain third party testing within the time provided. In addition, a later effective date spreads the costs of compliance over a longer period, reducing annual costs and the present value of total costs.
Finally, CPSC considered partially or fully excluding restaurant-style high chairs from the final rule, or adopting more-limited requirements for these products. The requirements could be particularly costly for manufacturers and importers of restaurant-style high chairs because this style of chair has features intended to accommodate restaurant settings that would be difficult to retain while complying with the standard. As discussed previously in this preamble, although excluding restaurant-style high chairs from the final rule would reduce the economic impact on several small entities, CPSC believes that this alternative would not be appropriate given incident data, home use of these products, and the mandate in CPSIA section 104.
CPSC's regulations list categories of agency actions that “normally have little or no potential for affecting the human environment.” 16 CFR 1021.5(c). Such actions qualify as “categorical exclusions” under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370m-12), which do not require an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. One categorical exclusion listed in CPSC's regulations is for rules or safety standards that “provide design or performance requirements for products.” 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(1). Because the final rule for high chairs creates design or performance requirements, the rule falls within the categorical exclusion.
Under section 26(a) of the CPSA, no state or political subdivision of a state may establish or continue in effect a requirement dealing with the same risk of injury as a federal consumer product safety standard under the CPSA unless the state requirement is identical to the federal standard. 15 U.S.C. 2075(a). However, states or political subdivisions of states may apply to CPSC for an exemption, allowing them to establish or continue such a requirement if the state requirement “provides a significantly higher degree of protection from [the] risk of injury” and “does not unduly burden interstate commerce.”
One of the functions of the CPSIA was to amend the CPSA, adding several provisions to the CPSA, including CPSIA section 104 in 15 U.S.C. 2056a. As such, consumer product safety standards that the Commission creates under CPSIA section 104 are covered by the preemption provision in the CPSA. As a result, the preemption provision in section 26 of the CPSA applies to the mandatory safety standard for high chairs.
Section 14(a) of the CPSA requires the manufacturer or private labeler of a children's product that is subject to a children's product safety rule to certify that, based on a third party conformity assessment body's testing, the product complies with the applicable children's product safety rule. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a)(2)(A), 2063(a)(2)(B). Section 14(a) also requires CPSC to publish an NOR for a third party conformity assessment body (
On March 12, 2013, the Commission published a final rule in the
Testing laboratories that apply for CPSC acceptance to test high chairs for compliance with the new high chair rule would have to meet the requirements in part 1112. When a laboratory meets the requirements of a CPSC-accepted third party conformity
As the RFA requires, CPSC staff conducted a FRFA for the rulemaking in which the Commission adopted part 1112. 78 FR 15836, 15855-58. To summarize, the FRFA concluded that the accreditation requirements would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small laboratories because no requirements were imposed on laboratories that did not intend to provide third party testing services. The only laboratories CPSC expected to provide such services were those that anticipated receiving sufficient revenue from the mandated testing to justify accepting the requirements as a business decision.
By the same reasoning, adding an NOR for the high chair standard to part 1112 will not have a significant economic impact on small test laboratories. A relatively small number of laboratories in the United States have applied for accreditation to test for conformance to existing juvenile product standards. Accordingly, CPSC expects that only a few laboratories will seek accreditation to test for compliance with the high chair standard. Of those that seek accreditation, CPSC expects that most will have already been accredited to test for conformance to other juvenile product standards. The only costs to those laboratories will be the cost of adding the high chair standard to their scopes of accreditation. For these reasons, CPSC certifies that amending 16 CFR part 1112 to include an NOR for the high chairs standard will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Administrative practice and procedure, Audit, Consumer protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Third-party conformity assessment body.
Consumer protection, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Infants and children, Labeling, Law enforcement, Toys.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Commission amends 16 CFR chapter II as follows:
Pub. L. 110-314, section 3, 122 Stat. 3016, 3017 (2008); 15 U.S.C. 2063.
(b) * * *
(44) 16 CFR part 1231, Safety Standard for High Chairs.
Sec. 104, Pub. L. 110-314, 122 Stat. 3016 (August 14, 2008); Pub. L. 112-28, 125 Stat. 273 (August 12, 2011).
This part establishes a consumer product safety standard for high chairs.
(a) Each high chair shall comply with all applicable provisions of ASTM F404-18,
(b) [Reserved]
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Final rule.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is amending the Rough Diamonds Control Regulations to clarify several reporting requirements and remove another, clarify which entity may issue Kimberley Process Certificates for the export of rough diamonds from the United States, clarify the steps necessary to validate a Kimberley Process Certificate, add two definitions that define rough diamond packaging requirements and Kimberley Process voided certificates, and make certain technical and conforming changes to the penalties section of the regulations.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control: Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480, Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202-622-4855, Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202-622-2490; or the Department of the Treasury's Office of the Chief Counsel (Foreign Assets Control), Office of the General Counsel, tel.: 202-622-2410.
This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available from OFAC's website (
On August 4, 2003, OFAC promulgated the Rough Diamonds Control Regulations, 31 CFR part 592 (the “Regulations”), to implement Executive Order 13312 (E.O. 13312) of July 29, 2003. E.O. 13312 was issued to implement the Clean Diamond Trade Act (Pub. L. 108-19) (CDTA) and the multilateral Kimberley Process Certification Scheme for rough diamonds (KPCS). OFAC amended the Regulations on September 23, 2004 to revise certain reporting requirements (69 FR 56936). OFAC further amended the Regulations on May 21, 2008 (73 FR 29433) to enhance the compilation of statistical data relating to the
Today, in consultation with the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (Census Bureau), Department of State, and Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection (CBP), OFAC is again amending the Regulations. First, in coordination with a regulatory amendment by the Census Bureau (83 FR 17749), OFAC is incorporating into the Regulations existing Census Bureau requirements for submission of Kimberley Process Certificates in connection with the importation and exportation of rough diamonds. In addition, OFAC is clarifying which entity may issue Kimberley Process Certificates for the export of rough diamonds from the United States and adding two definitions that define rough diamond packaging requirements and Kimberley Process voided certificates. Additionally, OFAC is making certain technical and conforming changes to the penalties section of the Regulations.
At the same time, in consultation with the Department of State, the Census Bureau, and CBP, OFAC is removing the requirement that all rough diamond importers and exporters file annual reports with the Department of State detailing their import, export, and stockpile information as previously set forth in § 592.502. OFAC has removed this requirement as unnecessary in light of alternate sources from which to obtain relevant information.
OFAC is also defining the term
Because the amendments to the Regulations involve a foreign affairs function, the provisions of Executive Order 12866 and the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunity for public participation, and delay in effective date, as well as the provisions of Executive Order 13771, are inapplicable. Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this rule, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) does not apply.
With respect to section 2 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507 (PRA), the collections of information in §§ 592.301(a)(1)(i) and (ii), 592.501, and 592.603 of the Regulations are made pursuant to OFAC's Reporting, Procedures, and Penalties Regulations (31 CFR part 501) and have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under control number 1505-0164. Pursuant to the Census Bureau, the collections of information in § 592.301(a)(1)(iii)-(v) and in § 592.301(a)(5) related to exporter and importer reporting requirements and the FTR previously were approved by OMB under control number 0607-0152.
With respect to all of the foregoing collections of information, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless the collection of information displays a current, valid OMB control number.
The likely respondents and recordkeepers affected by the collection of information in § 592.301(a)(3) (report to foreign exporting authority) and the removal of the collection of information in § 592.502 (Annual State report) are rough diamond importers and exporters. The anticipated number of respondents is approximately 80. OFAC expects that the majority of these respondents will report to foreign exporting authorities approximately 15 times per year. Based on information from rough diamond traders and CBP's experience, roughly 1,200 individual transaction reports are expected annually. The total number of burden hours associated with the individual transaction reports is anticipated to be 200. This is based on an estimated completion and submission time of 10 minutes per report. This is a decrease of 300 burden hours from the prior hour burden based on current estimates that indicate there are fewer respondents and fewer imports than previously assumed. Based on information from rough diamonds traders, OFAC does not expect the hour burden on respondents to vary widely. Additionally, OFAC understands that it is the customary and usual business practice for most traders to send a detailed acknowledgment of receipt of a shipment to their overseas counterparts to the transaction.
As this regulatory amendment removes the annual State reporting requirement, the total number of burden hours is reduced by an estimated 1,250 hours. This is based on an estimated completion and submission time of five hours per report. The overall reduction in burden hours is therefore this reduction of 1,250 burden hours plus the reduction of 300 burden hours with respect to the report to foreign exporting authorities for a total reduction of 1,550 burden hours. The aggregate burden hours now associated with this information collection is 200 burden hours.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques and other forms of information technology; and (e) the estimated capital or start-up costs of the operation, maintenance, and/or purchase of services to provide information. Comments concerning the above information and the accuracy of these burden estimates, and suggestions for reducing this burden, should be directed to OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for the Department of the Treasury, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Washington, DC 20503 or by email to:
Administrative practice and procedure, Foreign trade, Exports, Imports, Kimberley Process, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rough diamond.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Office of Foreign Assets Control amends 31 CFR part 592 as follows:
3 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 3901-3913; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note; 31 U.S.C. 321(b); E.O. 13312, 68 FR 45151, 3 CFR, 2003 Comp., p. 246.
(a) * * *
(1)
(i) The original certificate must be presented immediately upon demand to U.S. Customs and Border Protection in connection with an importation or exportation of rough diamonds;
(ii) The person identified as the ultimate consignee (
(iii) The person identified as the ultimate consignee (
(iv) The U.S. Principal Party in Interest or U.S. authorized agent (see 15 CFR 30.1) must also provide the certificate to the U.S. Bureau of the Census immediately after export of the shipment of rough diamonds from the United States by faxing it to (800) 457-7328 or by other methods as permitted by the U.S. Bureau of the Census; and
(v) Any voided certificate(s) must be provided to the U.S. Bureau of the Census immediately upon voiding by faxing it to (800) 457-7328 or by other methods as permitted by the U.S. Bureau of the Census (
(2)
(4)
As reflected in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) among the U.S. Department of State, the U.S. Bureau of the Census, and the U.S. Kimberley Process Authority (USKPA), a non-profit association, Kimberley Process Certificates for the exportation of rough diamonds from the United States may only be issued at this time by the USKPA or by entities licensed to do so by the USKPA. Pursuant to this MOU, the U.S. Department of State annually reviews the USKPA's standards, practices, and procedures. The Secretary of State may reassign this review function to any other officers, officials, departments, and agencies within the executive branch, consistent with applicable law.
(5)
(i) Report shipments to the U.S. Bureau of the Census through the Automated Export System (AES) or a successor system and obtain an Internal Transaction Number (ITN) prior to exportation. The ITN is the number generated by the AES and assigned to a shipment confirming that an Electronic Export Information (EEI) was accepted and is on file in the AES.
(ii) Report the ITN on the Kimberley Process Certificate accompanying any exportation from the United States, which completes the validation process for the exportation of rough diamonds from the United States to a Participant.
The term
The term
The revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(3) Those customs laws of the United States, both civil and criminal, including those laws relating to seizure and forfeiture, that apply to articles imported in violation of such laws shall apply with respect to any rough diamond imported in violation of the Act.
As reflected in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section, section 8(a) of the Act establishes penalties with respect to any violation of any regulation issued under the Act. OFAC pre-penalty, penalty, and administrative collection procedures relating to such violations are set forth below in §§ 592.602 through 592.604. Section 8(c) of the Act also authorizes the U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, as appropriate, to enforce the penalty provisions set forth in paragraph (a) of this section and to enforce the laws and regulations governing exports of rough diamonds, including with respect to the validation of the Kimberley Process Certificate by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) civil penalty procedures set forth below are separate from, and independent of, any penalty procedures that may be followed by the U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in their exercise of the authorities set forth in section 8(c) of the Act.
(c) Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1001, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the government of the United States, knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device, a material fact, or makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned, or both.
(d) Violations of this part may also be subject to other applicable laws.
(a)
(b)
(2)
(i)
(ii)
(3)
(c)
(d)
(e)
If, after considering any written response to the Pre-Penalty Notice and any relevant facts, OFAC determines that there was a violation by the alleged violator named in the Pre-Penalty Notice and that a civil monetary penalty is appropriate, OFAC may issue a Penalty Notice to the violator containing a determination of the violation and the imposition of the monetary penalty. For additional details concerning issuance of a Penalty Notice, see appendix A to part 501 of this chapter. The issuance of the Penalty Notice shall constitute final agency action. The violator has the right to seek judicial review of that final agency action in federal district court.
In the event that the violator does not pay the penalty imposed pursuant to this part or make payment arrangements acceptable to OFAC, the matter may be referred for administrative collection measures by the Department of the Treasury or to the United States Department of Justice for appropriate action to recover the penalty in a civil suit in a federal district court.
(a)
(i) Determines that there has occurred a violation of any provision of this part, or a violation of the provisions of any license, ruling, regulation, order, directive, or instruction issued by or pursuant to the direction or authorization of the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to this part or otherwise under the Clean Diamond Trade Act;
(ii) Considers it important to document the occurrence of a violation; and,
(iii) Based on the Guidelines contained in appendix A to part 501 of this chapter, concludes that an administrative response is warranted but that a civil monetary penalty is not the most appropriate response.
(2) An initial Finding of Violation shall be in writing and may be issued whether or not another agency has taken any action with respect to the matter. For additional details concerning issuance of a Finding of Violation, see appendix A to part 501 of this chapter.
(b)
(2)
(i)
(ii)
(3)
(4)
(c)
(2)
A determination by OFAC that a final Finding of Violation is not warranted does not preclude OFAC from pursuing other enforcement actions consistent with the Guidelines contained in appendix A to part 501 of this chapter.
(d)
Department of the Navy, DoD
Final rule.
The Department of the Navy (DoN) is amending its certifications and exemptions under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS), to reflect that the Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (DAJAG) (Admiralty and Maritime Law) has determined that certain vessels of the VIRGINIA SSN Class are vessels of the Navy which, due to their special construction and purpose, cannot fully comply with certain provisions of the 72 COLREGS without interfering with their special function as a naval ships. The intended effect of this rule is to warn mariners in waters where 72 COLREGS apply.
This rule is effective June 19, 2018 and is applicable beginning May 29, 2018.
Lieutenant Commander Kyle Fralick, (Admiralty and Maritime Law), Office of the Judge Advocate General, Department of the Navy, 1322 Patterson Ave. SE, Suite 3000, Washington Navy Yard, DC 20374-5066, telephone 202-685-5040.
Pursuant to the authority granted in 33 U.S.C. 1605, the DoN amends 32 CFR part 706.
This amendment provides notice that the DAJAG (Admiralty and Maritime Law), under authority delegated by the Secretary of the Navy, has certified that certain vessels of the Virginia SSN Class are vessels of the Navy which, due to their special construction and purpose, cannot fully comply with the following specific provisions of 72 COLREGS without interfering with their special function as a naval ship: Rule 23(a) and Annex I, paragraph 2(a)(i), pertaining to the vertical placement of the masthead, light and Annex I, paragraph 2(f)(i), pertaining to the masthead light being above and clear of all other lights and obstructions; Rule 30 (a), Rule 21(e), and Annex I, paragraph 2(k), pertaining to the vertical separation of the anchor lights, vertical placement of the forward anchor light above the hull, and the arc of visibility of all around lights; Rule 23 (a) and Annex I, paragraph 3(b), pertaining to the location of the sidelights; and Rule 21(c), pertaining to the location and arc of visibility of the sternlight. The DAJAG (Admiralty and Maritime Law) has also certified that the lights involved are located in closest possible compliance with the applicable 72 COLREGS requirements.
Moreover, it has been determined, in accordance with 32 CFR parts 296 and 701, that publication of this amendment for public comment prior to adoption is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to public interest since it is based on technical findings that the placement of lights on these vessels in a manner differently from that prescribed herein will adversely affect these vessel's ability to perform their military functions.
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Vessels.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the DoN amends part 706 of title 32 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1605.
25. * * *
26. * * *
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in the Captain of the Port, Sault Sainte Marie zone. This safety zone is intended to restrict certain portions of the waters of Lake Michigan in the Straits of Mackinac in the vicinity of a construction barge and tug. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect the public and workers from the potential hazards associated with diving operations and installation of additional pipeline anchors.
This rule is effective without actual notice from June 19, 2018 until September 4, 2018. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from June 15, 2018, until June 19, 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 MSTC Steven Durden, Sector Sault Sainte Marie Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 906-635-3222, 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 and contrary to the public interest. The Coast Guard was notified of the approval of this project by the State of Michigan and U.S. Army Corp of Engineers on May 22, 2018. Delaying this rule to wait for a notice and comment period to run would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect the public and workers from the potential hazards associated with diving operations and installation of additional pipeline anchors.
We are issuing this final rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish safety zones: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
This rule establishes a safety zone from June 15, 2018 until September 4, 2018. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of Lake Michigan, Straits of Mackinac within 500ft of a construction barge and tug. This rule is needed to protect the public and workers within the safety zone while diving operations and installation of additional pipeline anchors are taking place.
This rule is necessary to ensure the safety of the public and workers during the aforementioned operations. The temporary safety zone will encompass all U.S. navigable waters within 500ft of the barge “Big Digger” while operating in the Mackinac Straits between the areas marked on chart 14880 as “Pipeline & Cable Area.” The western boundary is a line from 45°50′1″ N, 084°46′05″ W to 45°47′30″ N, 084°47′00″ W. The eastern boundary is a line from 45°50′20″ N, 084°45′08″ W to 45°47′20″ N, 84°46′14″ W. The safety zone will be enforced until September 4, 2018.
Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Sault Sainte Marie, or his designated representative. The Captain of the Port or a designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 or telephone at 906-635-3233.
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, the 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.
We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because 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 is confined to area encompassing urgent operations. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zones 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.
This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: the owners or operators of the vessels intending to transit in the vicinity of the safety zone.
This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the reasons identified in the Regulatory Planning and Review section. Further, the Coast Guard will give advance notice to the public via a Broadcast Notice to Mariners so the public can plan accordingly.
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
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 Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves establishment of a safety zone and, therefore, 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 (REC) supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated in the
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)
(2) Vessel Operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone shall contact the Captain of the Port, Sault Sainte Marie, or his on-scene representative via VHF Channel 16 or telephone at 906-635-3233. 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, Sault Sainte Marie or his on-scene representative.
(c) This rule will be enforced from June 15, 2018, until September 4, 2018.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce established safety zones for the Grand Marais Splash In, Jordan Valley Freedom Festival Fireworks, Festival of Fireworks Celebration Fireworks, and National Cherry Festival starting in June, 2018 to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways. Our regulation for safety zones within the Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie Zone identifies the regulated area for these safety zones. During the enforcement periods, vessels must stay out of the established safety zone and may only enter with permission from the designated representative of the Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie.
The regulations in 33 CFR 165.918 will be enforced for the safety zones identified in the
If you have questions about this publication, call or email Chief Steven Durden, Waterways Management, Coast Guard Sector Sault Sainte Marie, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 906-635-3222, email
The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zones in 33 CFR 165.918 as per the time, dates, and locations in Table 1.
This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during the fireworks displays. The regulations for safety zones within the Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie Zone, § 165.918, apply for these fireworks displays.
In addition to this publication in the
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard will amend its safety zone regulations for annual events in the Captain of the Port Duluth Zone. This final rule would update the locations for seven safety zones, add three new safety zones, increase the safety zone radius of six existing fireworks events, and modify the format of the regulation to list the annual events and corresponding safety zones in table form. These amendments will protect spectators, participants, and vessels from the hazards associated with annual marine events and improve the clarity and readability of the regulation.
This rule is effective July 19, 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 Lieutenant John Mack, Chief of Waterways Management, Marine Safety Unit Duluth, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 218-725-3818, email
On February 22, 2018 the Coast Guard published an NPRM in the
As noted above, we received one comment on our NPRM published February 22, 2018. The submission was not relevant to the rulemaking and no substantive changes were made to the rule based upon this comment. We made nonsubstantive editorial changes in the regulatory text of this rule that vary from the proposed rule in the NPRM.
This rule is necessary to ensure seven existing regulations receive updated coordinates, add three new safety zones, increase the radius of six established fireworks events, and have the existing regulations published in a table format. The updated coordinates are necessary to ensure safety zones are in place at the appropriate location of the event. The addition of three new safety zones, all of which are fireworks events, will help prevent injury to spectators from the pyrotechnics. The increase of safety zone radius for six published rules is necessary to protect the public when larger pyrotechnic shell sizes are used during the fireworks displays. A table format increases the readability of published safety zones.
This rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator as stated in the published
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Duluth (COTP) has determined that an amendment to the recurring events list as published in 33 CFR 165.943 will be necessary to: Update the location of seven existing safety zones (Bridgefest Regatta Fireworks Display, Cornucopia 4th of July Fireworks Display, Duluth 4th Fest Fireworks Display, LaPointe 4th of July Fireworks Display, Point to LaPointe Swim, Lake Superior Dragon Boat Festival, Superior Man Triathlon), add three new safety zones for additional annual events (City of Bayfield 4th of July Fireworks Display, Two Harbors 4th of July Fireworks Display, and Superior 4th of July Fireworks Display), increase the safety zone radius of six fireworks events (Bridgefest Regatta Fireworks Display, Ashland 4th of July Fireworks Display, Cornucopia 4th of July Fireworks Display, Duluth 4th Fest Fireworks Display, LaPointe 4th of July Fireworks Display, and Lake Superior Dragon Boat Festival), and format the existing regulations into a table format. The purpose of this rule is to ensure safety of vessels and the navigable waters in the safety zone before, during, and after the scheduled events and to improve the overall clarity and readability of the rule.
The amendments are necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and people during annual events taking place on or near federally maintained waterways in the Captain of the Port Duluth Zone. Although this rule will be in effect year-round, the specific safety zones listed in Table 1 to § 165.943 will only be enforced during a specified period of time when the event is on-going.
When a Notice of Enforcement for a particular safety zone is published, entry into, transiting through, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Duluth, or his or her designated representative. The Captain of the Port Duluth or his or her designated representative can be contacted via VHF Channel 16. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Executive Order 13771 (“Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”), directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that “for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.”
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. As this rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from the requirements of 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 regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day for each safety zone. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around all safety zones which will impact small designated areas within Lake Superior for short durations of time. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners 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 received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rulemaking. 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 IV.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
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves: The update of seven safety zone locations, the addition of three new safety zones, an increase of size for six safety zone radiuses for fireworks related events, and the reformatting of regulations into an easier to read table format. 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)
(1) The Coast Guard will provide advance notice of the enforcement date and time of the safety zone being enforced in Table 1 to this section, by issuing a Notice of Enforcement, as well as a Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
(2) During the enforcement period, the general regulations found in § 165.23 shall apply.
(b)
(c)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve revisions to Idaho's State Implementation Plan (SIP) related to agricultural crop residue burning. The Director of the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) submitted the revisions to EPA on September 22, 2017. IDEQ supplemented the original submission with photochemical modeling analyses on October 23, 2017. The revisions change the ambient ozone concentration level at which IDEQ may approve a permittee's request to burn. This final action is being taken for the reasons set out in EPA's proposed action in this matter. This action is being taken under section 110 of the Clean Air Act (the Act or CAA).
This final rule is effective July 19, 2018.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2017-0566. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Randall Ruddick at (206) 553-1999, or
Throughout this document, wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, it is intended to refer to EPA.
On September 22, 2017, the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) submitted revisions to the SIP provisions regulating open burning of crop residue in the state to EPA for approval. On January 22, 2018, the EPA proposed to approve all of the revisions requested in the September 22, 2017 submittal. We are taking final action for the reasons explained in the January 22, 2018 notification of proposed approval (83 FR 2955). Please see our proposed approval for further explanation and the basis for our finding. The public comment period for this proposal ended on February 21, 2018. EPA received public comments on the proposed rulemaking. Summaries of the comments as well as EPA's responses to adverse comments are in Section II of this rulemaking action. After consideration of the comments, we do not believe any changes in the rationale or conclusions in the proposed approval are appropriate.
EPA received comments on a variety of issues related to the proposed approval of Idaho's crop residue burning SIP revisions. Out of a total of ten comments received, three were supportive of EPA's approval of the SIP revisions, four were adverse to the EPA's proposed approval, and three were determined to be not germane to this action. A full copy of all comments received is available in the docket for final action.
EPA received public comments arguing that the NAAQS are not adequately protective of public health in the context of crop residue burning and should not be relied upon as the basis for approval of the proposed crop residue burning SIP revisions. One commenter stated that because the PM
These comments relate to the adequacy of the PM
Pursuant to those provisions, EPA completed its last review of the ozone NAAQS in 2015 (80 FR 65292, October 26, 2015). With respect to the primary standard, in that review EPA determined that the NAAQS should be revised to provide the requisite protection of public health (80 FR 65292, October 26, 2015). Accordingly, based on careful consideration of the extensive information in the record, including a thorough review of scientific evidence and information about ozone-related health effects, quantitative assessments that estimated public health risks associated with just meeting the prior ozone NAAQS and various alternative standards that were considered, advice from EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), and public comments received in response to the proposal, the Administrator revised the level of the primary ozone NAAQS to 0.070 parts per million, and retained the other elements of the prior standard (indicator, form, and averaging time) (80 FR 65365, October 26, 2015). In so doing, she concluded that the revised primary standard is requisite to protect public health, including the health of at-risk populations, with an adequate margin of safety (80 FR 65365, October 26, 2015).
Similarly, EPA completed its last periodic review of the PM NAAQS in 2012, and published notice of its decision to revise the PM NAAQS in 2013 (78 FR 3086, January 15, 2013). With regard to the primary NAAQS for PM
These actions revising the primary NAAQS for PM and ozone, and the related conclusions that the 2012 PM NAAQS and 2015 ozone NAAQS are requisite to protect the public health with an adequate margin of safety, are beyond the scope of this action. This action concerns a SIP submission under CAA section 110, and under section 110(a) such plans are to “provide[ ] for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of the primary NAAQS. EPA does not revisit the adequacy of the NAAQS when taking action on proposed SIP modifications related to that pollutant. Rather, EPA reasonably focuses on a determination of whether a SIP amendment will ensure attainment and maintenance with the NAAQS as the relevant and applicable standard for approvals of SIP revisions under CAA section 110.
In the matter at hand, Idaho requested a revision to the ozone concentration level at which IDEQ may authorize (authorization level) agricultural crop residue burning (CRB). The requested revision does not change the authorization levels for any other NAAQS and all other CRB requirements remain unchanged. For the reasons provided in our proposal for this action, we conclude that approval of Idaho's submitted SIP revisions will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirement of the Clean Air Act. 83 FR 2955, January 22, 2018.
Several commenters expressed concern about Idaho's failure to evaluate how an increase in ozone emissions from crop residue burning would interact with other pollutants to impact public health. The commenters argued that Idaho has a duty to demonstrate that its proposed SIP revisions will not increase risks to public health. Several commenters objected to the SIP revision on the basis that the changes are not in the public interest and constitutes a weakening of a health-based standard. Commenters cited both impacts to public health associated with crop residue burning from both ozone and fine particles (PM
As explained in EPA's notice of proposed rulemaking in this matter, whether or not a SIP revision will interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirement of the CAA is the relevant basis for approval or disapproval. SIPs, under CAA section 110, implement the NAAQS contained in CAA section 109 which are specific to the six criteria pollutants: Carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. Hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) such as benzene and PAHs, in general, are not regulated under Title I of the CAA and are not relevant to EPA determinations of whether or not a SIP revision meets the relevant requirements of the Act. Contrary to the arguments raised by these commenters, EPA does not have authority under the CAA to consider whether a proposed SIP revision will result in a general increased risk to public health (whether it be from one pollutant considered in isolation or the synergistic effects of human exposure to multiple pollutants interacting with one another) so long as the state can demonstrate that the SIP will result in the attainment or maintenance of the relevant NAAQS.
ICL cites CAA section 101(b)(1) in support of its assertion that Idaho's SIP submission does not meet the requirements of the CAA, and that Idaho had not provided a sufficient justification that CAA requirements not related to the ozone NAAQS would not be violated. CAA section 101(b)(1) provides a declaration of one of the purposes of Title I of the Act, namely “to protect and enhance the quality of the Nation's air resources so as to promote the public health and welfare and the productive capacity of its population.” EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that CAA section 101(b)(1) authorizes EPA to disapprove a SIP revision based on the cumulative impacts of pollutants in evaluating a state's implementation plan under Title I.
One commenter disputed Idaho's assertion that raising the burn authorization trigger from 75% to 90% of the ozone NAAQS will facilitate authorizing burning on days when the conditions for pollutant dispersion are better. Multiple commenters asserted that Idaho did not consider alternative options to crop residue burning, including the option of simply not authorizing burns on days when the NAAQS will exceed the current 75% burning authorization level (
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Failure to consider alternatives to the proposed SIP revision is not a basis for disapproval. Even if the existing SIP burning threshold was originally established as a consensus-based standard at the state level taking into account the factors identified by the commenters, EPA cannot substitute its judgement or policy preferences for Idaho's lawfully submitted SIP revision so long as the SIP revision is consistent with the CAA's requirements. As explained in EPA's notice of proposed rulemaking, EPA concludes that Idaho has adequately demonstrated that the SIP revision will not interfere with continued attainment of the ozone NAAQS in Idaho. Potential effects of the revision on attainment and maintenance is limited to the ozone NAAQS because the SIP submission does not alter any requirements related to other criteria pollutants. Under such circumstances, nothing in the CAA prohibits a state from modifying its SIP requirements to address its current air quality management needs.
As explained in EPA's notification of proposed approval, EPA concludes that Idaho has adequately demonstrated that it will continue to attain the ozone NAAQS after raising its ozone burning threshold. To the extent that the commenter is raising concerns about the adequacy of the Idaho ozone monitoring network to detect ozone NAAQS violations, it is relevant to note that EPA regularly assesses the adequacy of states' monitoring networks for all pollutants pursuant to its review of each state's Annual Network Monitoring Plan. EPA's most recent evaluation of the Idaho ozone monitoring network was addressed in its November 8, 2017, approval letter (included in the docket for this action). EPA's approval letter identified areas where an ozone monitor may need to be added in the future. EPA will continue to monitor the adequacy of the ozone monitoring network to determine if the network must be expanded to comply with 40 CFR part 58 requirements.
EPA is approving, and incorporating by reference where appropriate in Idaho's SIP, all revisions requested by Idaho on September 22, 2017 to the following provisions:
• IDAPA 58.01.01.621.01 (Burn Approval Criteria, state effective February 28, 2018); and
• Idaho Code 39-114 (Open Burning of Crop Residue, state effective February 28, 2018).
We have determined that the submitted SIP revisions are consistent with section 110 and part C of Title I of the CAA.
In this rule, EPA is approving regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are incorporating by reference the provisions described above in Section III. Final Action and set forth below, as amendments to 40 CFR part 52. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this final action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because this action does not involve technical standards; and
• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under CAA section 307(b)(1), petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 20, 2018. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Administrative practice and procedure, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The revision and additions read as follows:
(c) * * *
(e) * * *
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Technical amendments.
NASA is making technical amendments to the NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) to provide needed editorial changes.
Geoffrey Sage, NASA, Office of Procurement, Contract and Grant Policy Division, via email at
As part of NASA's retrospective review of existing regulations NASA is conducting periodic reviews of the NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) to ensure the accuracy of information disseminated to the acquisition community. This rule makes administrative changes to the NFS to correct typographical errors as well as inadvertent omissions from prior rulemaking actions. A summary of changes follows:
• Section 1801.105-1, paragraph (b)(iii), is revised to update the internet link to “
• Section 1803.906, paragraph (d), is revised by replacing the word “Unites” with the word “United”.
• Section 1804.170 is revised to remove the paragraph designations “(a)” and “(b)” and combine the two paragraphs.
• Section 1815.203-72 is revised to remove the redundant words “and RFOs”.
• Section 1815.305-70, paragraph (a)(3), is revised by replacing the word “eficiencies” with the word “deficiencies”.
• Section 1852.215-79 is revised by replacing the clause reference “52.215-21” with the clause reference “52.215-9”.
• Section 1852.216-76 is revised to remove the words “,
• Section 1852.245-71 is revised to provide space for a contracting officer to “check” if property and services are provided in paragraphs (c)(1) through (11).
• Section 1852.247-71 is revised by replacing the word “Mammals” with the word “Mammal” in paragraph (a).
Government procurement.
Accordingly, 48 CFR parts 1801, 1803, 1804, 1815, and 1852 are amended as follows:
51 U.S.C. 20113(a) and 48 CFR chapter 1.
“Contract effective date” means the date agreed upon by the parties for beginning the period of performance under the contract. In no case shall the effective date precede the date on which the contracting officer or designated higher approval authority signs the document. Costs incurred before the contract effective date are unallowable unless they qualify as precontract costs (see FAR 31.205-32) and the clause prescribed at 1831.205-70 is used.
(c) * * *
_(1) Office space, work area space, and utilities. Government telephones are available for official purposes only.
_(2) Office furniture.
_(3) Property listed in [Insert attachment number or “not applicable” if no equipment is provided].
(i) If the Contractor acquires property, title to which vests in the Government pursuant to other provisions of this contract, this property also shall become accountable to the Government upon its entry into Government records.
(ii) The Contractor shall not bring to the installation for use under this contract any property owned or leased by the Contractor, or other property that the Contractor is accountable for under any other Government contract, without the Contracting Officer's prior written approval.
_(4) Supplies from stores stock.
_(5) Publications and blank forms stocked by the installation.
_(6) Safety and fire protection for Contractor personnel and facilities.
_(7) Installation service facilities: [Insert the name of the facilities or “none”].
_(8) Medical treatment of a first-aid nature for Contractor personnel injuries or illnesses sustained during on-site duty.
_(9) Cafeteria privileges for Contractor employees during normal operating hours.
_(10) Building maintenance for facilities occupied by Contractor personnel.
_(11) Moving and hauling for office moves, movement of large equipment, and delivery of supplies. Moving services may be provided on-site, as approved by the Contracting Officer.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; interim measures extended.
NMFS issues this temporary rule to extend the expiration date of interim measures to reduce overfishing of golden tilefish in Federal waters of the South Atlantic implemented by a temporary rule published by NMFS on January 2, 2018. This temporary rule extends the reduced total annual catch limit (ACL), commercial and recreational sector ACLs, and quotas for the hook-and-line and longline components of the commercial sector for an additional 186 days. The purpose of this temporary rule extension is to reduce overfishing of golden tilefish while the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) develops management measures to end overfishing of golden tilefish on a permanent basis.
The expiration date for the final temporary rule published at 83 FR 65 on January 2, 2018, is extended through January 3, 2019, unless NMFS publishes a superseding document in the
Electronic copies of the environmental assessment (EA) supporting these interim measures may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office website at
Mary Vara, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, or email:
The snapper-grouper fishery in the South Atlantic region includes golden tilefish and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the Council and is implemented by NMFS through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
On January 2, 2018, NMFS published the final temporary rule to implement interim measures to reduce overfishing of golden tilefish in South Atlantic Federal waters (83 FR 65). The final temporary rule reduced the total ACL for golden tilefish to 323,000 lb (146,510 kg), gutted weight, 361,760 lb (164,092 kg), round weight. In addition, the final temporary rule reduced the commercial and recreational sector ACLs and component commercial quotas, using the existing sector allocations, and the quotas for the hook-and-line and longline components of the commercial sector. Therefore, during the effectiveness of the final temporary rule and this temporary rule extension, the commercial ACL is 313,310 lb (142,115 kg), gutted weight; the commercial quota for the hook-and-line component is 78,328 lb (35,529 kg), gutted weight; and the commercial quota for the longline component is 234,982 lb (106,586 kg), gutted weight. The recreational ACL during the effectiveness of the final temporary rule and this temporary rule extension is 2,187 fish, which is equivalent to 9,690 lb (4,395 kg), gutted weight. This temporary rule extension continues the measures in the final temporary rule unchanged for an additional 186 days, unless this temporary rule extension is superseded by subsequent rulemaking. The purpose of these interim measures is to reduce the overfishing of golden tilefish in South Atlantic Federal waters, while long-term management measures are developed and implemented through Regulatory Amendment 28 to the FMP. The January 2, 2018, final temporary rule stated that long-term management measures would be developed through Amendment 45 to the FMP. The Council subsequently determined that an FMP amendment was not required, and that the same management measures could be developed and implemented using the existing FMP framework procedures. Regulatory Amendment 28 will include management measures to end overfishing of golden tilefish on a long-term basis.
Regulatory Amendment 28 is scheduled to be approved by the Council at their June 2018 meeting and implemented prior to the expiration of the interim measures in this temporary rule extension in the 2019 fishing year, which begins on January 1, 2019.
Section 305(c)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the Council the authority to request interim measures, if necessary, to reduce overfishing. The Council sent a letter to NMFS, dated June 27, 2017, to request that NMFS implement interim measures to immediately reduce overfishing of golden tilefish while long-term management measures are developed to end overfishing of golden tilefish. Section 305(c)(3)(B) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act allows for interim measures to be extended for one additional period of 186 days provided that the public has had an opportunity to comment on the interim measures and that the Council is actively preparing an FMP amendment to address the overfishing on a permanent basis. NMFS published a proposed temporary rule on October 30, 2017, and requested public comments on these interim measures (82 FR 50101). NMFS responded to public comments in the final temporary rule published on January 2, 2018 (83 FR 65).
The Regional Administrator for the NMFS Southeast Region has determined that the interim measures extended through this temporary rule are necessary for the conservation and management of the South Atlantic golden tilefish stock, until long-term measures are implemented, and are consistent with the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
This temporary rule extension has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
This temporary rule extension is exempt from the procedures of the RFA, because the rule is issued without the opportunity for prior notice and public comment.
NMFS prepared an EA for the interim measures contained in the January 2, 2018, final temporary rule (83 FR 65). The EA analyzed the impacts of reduced harvest through the 2018 fishing year, which includes the impacts related to extending the interim measures. Therefore, the impacts of extending the interim measures through this temporary rule have already been considered. Electronic copies of the EA are available from NMFS (see
This temporary rule extension responds to the best scientific information available. The Assistant Administrator for NOAA Fisheries (AA) finds that the need to immediately implement this action constitutes good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment, pursuant to the authority set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), as such procedures for this temporary rule extension are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because NMFS already published a proposed temporary rule on October 30, 2017, and requested public comments on these interim measures, including their potential extension (82 FR 50101). NMFS responded to public comments in the final temporary rule published on January 2, 2018 (83 FR 65). This temporary rule extension continues the interim measures unchanged for an additional 186 days.
Prior notice and opportunity for public comment are contrary to the public interest because of the need to continue these interim measures without interruption to protect the golden tilefish stock until the Council and NMFS can prepare and possibly implement management measures under Regulatory Amendment 28 to end overfishing of golden tilefish on a permanent basis. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment would require time and could result in an interruption of the interim measures and, therefore, allow harvest in excess of ACLs and quotas implemented by this temporary rule extension, which would contribute to overfishing of golden tilefish. Allowing overfishing of golden tilefish to continue would be contrary to National Standard 1 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. National Standard 1 requires NMFS to conserve and manage ocean resources to prevent overfishing, while achieving the optimum yield from each fishery.
The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in this temporary rule extension's effectiveness, pursuant to the authority set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) as such procedure for this temporary rule extension is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. A delay in effectiveness is impracticable, because it would contribute to overfishing of golden tilefish, which is contrary to National Standard 1 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act as stated previously. Without this temporary rule extension becoming effective immediately after the duration of and without interruption from the final temporary rule, which would end after July 1, 2018, the commercial and recreational sectors would be able to harvest golden tilefish under higher ACLs and quotas than those implemented by the final temporary rule and continued through this temporary rule extension. These harvests could result in further overfishing of golden tilefish, contrary to NMFS' statutory obligations. By implementing this temporary rule extension immediately, the total harvest of golden tilefish would be reduced until the Council and NMFS can prepare and possibly implement management measures under Regulatory Amendment 28 to end overfishing of golden tilefish on a permanent basis.
In addition, delaying the effectiveness of this final temporary rule for 30 days is contrary to the public interest because of the need to immediately implement this action to protect golden tilefish. The capacity of the fishing fleet allows for rapid harvest of the ACL. Delaying the effectiveness of this temporary rule extension would require time and could potentially result in a harvest in excess of the reduced ACLs implemented by this temporary rule extension, increasing the likelihood of future overfishing and more restrictive measures to address it.
Accordingly, the 30-day delay in effectiveness of the measures contained in this temporary rule extension is waived.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS announces that the Closed Area I Scallop Access Area is closed to Limited Access General Category Individual Fishing Quota scallop vessels for the remainder of the 2018 fishing year. No vessel issued a Limited Access General Category Individual Fishing Quota permit may fish for, possess, or land scallops from
Effective 0001 hr local time, June 18, 2018, through March 31, 2019.
Shannah Jaburek, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 282-8456.
Regulations governing fishing activity in the Sea Scallop Access Areas can be found in 50 CFR 648.59 and 648.60. These regulations authorize vessels issued a valid Limited Access General Category (LAGC) Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) scallop permit to fish in the Closed Area I Scallop Access Area under specific conditions, including a total of 571 trips that may be taken during the 2018 fishing year. Section 648.59(g)(3)(iii) requires the Closed Area I Scallop Access Area to be closed to LAGC IFQ permitted vessels for the remainder of the fishing year once the NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Administrator determines that the allowed number of trips for fishing year 2018 are projected to be taken.
Based on trip declarations by LAGC IFQ scallop vessels fishing in the Closed Area I Scallop Access Area, analysis of fishing effort, and other information, NMFS projects that 571 trips will be taken as of June 18, 2018. Therefore, in accordance with § 648.59(g)(3)(iii), NMFS is closing the Closed Area I Scallop Access Area to all LAGC IFQ scallop vessels as of June 18, 2018. No vessel issued an LAGC IFQ permit may fish for, possess, or land scallops in or from the Closed Area I Scallop Access Area after 0001 local time, June 18, 2018. Any LAGC IFQ vessel that has declared into the Closed Area I Access Area scallop fishery, complied with all trip notification and observer requirements, and crossed the vessel monitor system (VMS) demarcation line on the way to the area before 0001, June 18, 2018, may complete its trip without being subject to this closure. This closure is in effect for the remainder of the 2018 scallop fishing year, through March 31, 2019.
This action is required by 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866. NMFS finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment because it would be contrary to the public interest and impracticable. The Closed Area I Scallop Access Area opened for the 2018 fishing year on April 19, 2018. The regulations at § 648.59(g)(3)(iii) require this closure to ensure that LAGC IFQ scallop vessels do not take more than their allocated number of trips in the Closed Area I Scallop Access Area. The projected date on which the LAGC IFQ fleet will have taken all of its allocated trips in an Access Area becomes apparent only as trips into the area occur on a real-time basis and as activity trends begin to appear. As a result, NMFS can only make an accurate projection very close in time to when the fleet has taken all of its trips. In order to propose a closure for purposes of receiving prior public comment, NMFS would need to make a projection based on very little information, which would result in a closure too early or too late. To allow LAGC IFQ scallop vessels to continue to take trips in the Closed Area I Scallop Access Area during the period necessary to publish and receive comments on a proposed rule would likely result in the vessels taking much more than the allowed number of trips in the Closed Area I Scallop Access Area. Excessive trips and harvest from the Closed Area I Scallop Access Area would result in excessive fishing effort in the area, where effort controls are critical, thereby undermining conservation objectives of the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan and requiring more restrictive future management measures. Also, the public had prior notice and full opportunity to comment on this closure process when it was enacted For these same reasons, NMFS further finds, pursuant to 5 U.S.C 553(d)(3), good cause to waive the 30-day delayed effectiveness period.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act, Section 104 of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA), requires the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (Commission, or CPSC) to promulgate consumer product safety standards for durable infant or toddler products. These standards are to be “substantially the same as” applicable voluntary standards or more stringent than the voluntary standard if the Commission concludes that more stringent requirements would further reduce the risk of injury associated with the product. The Commission is proposing a safety standard for stationary activity centers in response to the direction under Section 104(b) of the CPSIA.
Submit comments by September 4, 2018.
Comments related to the Paperwork Reduction Act aspects of the marking, labeling, and instructional literature of the proposed rule should be directed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: CPSC Desk Officer, FAX: 202-395-6974, or emailed to
Other comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2018-0015, may be submitted electronically or in writing:
Kevin Lee, Project Manager, Mechanical Engineer, Directorate for Engineering Sciences, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 5 Research Place, Rockville, MD 20850; telephone: 301-987-2486; email:
The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA, Pub. L. 110-314) was enacted on August 14, 2008. Section 104(b) of the CPSIA, part of the Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act, requires the Commission to: (1) Examine and assess the effectiveness of voluntary consumer product safety standards for durable infant or toddler products, in consultation with representatives of consumer groups, juvenile product manufacturers, and independent child product engineers and experts; and (2) promulgate consumer product safety standards for durable infant and toddler products. These standards are to be “substantially the same as” applicable voluntary standards or more stringent than the voluntary standard if the Commission concludes that more stringent requirements would further reduce the risk of injury associated with the product. The term “durable infant or toddler product” is defined in section 104(f)(1) of the CPSIA as “a durable product intended for use, or that may be reasonably expected to be used, by children under the age of 5 years.”
In this document, the Commission is proposing a safety standard for stationary activity centers (SACs). “Stationary Activity Centers” are specifically identified in section 104(f)(2)(G) of the CPSIA as a durable infant or toddler product. Pursuant to Section 104(b)(1)(A), the Commission consulted with manufacturers, retailers, trade organizations, laboratories, consumer advocacy groups, consultants, and members of the public in the development of this proposed standard, largely through the ASTM process. The proposed rule is based on the voluntary standard developed by ASTM International (formerly the American Society for Testing and Materials), ASTM F2012-18
The ASTM standard is copyrighted, but it can be viewed as a read-only document during the comment period on this proposal, at:
ASTM F2012-18
SACs typically range in price from $30 to $150, with spring-supported SACs typically ranging from $50 to $150. Some manufacturers produce multiple models and several produce models that are similar in design, but with different accessories. SACs typically accommodate children who weigh less than 25 pounds and have a maximum height of 32 inches.
There were approximately 7.5 million (95% confidence interval (CI) between 6.2 million and 8.8 million) SACs in national households with children under the age of 5 in 2013, according to CPSC's 2013 Durable Nursery Product Exposure Survey (DNPES). However, based on the same data, only about 4.1 million of these were actually in use (95% CI between 3.1 million and 5.2 million).
The Commission is aware of a total of 3,488 reported incidents related to SACs that occurred between January 1, 2013 and September 30, 2017. The characterization of the deaths, injuries, and types of hazards is based on incident reports received by CPSC staff. Information on 92 percent (3,217 out of 3,488) of the incidents was based solely on reports submitted to CPSC by manufacturers and retailers through CPSC's “Retailer Reporting Program.” Because reporting is ongoing, the number of reported incidents may change. The number of emergency department-treated injuries associated with SACs, for the timeframe covered, was insufficient to derive any reportable national estimates.
CPSC does not have any reports of fatalities associated with the use of SACs occurring between January 1, 2013 and September 30, 2017.
The Commission is aware of a total of 304 nonfatal injury incidents related to SACs that reportedly occurred between January 1, 2013 and September 30, 2017.
Twenty-four children were reported to have been treated at, and released from, a hospital emergency department (ED). A majority of them suffered a fall, resulting in head injuries, limb fractures, and contusions. A few children treated in hospital EDs suffered unexplained foot/leg/pelvic bruising, fractures, and/or swelling while jumping in the product. One child had an allergic reaction to the product's finish or materials, while two children suffered from limb entrapments when using the product.
Among the remaining 280 injury reports, some specifically mentioned the type of injury, while others only mentioned an injury, but provided no specifics about the injury. Fractures, head injuries, concussions, teeth injury, abrasions, contusions, and lacerations were among some of the commonly reported injuries.
The remaining 3,184 incidents reported that no injury had occurred or provided no information about any injury. However, many of the descriptions indicated the potential for a serious injury.
CPSC staff considered all 3,488 reported incidents to identify hazard patterns associated with the use of SACs. Most of the reported problems were product-related issues. In order of descending frequency, the problems were as follows:
•
•
○ Forcefully striking the child, usually on the face
○ Pinching or entrapping limbs or extremities
○ Posing a laceration hazard due to sharp edges or surfaces
○ Causing gagging while mouthing the toy
○ Posing an entanglement hazard because of the long ribbons/strings attached
○ Posing a choking hazard due to small parts detaching.
One hundred fifty-six injuries, including two ED-treated injuries, were reported in this category.
•
•
○ Locks, which led to product collapse, detachment of the top and bottom parts of the exerciser, or failure of the height adjustment mechanism
○ Snap buttons/fasteners breaking during regular use, delivery, or assembly/disassembly
○ Tube/frame/post separating, bending, or getting damaged in some other manner
○ Various small parts (often unspecified) detaching
○ Screws/nuts/bolts loosening and falling out.
Twelve injuries were reported in this category.
•
○ Tabs, used to attach the pad to the seat frame, breaking, tearing, or separating
○ The stitching on the pad fraying or tearing
○ The leg openings designed to be inadequately constrictive
○ Rough material used for the pad.
Twelve injuries were reported in this category.
•
○ Frame/posts/seat/unit leaning to one side and not sitting level
○ Legs lifting up during use
○ The product toppling over.
Four children were reported injured in these incidents.
•
•
○ Limb/extremity entrapment between parts of the exerciser
○ Failure of the seat to contain the child within
○ Poor choice for the placement of structural components that made it easier for a child to get hurt during routine use.
There were 20 injuries, including two treated in a hospital ED, in this category.
•
○ Rough surface, sharp edges, or protrusions
○ Paint/finish
○ Product packaging
○ Fall of product from an elevated surface
○ Sales of recalled or modified products at a consignment store or a garage sale.
Thirteen injuries, including four treated at hospital EDs, were reported in this category.
•
•
Compliance staff reviewed recalls involving SACs from January 2013 to March 2018. During that period, one consumer-level recall occurred involving a Kids II, Inc., stationary activity center.
CPSC staff found no comparable international standard similar to ASTM F2012-18
The voluntary standard for SACs was first approved and published in April 2000, as ASTM F2012-00,
ASTM F2012-00 (approved on April 10, 2000), established performance requirements to address the following:
• Latching or Locking Mechanisms—for SACs that fold for storage, this requirement helps prevent unintentional folding during use.
• Openings—Assesses the accessibility of slots or cracks in the unit to ensure that the occupant's extremities (fingers, toes) cannot be caught or trapped while not in motion.
• Scissoring, Shearing, Pinching—Dynamically assesses accessible slots to prevent injury from moving parts throughout the range of movement.
• Exposed Coil Springs—Sets a requirement for the spacing between the coils of any accessible spring element to prevent entrapment.
• Labeling—Assesses the permanency of labeling, as well as label removal, which may involve creating small parts.
• Structural Integrity—Includes dynamic and static loading, to determine any collapsing or failure modes that may occur during the lifecycle of the unit.
• Occupant Retention—Evaluates the leg openings of the activity center to prevent entrapment of the torso, neck, or head.
• Stability—Assesses the stability of a seated occupant leaning outside of the unit.
• Protective Components—Determines whether a child can grasp/bite and remove, protective caps, shields, sleeves, and plugs. If so, determine if a hazard exists (
Later versions of the standard added other requirements, such as: Protective components for open-base SACs and SACs that do and do not rotate around a central stationary post.
ASTM F2012-18 (approved on March 1, 2018):
• Added a definition of “closed-base stationary activity center”;
• added definition of “spring-supported stationary activity center”;
• added section requiring that spring-supported stationary activity centers have a redundant system in place, to prevent the seat from falling should any spring component fail. Upon failure, the redundant system must keep the child in place at a rest angle no more than 25° from horizontal.
ASTM F2012-18
The Commission concludes that the current voluntary standard, ASTM F2012-18
This section discusses the four primary hazard patterns that account for the majority of the reported incidents and injuries; Springs—46 percent, Toy Accessories—31 percent, Straps—9 percent; Structural integrity—5 percent, and how each is addressed in the current voluntary standard, ASTM F2012-18
This hazard is associated with 46 percent of the reported incidents (9 percent of injuries). Reports of support spring failures typically involved a common type of SAC scenario, in which the child and activity tray are suspended by springs from multiple points. These hazards often involve the failure of one or more members of the
This hazard pattern is associated with 31 percent of the reported incidents and 51 percent of the injuries. The majority of the incidents involved pinching, laceration, choking/gagging, and entanglement injuries. ASTM F2012-2018
This hazard pattern is associated with 9 percent of the reported incidents and 10 percent of the injuries, and it includes straps that break, twist, fray, or detach. The strap system on a SAC is typically the primary means by which most spring-suspended activity centers are supported (see Figure 1). Upon failure of the occupant support strap, the activity center is often left unsupported on one side, and this typically results in the child falling.
There are no specific requirements for support straps, although ASTM F2012-18
While preparing the briefing package for this notice of proposed rulemaking, CPSC staff learned of an additional failure mode of the occupant support strap. The additional information suggested that some occupant support strap failures have resulted from abrasions of a strap against a metal buckle during normal use. Staff determined that this scenario is not addressed by the requirements in ASTM F2012-18
6.1
This hazard pattern is associated with 5 percent of the reported incidents and 4 percent of the injuries. Incidents involve failure of structural components, such as locking mechanisms, fasteners, and frame tubing. There are no specific requirements for the structural components of a SAC, but ASTM F2012-2018
Because of the relatively low frequency of this potential hazard, as well as the minor injury severity produced, the Commission believes that the current voluntary standard adequately addresses the structural integrity of stationary activity centers.
Before publishing the current version of ASTM F2012-18
Several subcommittee members associated with the ASTM F15 juvenile product/durable nursery products raised concerns about inconsistency among various durable nursery product rules, and ASTM formed an Ad Hoc Wording Task Group to harmonize the wording and language used across nursery product standards. CPSC staff worked closely with the Ad Hoc Task Group to develop recommendations that are based largely on the requirements of ANSI Z535.4, American National Standard for Product Safety Signs and Labels.
In October 2016, the Ad Hoc Task Group published a working document titled, “Ad Hoc Wording—October 16, 2016.” Since then, the juvenile product subcommittees have been incorporating the formatting recommendations into their standards. The latest version of the “Recommended Language Approved by Ad Hoc Task Group, Revision C” document is dated November 10, 2017, and it is published in the “Committee Documents' section of the Committee F15 ASTM website. In August 2017, new requirements for formatting warning labels were balloted and accepted by the F15.17 subcommittee for Stationary Activity Centers, and these new requirements are reflected in F2012-18
The work of the Ad Hoc Task Group resulted in permanent, conspicuous, and consistently formatted warning labels across juvenile products. On-product warning labels that meet the requirements in ASTM F2012-18
The Commission is proposing to incorporate by reference ASTM F2012-18
In accordance with the OFR's requirements, section IV.B of this preamble summarizes the provisions of ASTM F2012-18
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) generally requires that the effective date of a rule be at least 30 days after publication of the final rule (5 U.S.C 553(d)). The Commission proposes that the standard become effective 6 months after publication of a final rule in the
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires that proposed rules be reviewed for their potential economic impact on small entities, including small businesses. Section 603 of the RFA requires that agencies prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) and make it available to the public for comment when the general notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) is published, unless the head of the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Commission certifies that this rule incorporating by reference ASTM F2012-18
The Commission identified 11 U.S. manufacturers of SACs. The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) size guidelines for this category identifies any manufacturer as “small” if it employs fewer than 500 employees. Based on this definition, seven out of the 11 U.S. manufacturers of SACs would be considered small. For
In addition to any costs associated with modifying a product to comply with ASTM F2012-18
The additional requirements of ASTM F2012-18
Additional costs that small manufacturers would incur as a result of the proposed rule, if finalized, include incremental costs associated with meeting the third party testing requirements. This would apply to those that manufacture any type of SAC, not just spring-supported SACs. If the ASTM F2012-18
Generally, CPSC considers impacts that exceed 1 percent of a firm's revenue to be potentially significant. Because all seven manufactures are JPMA certified, we believe that the only costs that may be introduced with this standard are for the integration of a redundant strap for one firm and the testing of that strap for all three firms that manufacture spring-supported SACs. Because the smallest manufacturer of spring-supported SACs has annual revenues of approximately $4 million, we do not expect that the added costs associated with this rule will reach the 1 percent threshold for any of the producers of SACs. However, at this time, CPSC has not considered any potential impact on firms resulting from modifying the current voluntary standard to address the potential for abrasion on the support straps that might cause them to fray or break. Staff intends to work with ASTM on this modification. Any changes to the voluntary standard and/or proposed regulation will be assessed before completing a final rule.
The Commission's regulations address whether we are required to prepare an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement. 16 CFR part 1021. Those regulations state that certain categories of CPSC actions normally have “little or no potential for affecting the human environment,” and therefore, do not require an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement. 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(1). Rules or safety standards that provide design or performance requirements for products are among the listed exempt actions. Thus, the proposed rule falls within the categorical exemption.
This proposed rule contains information-collection requirements that are subject to public comment and review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). In this document, pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D), we set forth:
• A title for the collection of information;
• a summary of the collection of information;
• a brief description of the need for the information and the proposed use of the information;
• a description of the likely respondents and proposed frequency of response to the collection of information;
• an estimate of the burden that shall result from the collection of information; and
• notice that comments may be submitted to the OMB.
Section 8.1.1 of ASTM F2012-18
There are 11 known entities supplying stationary activity centers to the U.S. market. These entities may need to modify their existing labels to comply with ASTM 2012-18
Section 9.1 of ASTM F2012-18
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), we have submitted the information-collection requirements of this rule to OMB for review. Interested persons are requested to submit comments regarding information collection by July 19, 2018, to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB (see the
Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), we invite comments on:
• Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the CPSC's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• the accuracy of the CPSC's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
• ways to reduce the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology; and the estimated burden hours associated with label modification, including any alternative estimates.
Section 26(a) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2075(a), provides that where a consumer product safety standard is in effect and applies to a product, no state or political subdivision of a state may either establish or continue in effect a requirement dealing with the same risk of injury unless the state requirement is identical to the federal standard. Section 26(c) of the CPSA also provides that states or political subdivisions of states may apply to the Commission for an exemption from this preemption under certain circumstances. Section 104(b) of the CPSIA refers to the rules to be issued under that section as “consumer product safety rules,” thus implying that the preemptive effect of section 26(a) of the CPSA would apply. Therefore, a rule issued under section 104 of the CPSIA will invoke the preemptive effect of section 26(a) of the CPSA when it becomes effective.
Section 14(a) of the CPSA imposes the requirement that products subject to a consumer product safety rule under the CPSA, or to a similar rule, ban, standard or regulation under any other act enforced by the Commission, must be certified as complying with all applicable CPSC-enforced requirements. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a). Section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA requires that certification of children's products subject to a children's product safety rule be based on testing conducted by a CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment body. Section 14(a)(3) of the CPSA requires the Commission to publish a notice of requirements (NOR) for the accreditation of third party conformity assessment bodies (or laboratories) to assess conformity with a children's product safety rule to which a children's product is subject. The proposed rule for 16 CFR part 1238, “Safety Standard for Stationary Activity Centers,” when issued as a final rule, will be a children's product safety rule that requires the issuance of an NOR.
The Commission published a final rule,
Laboratories applying for acceptance as a CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment body to test to the new standard for stationary activity centers would be required to meet the third party conformity assessment body accreditation requirements in part 1112. When a laboratory meets the requirements as a CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment body, it can apply to the CPSC to have 16 CFR part 1238,
In connection with the part 1112 rulemaking, CPSC staff conducted an analysis of the potential impacts on small entities of the proposed rule establishing accreditation requirements, 77 FR 31086, 31123-26 (May 24, 2012), as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act and prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA). The IRFA concluded that the requirements would not have a significant adverse impact on a substantial number of small laboratories because no requirements are imposed on laboratories that do not intend to provide third party testing services under section 14(a)(2) of the
This proposed rule begins a rulemaking proceeding under section 104(b) of the CPSIA to issue a consumer product safety standard for stationary activity centers. We invite all interested persons to submit comments on any aspect of the proposed rule.
In particular, the Commission invites comments on the necessity of additional requirements pertaining to the potential fraying of the support straps on SACs.
Comments should be submitted in accordance with the instructions in the
Administrative practice and procedure, Audit, Consumer protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Third party conformity assessment body.
Consumer protection, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Infants and children, Labeling, Law enforcement, and Toys.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Commission proposes to amend Title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
15 U.S.C. 2063; Pub. L. 110-314, section 3, 122 Stat. 3016, 3017 (2008).
(b) The CPSC has published the requirements for accreditation for third party conformity assessment bodies to assess conformity for the following CPSC rules or test methods:
(45) [Reserved]
(46) [Reserved]
(47) 16 CFR part 1238, Safety Standard for Stationary Activity Centers.
Sec. 104, Pub. L. 110-314, 122 Stat. 3016 (15 U.S.C. 2056a).
This part establishes a consumer product safety standard for stationary activity centers.
Each stationary activity center must comply with all applicable provisions of ASTM F2012-18
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking; public hearing; partial withdrawal of notice of proposed rulemaking.
This document contains proposed regulations concerning how partnership liabilities are allocated for disguised sale purposes. The proposed regulations, if finalized, would replace existing temporary regulations with final regulations that were in effect prior to the temporary regulations. This document also partially withdraws proposed regulations cross-referencing the temporary regulations. These regulations affect partnerships and their partners. Finally, this document provides notice of a public hearing on these proposed regulations.
Written or electronic comments must be received by July 19, 2018.
A public hearing will be held at 10:00 a.m. on August 21, 2018. Outlines of topics to be discussed at the public hearing must be received by August 3, 2018.
Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-131186-17), Room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-131186-17), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC, or sent electronically,
Concerning the proposed regulations, Caroline E. Hay or Deane M. Burke at (202) 317-5279; concerning the submission of comments, the hearing, or to be placed on the building access list to attend the hearing, Regina L. Johnson at (202) 317-6901 (not toll-free numbers).
This document proposes amendments to the Income Tax Regulations (26 CFR part 1) under section 707 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) regarding allocations of partnership liabilities for disguised sale purposes. Section 707(a)(2)(B) generally provides that, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury (Secretary), related transfers to and by a partnership that, when viewed together, are more properly characterized as a sale or exchange of property, will be treated either as a transaction between the partnership and one who is not a partner or between two or more partners acting other than in their capacity as partners (generally referred to as “disguised sales”).
The Department of the Treasury (Treasury Department) and the IRS published a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-119305-11) in the
On October 5, 2016, the Treasury Department and the IRS published in the
The 707 Temporary Regulations, in response to the comment received on the 2014 Proposed Regulations, adopted an approach that requires a partner to apply the same percentage used to determine the partner's share of excess nonrecourse liabilities under § 1.752-3(a)(3) (with certain limitations) in determining the partner's share of all partnership liabilities for disguised sale purposes. Also in response to the comment, the 707 Temporary Regulations provide that a partner's share of a partnership liability for section 707 purposes shall not exceed the partner's share of the partnership liability under section 752 and applicable regulations. The 707 Temporary Regulations reserve on the treatment, for disguised sale purposes, of an obligation that would be treated as a recourse liability under § 1.752-1(a)(1) or a nonrecourse liability under § 1.752-1(a)(2) if the liability was treated as a partnership liability for purposes of section 752. The Treasury Department and the IRS received comments supporting the approach taken in the 707 Temporary Regulations, but also received comments expressing concern that a new approach was adopted by temporary regulations rather than in proposed regulations, which denied taxpayers the ability to provide comment prior to the 707 Temporary Regulations being effective.
On April 21, 2017, the President issued Executive Order 13789 (E.O. 13789), “Executive Order on Identifying and Reducing Tax Regulatory Burdens” (82 FR 19317
E.O. 13789 further directed the Secretary to submit to the President and publish in the
The Second Report also stated that the Treasury Department and the IRS believe that the 752 Temporary Regulations concerning bottom dollar payment obligations should be retained because, consistent with the view of a number of commenters, the 752 Temporary Regulations are needed to prevent abuses and do not meaningfully increase regulatory burdens for the taxpayers affected. The Treasury Department and the IRS will continue to consider these issues and continue to request comments concerning the 752 Proposed Regulations. The Second Report did not identify the 707 Final Regulations, which are not affected by this notice of proposed rulemaking.
In addition to withdrawing the 707 Proposed Regulations, this notice of proposed rulemaking proposes to remove the 707 Temporary Regulations and reinstate the Prior 707 Regulations concerning the allocation of liabilities for disguised sale purposes. In determining a partners' share of a partnership liability for disguised sale purposes, § 1.707-5(a)(2) of the Prior 707 Regulations prescribed separate rules for a partnership's recourse liability and a partnership's nonrecourse liability. This notice of proposed rulemaking adopts those same rules.
Under § 1.707-5(a)(2)(i) of the Prior 707 Regulations and, if finalized, these proposed regulations, a partner's share of a partnership's recourse liability equals the partner's share of the liability under section 752 and the regulations thereunder. A partnership liability is a recourse liability to the extent that the obligation is a recourse liability under § 1.752-1(a)(1).
Under § 1.707-5(a)(2)(ii) of the Prior 707 Regulations and, if finalized, these proposed regulations, a partner's share of a partnership's nonrecourse liability is determined by applying the same percentage used to determine the partner's share of the excess nonrecourse liability under § 1.752-3(a)(3). A partnership liability is a nonrecourse liability of the partnership to the extent that the obligation is a nonrecourse liability under § 1.752-1(a)(2).
The 707 Final Regulations limited the available methods for determining a partner's share of an excess nonrecourse liability under § 1.752-3(a)(3) for disguised sale purposes. Under the 707 Final Regulations, a partner's share of an excess nonrecourse liability for disguised sale purposes is determined only in accordance with the partner's share of partnership profits and by taking into account all facts and circumstances relating to the economic arrangement of the partners. Thus, the significant item method, the alternative method, and the additional method as defined in § 1.752-3(a)(3) do not apply for purposes of determining a partner's share of a partnership's nonrecourse liability for disguised sale purposes.
In addition, § 1.707-5(a)(2)(i) and (ii) of the Prior 707 Regulations provided that a partnership liability is a recourse or nonrecourse liability to the extent that the obligation would be a recourse liability under § 1.752-1(a)(1) or a nonrecourse liability under § 1.752-1(a)(2), respectively, if the liability was treated as a partnership liability for purposes of section 752 (§ 1.752-7 contingent liabilities). This notice of proposed rulemaking reinstates these rules concerning § 1.752-7 contingent liabilities. However, as noted in the preamble to T.D. 9788, the Treasury Department and the IRS continue to believe additional guidance would be helpful in this area. The preamble to T.D. 9788 explained that, in many cases, § 1.752-7 contingent liabilities may constitute qualified liabilities that would not be taken into account for purposes of determining a disguised sale. Some commenters on the 2014 Proposed Regulations noted that there may be circumstances in which certain transfers of § 1.752-7 contingent liabilities to a partnership may be abusive. The Treasury Department and the IRS continue to study the issue of the effect of contingent liabilities with respect to section 707, as well as other sections of the Code.
Finally, this notice of proposed rulemaking reinstates
The 707 Temporary Regulations are proposed to be removed thirty days following the date these regulations are published as final regulations in the
These proposed regulations are not subject to review under section 6(b) of Executive Order 12866 pursuant to the Memorandum of Agreement (April 11, 2018) between the Department of the Treasury and the Office of Management and Budget regarding review of tax regulations. These proposed regulations are expected to be an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action. Details on the estimated cost savings of these proposed regulations will be provided in the final regulations.
Because these proposed regulations do not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, this notice of proposed rulemaking has been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.
Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any comments that are submitted timely to the IRS as prescribed in this preamble under the
A public hearing has been scheduled for August 21, 2018, beginning at 10:00 a.m. in the IRS Auditorium of the Internal Revenue Service Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224. Due to building security procedures, visitors must enter at the Constitution Avenue entrance. In addition, all visitors must present photo identification to enter the building. Because of access restrictions, visitors will not be admitted beyond the immediate entrance area more than 15 minutes before the hearing starts. For information about having your name placed on the building access list to attend the hearing, see the
The rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3) apply to the hearing. Persons who wish to present oral comments at the hearing must submit a signed original and eight
As discussed in the Second Report, the Treasury Department and the IRS believe that the 707 Temporary Regulations' novel approach (treating all liabilities as nonrecourse and allocating in accordance with § 1.752-3(a)(3) for disguised sale purposes) merits further study. The 707 Temporary Regulations explained that this approach reflects the overall economic arrangements of the partners as, in most cases, a partnership will satisfy its liabilities with partnership profits, the partnership's assets do not become worthless, and the payment obligations of partners or related persons are not called upon. The Treasury Department and the IRS continue to study this issue and request comments on the approach adopted in the 707 Temporary Regulations. The request for comments in this paragraph on the approach of the 707 Temporary Regulations is not the subject of the scheduled public hearing.
The principal authors of these proposed regulations are Caroline E. Hay and Deane M. Burke, Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Passthroughs and Special Industries). However, other personnel from the Treasury Department and the IRS participated in their development.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, under the authority of 26 U.S.C. 7805, §§ 1.707-5 and 1.707-9 of the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-122855-15) that was published in the
For the reasons stated in the preamble, 26 CFR part 1 is proposed to be amended as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
(a) * * *
(2)
(i)
(ii)
(f) * * *
(ii) Under the facts of this example, the liability encumbering property Y is not a qualified liability. Accordingly, the partnership's assumption of the liability results in a transfer of consideration to C in connection with C's transfer of property Y to the partnership in the amount of $1,000,000 (the excess of the liability assumed by the partnership ($8,000,000) over C's share of the liability immediately after the assumption ($7,000,000)). See paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section.
(ii) Under paragraph (a)(3) of this section, if the reduction in C's share of the liability was anticipated at the time of C's transfer, was not subject to the entrepreneurial risks of partnership operations, and was part of a plan that has as one of its principal purposes minimizing the extent of sale treatment under § 1.707-3 (that is, a principal purpose of allocating a large percentage of losses to C in the first three years when losses were not likely to be realized was to minimize the extent to which C's transfer would be treated as part of a sale), C's share of the liability immediately after the assumption is treated as equal to C's reduced share.
(ii) G and H transferred properties 1 and 2 to the partnership pursuant to a plan.
(A) H transferred the proceeds of liability 2 to the partnership; and
(B) H incurred liability 2 in an attempt to reduce the extent to which the partnership's taking subject to liability 1 would be treated as a transfer of consideration to G (and thereby reduce the portion of G's transfer of property 1 to the partnership that would be treated as part of a sale).
(ii) Because the partnership assumed liability 2 with a principal purpose of reducing the extent to which the partnership's taking subject to liability 1 would be treated as a transfer of consideration to G, liability 2 is ignored in applying paragraph (a)(3) of this section. Accordingly, the partnership's taking subject to liability 1 is treated as a transfer of $4,000 of consideration to G (the amount by which liability 1 ($6,000) exceeds G's share of liability 1 ($2,000)). On the other hand, the partnership's assumption of liability 2 is not treated as a transfer of any consideration to H because H's share of that liability equals $7,000 as a result of H's transfer of $7,000 in money to the partnership.
(a) * * *
(4)
(ii) For any transaction with respect to which all transfers occur on or after January 3, 2017, and any of such transfers occurs before the date that is thirty days after the date these regulations are published as final in the
(iii) Section 1.707-5(a)(2) and (f)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notification of submission to the Secretary of Agriculture.
This document notifies the public as required by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) that the EPA Administrator has forwarded to the Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) a draft regulatory document concerning “Harmonize 40 CFR 26 Subparts C, D, and K with Subpart A (the Common Rule)”. The draft regulatory document is not available to the public until after it has been signed and made available by EPA.
See Unit I. under
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-ORD-2018-0280, is available at
Greg Susanke, Office of the Science Advisor, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-0221; email address:
Section 25(a)(2)(A) of FIFRA requires the EPA Administrator to provide the Secretary of USDA with a copy of any draft proposed rule at least 60 days before signing it in proposed form for publication in the
No. This document is merely a notification of submission to the Secretary of USDA. As such, none of the regulatory assessment requirements apply to this document.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, Human research, Pesticides and pests.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
On March 26, 2018, the State of Florida, through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (Department), submitted a request for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to redesignate the Hillsborough County lead nonattainment area (hereinafter referred to as the “Hillsborough Area” or “Area”) to attainment for the 2008 lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and an accompanying State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision containing a maintenance plan for the Area. The Hillsborough Area is comprised of a portion of Hillsborough County in Florida, within a 1.5 kilometer (km) radius of the EnviroFocus Technologies, LLC facility (EnviroFocus). EPA is proposing to determine that the Hillsborough Area is attaining the 2008 lead NAAQS; to approve the SIP revision containing the State's maintenance plan for maintaining attainment of the 2008 lead standard and to incorporate the maintenance plan into the SIP; and to redesignate the Hillsborough Area to attainment for the 2008 lead NAAQS.
Comments must be received on or before July 19, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0182 at
Andres Febres, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mr. Febres can be reached by phone at (404) 562-8966 or via electronic mail at
EPA is proposing to take the following three separate but related actions: (1) To determine that the Hillsborough Area attained the 2008 lead NAAQS based on quality-assured, complete, and certified ambient monitoring data for the 2014-2016 period and that the Area continues to attain the standard based on quality-assured, complete, and certified ambient monitoring data for the 2014-2017 period; (2) to approve Florida's maintenance plan for maintaining the 2008 lead NAAQS in the Area and incorporate it into the SIP; and (3) to redesignate the Hillsborough Area to attainment. The Hillsborough Area is comprised of a portion of Hillsborough County, Florida, bounded by a 1.5 km radius centered at Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates 364104 meters East, 3,093,830 meters North, Zone 17, which surrounds EnviroFocus.
EPA is making the preliminary determination that the Hillsborough Area is attaining the 2008 lead NAAQS based on recent air quality data, and proposing to approve Florida's SIP revision containing the maintenance plan for the Hillsborough Area, in accordance to the requirements of section 175A. The maintenance plan submitted with Florida's request for redesignation is intended to help keep the Hillsborough Area in attainment of the 2008 lead NAAQS through the year 2029.
Finally, EPA is proposing to determine that the Hillsborough Area has met the requirements for redesignation under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve a request to change the legal designation of the portion of Hillsborough County that is designated nonattainment to attainment for the 2008 lead NAAQS.
On November 12, 2008 (73 FR 66964), EPA promulgated a revised primary and secondary lead NAAQS of 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m
EPA designated the Hillsborough Area as a nonattainment area for the 2008 lead NAAQS on November 22, 2010 (75 FR 71033), effective December 31, 2010, using 2007-2009 ambient air quality data. This established an attainment date of five years after the December 31, 2010, effective date for the 2008 lead nonattainment designations pursuant to CAA section 172(a)(2)(A). Therefore, the Hillsborough Area's attainment date was December 31, 2015.
EPA's 2008 lead nonattainment designation for the Area triggered an obligation for Florida to develop a nonattainment SIP revision addressing certain CAA requirements under title I, part D, subpart 1 (hereinafter “Subpart 1”) and to submit that SIP revision in accordance with the deadlines in title I, part D, subpart 5 (hereinafter “Subpart 5”). Subpart 1 contains the general requirements for nonattainment areas for criteria pollutants, including requirements to develop a SIP that provides for the implementation of reasonably available control measures (RACM), requires reasonable further progress (RFP), includes base-year and attainment-year emissions inventories, and provides for the implementation of contingency measures.
On April 16, 2015 (80 FR 20441), EPA published a final rule that approved a SIP revision, comprised of an attainment plan, based on Florida's attainment demonstration for the Hillsborough Area that included the base year emissions inventory requirements, a modeling demonstration of attainment for the 2008 lead NAAQS, RACM requirements that include reasonably available control technology (RACT), an RFP plan, and contingency measures for the Hillsborough Area.
The CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA allows for redesignation providing that: (1) The Administrator determines that the area
On April 16, 1992, EPA provided guidance on redesignation in the General Preamble for the Implementation of title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented this guidance on April 28, 1992 (57 FR 18070). EPA has provided further guidance on processing redesignation requests in the following documents:
1. “Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,” Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the “Calcagni Memorandum”);
2. “State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in Response to Clean Air Act (CAA) Deadlines,” Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992; and
3. “Part D New Source Review (Part D NSR) Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,” Memorandum from Mary D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994.
On March 26, 2018, Florida requested that EPA redesignate the Hillsborough Area to attainment for the 2008 lead NAAQS and submitted an associated SIP revision containing a maintenance plan. EPA's evaluation indicates that the Hillsborough Area is attaining the 2008 lead NAAQS and that it meets the requirements for redesignation as set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E), including the maintenance plan requirements under section 175A of the CAA. As a result, EPA is proposing to take the three related actions summarized in section I of this document.
As stated above, in accordance with the CAA, EPA proposes to: (1) Determine that the Hillsborough Area is attaining the 2008 lead NAAQS; (2) approve the 2008 lead NAAQS maintenance plan for the Area and incorporate it into the Florida SIP; and (3) redesignate the Area to attainment for the 2008 lead NAAQS.
The five redesignation criteria provided under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) are discussed in greater detail for the Hillsborough Area in the following paragraphs.
For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA requires EPA to determine that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS.
Monitoring data for the Hillsborough Area shows that the 2008 lead NAAQS was attained. As demonstrated in Table 1, below, the 2014-2016 and 2015-2017 design values for the Area are all at or below the 2008 lead standard of 0.15 μg/m
Although 2014-2016 data was the most recent quality-assured, complete, and certified data at the time of Florida's redesignation request, 2015-2017 quality-assured, complete, and certified data is now available. As presented in Table 1 above, the 2015-2017 data shows that the Area continues to attain the standard. Preliminary 2018 data also indicates that the Area continues to attain the standard.
For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA requires EPA to determine that the state has a fully approved SIP under section 110(k) for the area (See CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii)), and that the state has met all applicable requirements under section 110 and part D of title I of the CAA (See CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(v)). EPA proposes to find that Florida has met all applicable SIP requirements for the Hillsborough Area under section 110 of the CAA (general SIP requirements) for purposes of redesignation. Additionally, EPA proposes to find that Florida has met all applicable SIP requirements for purposes of redesignation under part D of title I of the CAA in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) and that the SIP is fully approved with respect to all requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In making these proposed determinations, EPA ascertained which requirements are applicable to the Area and, if applicable, that they are fully approved under section 110(k). SIPs must be fully approved only with respect to requirements that were applicable prior to submittal of the complete redesignation request.
General SIP elements and requirements are delineated in section 110(a)(2) of title I, part A of the CAA. These requirements include, but are not limited to, the following: Submittal of a SIP that has been adopted by the state after reasonable public notice and hearing; provisions for establishment and operation of appropriate procedures needed to monitor ambient air quality; implementation of a stationary source permit program; provisions for the implementation of part C requirements (Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)) and provisions for the implementation of part D requirements (New Source Review (NSR) permit programs); provisions for air pollution modeling; and provisions for public and local agency participation in planning and emission control rule development.
Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs contain certain measures to prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing to air quality problems in another state. To implement this provision, EPA has required certain states to establish programs to address the interstate transport of air pollutants. The section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements for a state are not linked with a particular nonattainment area's designation and classification in that state. EPA believes that the requirements linked with a particular nonattainment area's designation and classifications are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. The transport SIP submittal requirements, where applicable, continue to apply to a state regardless of the designation of any one particular area in the state. Thus, EPA does not believe that the CAA's interstate transport requirements should be construed to be applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation.
In addition, EPA believes that other section 110 elements that are neither connected with nonattainment plan submissions nor linked with an area's attainment status are not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. The area will still be subject to these requirements after the area is redesignated. The section 110 and part D requirements which are linked with a particular area's designation and classification are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. This approach is consistent with EPA's existing policy on applicability (
Subpart 1 of part D, comprised of sections 171-179B of the CAA, sets forth the basic nonattainment requirements applicable to all nonattainment areas. All areas that were designated nonattainment for the 2008 lead NAAQS were designated under Subpart 1 of the CAA in accordance with the deadlines in Subpart 5. For purposes of evaluating this redesignation request, the applicable Subpart 1 SIP requirements for all nonattainment areas are contained in sections 172(c)(1)-(9) and in section 176. A thorough discussion of the requirements contained in sections 172 and 176 can be found in the General Preamble for Implementation of title I.
Section 172 requires states with nonattainment areas to submit attainment plans providing for timely attainment and meeting a variety of other requirements. EPA's longstanding interpretation of the nonattainment planning requirements of section 172 is that once an area is attaining the NAAQS, those requirements are not “applicable” for purposes of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and therefore need not be approved into the SIP before EPA can redesignate the area. In the 1992 General Preamble for Implementation of Title I, EPA set forth its interpretation of applicable requirements for purposes of evaluating redesignation requests when an area is attaining a standard.
As discussed above, EPA previously approved Florida's attainment plan for the Area.
Section 172(c)(4) requires the identification and quantification of allowable emissions for major new and modified stationary sources to be allowed in an area, and section 172(c)(5) requires source permits for the construction and operation of new and modified major stationary sources anywhere in the nonattainment area. Florida currently has a fully-approved part D NSR program in place. However, EPA has determined that, since PSD requirements will apply after redesignation, areas being redesignated need not comply with the requirement that a NSR program be approved prior to redesignation, provided that the area demonstrates maintenance of the NAAQS without part D NSR. A more detailed rationale for this view is described in a memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled “Part D New Source Review Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment.” Florida has demonstrated that the Area will be able to maintain the NAAQS without part D NSR in effect, and therefore Florida need not have fully approved part D NSR programs prior to approval of the redesignation request. Florida's PSD program will become effective in the Area upon redesignation to attainment.
Section 172(c)(7) requires the SIP to meet the applicable provisions of section 110(a)(2). As noted above, EPA believes that the Florida's SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2) applicable for purposes of redesignation.
Finally, Section 172(c)(8) allows a state to use equivalent modeling, emission inventory, and planning procedures if such use is requested by the state and approved by EPA. Florida has not requested the use of equivalent techniques under section 172(c)(8).
Section 176(c) of the CAA requires states to establish criteria and procedures to ensure that federally supported or funded projects conform to the air quality planning goals in the applicable SIP. The requirement to determine conformity applies to transportation plans, programs, and projects that are developed, funded, or approved under title 23 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) and the Federal Transit Act (transportation conformity) as well as to all other federally supported or funded projects (general conformity). State transportation conformity SIP revisions must be consistent with Federal conformity regulations relating to consultation, enforcement, and enforceability that EPA promulgated pursuant to its authority under the CAA. In light of the elimination of lead additives in gasoline, transportation conformity does not apply to the lead NAAQS.
EPA has fully approved the applicable Florida SIP for the Hillsborough Area under section 110(k) of the CAA for all requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation. EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals in approving a redesignation request (
As indicated above, EPA believes that the section 110 elements that are neither connected with nonattainment plan submissions nor linked to an area's nonattainment status are not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation.
For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA requires EPA to determine that the air quality improvement in the area is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP, applicable Federal air pollution control regulations, and other permanent and enforceable reductions (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii)). EPA has preliminarily determined that Florida has demonstrated that the observed air quality improvement in the Hillsborough Area is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions.
When EPA designated the Hillsborough Area as a nonattainment for the lead NAAQS, EPA determined that operations at EnviroFocus were the primary cause of the 2008 lead NAAQS violation in the Area.
For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA requires EPA to determine that the area has a fully approved maintenance plan pursuant to section 175A of the CAA.
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. Under section 175A, the plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years after the Administrator approves a redesignation to attainment. Eight years after the redesignation, the state must submit a revised maintenance plan demonstrating that attainment will continue to be maintained for the 10 years following the initial 10-year period. To address the possibility of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain such contingency measures as EPA deems necessary to assure prompt correction of any future 2008 lead violations. The Calcagni Memorandum provides further guidance on the content of a maintenance plan, explaining that a maintenance plan should address five requirements: The attainment emissions inventory, maintenance demonstration, monitoring, verification of continued attainment, and a contingency plan. As is discussed more fully below, EPA has preliminarily determined that Florida's maintenance plan includes all the necessary components and is thus proposing to approve it as a revision to the Florida SIP.
As mentioned above, EPA is proposing to determine that the Hillsborough Area is attaining the 2008 lead NAAQS based on monitoring data for the 3-year period from 2014-2016 and continuing to attain based on 2015-2017 data. In its attainment emissions inventory, Florida selected 2014 as the attainment year. The attainment inventory identifies a level of emissions in the Area that is sufficient to attain the 2008 lead NAAQS. To demonstrate maintenance through 2029, Florida included projected lead emissions for the Area for the years 2020, 2023, 2026, and 2029. In its maintenance plan, Florida also included 2009 base year emissions from its attainment plan in order to show emissions reductions for the Hillsborough Area.
A description of how Florida developed the emissions inventory is located in section 1 of the maintenance plan. EnviroFocus is the only point source of lead emissions within the Area, and since the removal of lead from gasoline in the 1990s, there are no on-road mobile source contributions. For the 2009 base year and the 2014 attainment year emissions inventories, Florida used actual emissions from the facility's annual operating report (AOR). For the projected 2020, 2023, 2026, and 2029 inventories, Florida assumed that emissions would remain equal to the 2014 emission levels, because the State does not anticipate any new development in the Area that would increase lead emissions. Furthermore, the control measures that resulted in the improvement in lead air quality are permanent and enforceable and will remain in effect after redesignation. Table 2, below, identifies base year emissions, and attainment year emissions, as well as projected emissions for 2020, 2023, 2026, and 2029.
The maintenance plan associated with the redesignation request includes a maintenance demonstration that:
(i) Shows compliance with and maintenance of the 2008 lead NAAQS by providing information to support the demonstration that current and future emissions of lead remain at or below 2014 emissions levels.
(ii) Uses 2014 as the attainment year and includes future emissions inventory projections for 2020, 2023, 2026 and 2029.
(iii) Identifies an “out year” at least 10 years after the time necessary for EPA to review and approve the maintenance plan.
(iv) Provides actual (2009 and 2014) and projected emissions inventories, in tons per year (tpy), for the Hillsborough Area, as shown in Table 2, below.
In situations where local emissions are the primary contributor to nonattainment, such as the Hillsborough Area, if the future projected emissions in the nonattainment area remain at or below the baseline emissions in the nonattainment area, then the related ambient air quality standards should not be exceeded in the future. Florida has projected emissions as described previously and these projections indicate that emissions in the Hillsborough Area will remain at the same levels as those in the attainment year inventory for the duration of the maintenance plan.
EPA believes that the Area will continue to maintain the standard at least through the year 2029 because the only point source of lead emissions in the Area has instituted permanent and enforceable controls, which are reflected in the 2014 and later emissions inventories, and the 2014-2016 and 2015-2017 design values for the Area meet the NAAQS.
Currently, Florida operates (through the Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission or EPC) three ambient air monitors measuring lead concentrations in the Hillsborough Area that meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 58. Florida has committed to maintain an appropriate and well-sited monitoring network in the Hillsborough Area throughout the maintenance plan period in order to verify the continued maintenance of the 2008 lead NAAQS and has thus addressed the requirement for monitoring. Additionally, Florida has committed to consult with EPA prior to making any changes to the existing monitoring network plan; continue to quality assure the data in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, subpart B; and enter all data into EPA's AQS in a timely manner. EPA approved Florida's monitoring plan related to the Hillsborough Area on October 19, 2017.
Florida has the legal authority to enforce and implement the maintenance plan for the Area. This includes the authority to adopt, implement, and
Currently, all measures necessary to attain and maintain the 2008 lead NAAQS are included in the SIP-approved Hillsborough Area attainment plan and have been implemented by EnviroFocus. According to the State, EnviroFocus will continue to make improvements to the facility to further reduce lead emissions that were not required by the Area's attainment plan. Florida will continue to verify attainment of the 2008 lead NAAQS in the Area through its established monitoring network plan, as discussed above. Additionally, EnviroFocus is required to submit emissions data to the State through its annual operating reports, which will be used to verify the facility's compliance with permitted emission limits, and assess emission trends in the Area.
Section 175A of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include such contingency measures as EPA deems necessary to assure that the state will promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. The maintenance plan should identify the contingency measures to be adopted, a schedule and procedure for adoption and implementation, and a time limit for action by the state. A state should also identify specific indicators to be used to determine when the contingency measures need to be implemented. The maintenance plan must include a requirement that a state will implement all measures with respect to control of the pollutant that were contained in the SIP before redesignation of the area to attainment in accordance with section 175A(d).
In the March 26, 2018, SIP revision, Florida commits to maintaining the existing control measures at EnviroFocus after redesignation. As discussed above, EnviroFocus is the primary contributor to lead in the nonattainment area, the Facility is subject to the secondary lead NESHAP, and EPA has incorporated the lead control measures for the Facility into the SIP as RACM/RACT.
The contingency plan included in the maintenance plan contains several triggers to determine when contingency measures are needed and what kind of measures should be used. In the event that any one-month period averages greater than 0.15 μg/m
• Immediately begin a daily 12-minute reading of visible emissions on each lead outlet following EPA's Method #9;
• Within 14 days, complete a dye leak check on every filtration device which controls a lead source and cease operations of any device that fails the test until the leak is fixed and the device passes a second leak test;
• Immediately increase the sprinkler system frequency. The frequency should be adjusted to 5 minutes every 30 minutes during daylight hours, and 5 minutes every 60 minutes during nighttime hours;
• Immediately begin to vacuum the paved yard three times a day, except during rain events or 2 hours following a rain event; and
• Keep daily records of these activities and submit these records monthly to the Department or EPC, or anytime upon request.
The contingency measures outlined above must be continued for a minimum of 90 days or until the Department has determined that they are no longer needed.
In the event that any three consecutive month period averages greater than 0.15 μg/m
• Immediately cease construction activities on site that disturb soil;
• Immediately restrict traffic within the facility area to only essential vehicles;
• The Department may require immediate restriction of the daily production of lead from the blast and reverb furnaces; and
• Keep daily records of these activities and submit these records monthly to the Department or EPC, or anytime upon request.
The contingency measures outlined above must be continued for a minimum of 90 days or until the Department has determined that they are no longer needed.
In the event that a fourth consecutive month is greater than 0.15 μg/m
If a violation is recorded in any of the monitors in the Area, Florida will immediately begin a 30-day evaluation period to diagnose the cause of the violation. Following this evaluation, a 90-day consultation period will begin between the State and EnviroFocus to determine the best course of action. If a permit modification is necessary, the State would issue a final permit in accordance to Sections 120 and 403 of the Florida Statutes. For additional details on the contingency plan, refer to section 5 of the maintenance plan.
EPA has preliminarily concluded that the maintenance plan adequately addresses the five basic components of a maintenance plan: The attainment emissions inventory; maintenance demonstration; monitoring; verification of continued attainment; and a contingency plan. Therefore, EPA proposes to determine that the maintenance plan for the Area meets the requirements of section 175A of the CAA and proposes to incorporate the maintenance plan into the Florida SIP.
EPA is proposing to take three separate but related actions regarding the redesignation request and associated SIP revision for the Hillsborough Area.
First, EPA is proposing to determine that the Area attained the 2008 lead NAAQS based on quality-assured, complete, and certified ambient monitoring data for the 2014-2016 period and that the Area continues to attain the standard based on quality-assured, complete, and certified ambient monitoring data for the 2014-2017 period.
Second, EPA is proposing to approve the maintenance plan for the Area and to incorporate it into the SIP. As described above, the maintenance plan demonstrates that the Area will continue to maintain the 2008 lead NAAQS through 2029.
Third, EPA is proposing to approve Florida's request for redesignation of the Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 2008 lead NAAQS. If finalized, approval of the redesignation request for the Hillsborough Area would change the
Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those imposed by state law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of itself create any new requirements, but rather results in the applicability of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations.
• Are not significant regulatory actions 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);
• Are not Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory actions because redesignations and SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Do not impose information collection burdens under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Are 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
• Do not contain any unfunded mandates or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Do not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Are not economically significant regulatory actions based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Are not significant regulatory actions subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Are 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
• Will not have disproportionate human health or environmental effects under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Reporting and recordkeeping.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Economic Research Service, Agriculture.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) implementing regulations, this notice announces the Economic Research Service's (ERS) intention to request renewal of approval for an annual information collection on supplemental food security questions in the Current Population Survey (CPS), commencing with the December 2019 survey. These data will be used: to monitor household-level food security and food insecurity in the United States; to assess food security and changes in food security for population subgroups; to assess the need for, and performance of, domestic food assistance programs; to improve the measurement of food security; and to provide information to aid in public policy decision making.
Comments on this notice must be received by August 20, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Address all comments concerning this notice to Alisha Coleman-Jensen, Food Assistance Branch, Food Economics Division, Economic Research Service, Room 5-229B, 1400 Independence Ave. SW, Mail Stop 1800, Washington, DC 20050-1800. Submit electronic comments to
Alisha Coleman-Jensen at the address in the preamble. Tel. 202-694-5456.
ERS is responsible for conducting studies and evaluations of the Nation's food and nutrition assistance programs that are administered by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), U.S. Department of Agriculture. In Fiscal Year 2017, the Department spent about $99 billion to ensure access to nutritious, healthful diets for all Americans. The Food and Nutrition Service administers the 15 food assistance programs of the USDA including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly called the Food Stamp Program, the National School Lunch Program, and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). These programs, which serve 1 in 4 Americans, represent our Nation's commitment to the principle that no one in our country should lack the food needed for an active, healthy life. They provide a safety net to people in need. The programs' goals are to provide needy persons with access to a more nutritious diet, to improve the eating habits of the Nation's children, and to help America's farmers by providing an outlet for the distribution of food purchased under farmer assistance authorities.
The data collected by the food security supplement will be used to monitor the prevalence of food security and the prevalence and severity of food insecurity among the Nation's households. The prevalence of these conditions as well as year-to-year trends in their prevalence will be estimated at the national level and for population subgroups. The data will also be used to monitor the amounts that households spend for food and their use of community food pantries and emergency kitchens. These statistics along with research based on the data will be used to identify the causes and consequences of food insecurity, and to assess the need for, and performance of, domestic food assistance programs. The data will also be used to improve the measurement of food security and to develop measures of additional aspects and dimensions of food security. This consistent measurement of the extent and severity of food insecurity will aid in policy decision-making.
The supplemental survey instrument was developed in conjunction with food security experts nationwide as well as survey method experts within the Census Bureau and was reviewed in 2006 by the Committee on National Statistics of the National Research Council. This supplemental information will be collected by both personal visit and telephone interviews in conjunction with the regular monthly CPS interviewing. Interviews will be conducted using Computer Assisted Personal Interview (CAPI) and Computer Assisted Telephone Interview (CATI) methods.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Georgia Advisory Committee will hold a meeting on Tuesday, July 17, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. EST. The purpose of the meeting is continuing discussion of the Georgia Olmstead Decision regarding civil rights issues in the state.
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, July 17, 2018, at 2:00 p.m. EST.
Jeff Hinton, DFO, at
Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. The conference operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organizations they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference call. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Regional Program Unit Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 230 S. Dearborn, Suite 2120, Chicago, IL 60604. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Regional Director, Jeffrey Hinton at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Program Unit, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Ohio Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a series of meetings via conference call for the purpose of preparing for a public hearing on educating funding in the state.
The meetings will be held on:
Melissa Wojnaroski, DFO, at
Members of the public can listen to these discussions. These meetings are available to the public through the above listed toll free number. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments;
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via
Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice and opportunity for public comment.
The Economic Development Administration (EDA) has received petitions for certification of eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance from the firms listed below. Accordingly, EDA has initiated investigations to determine whether increased imports into the United States of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by each of the firms contributed importantly to the total or partial separation of the firms' workers, or threat thereof, and to a decrease in sales or production of each petitioning firm.
Any party having a substantial interest in these proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A written request for a hearing must be submitted to the Trade Adjustment Assistance Division, Room 71030, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than ten (10) calendar days following publication of this notice. These petitions are received pursuant to section 251 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
Please follow the requirements set forth in EDA's regulations at 13 CFR 315.9 for procedures to request a public hearing. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official number and title for the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms.
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by CODEZOL, C.D., grantee of FTZ 163, requesting authority to expand FTZ 163 to include a site in Ponce, Puerto Rico. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on June 13, 2018.
FTZ 163 was established by the Board on October 18, 1989 (Board Order 443, 54 FR 46097, November 1, 1989), and expanded on April 18, 2000 (Board Order 1091, 65 FR 24676, April 27, 2000), on June 9, 2005 (Board Order 1397, 70 FR 36117, June 22, 2005), on July 26, 2006 (Board Order 1467, 71 FR 44996, August 8, 2006), on November 9, 2006 (Board Order 1487, 71 FR 67098, November 20, 2006), on June 26, 2009 (Board Order 1631, 74 FR 34306-34307, July 15, 2009), on July 8, 2010 (Board Orders 1692 and 1693, 75 FR 41801, July 19, 2010), and on May 24, 2012 (Board Order 1830, 77 FR 32929, June 4, 2012).
The zone project currently consists of the following sites in Puerto Rico:
The applicant is requesting authority to expand the zone to include a site in Ponce:
In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Camille Evans of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to evaluate and analyze the facts and information presented in the application and case record and to report findings and recommendations to the FTZ Board.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is August 20, 2018. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to September 4, 2018.
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's website, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Camille Evans at
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) has completed its administrative review of the antidumping duty order on pure magnesium from the People's Republic of China (China) for the period of review (POR), May 1, 2016, through April 30, 2017. We continue to find that Tianjin Magnesium International, Co., Ltd. (TMI) and Tianjin Magnesium Metal Co., Ltd. (TMM) (collectively, TMI/TMM) had no shipments of pure magnesium during the POR.
Applicable June 19, 2018.
James Terpstra or Brendan Quinn, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3965 or (202) 482-5848, respectively.
On January 30, 2018, Commerce published the
Merchandise covered by the order is pure magnesium regardless of chemistry, form or size, unless expressly excluded from the scope of the order. Pure magnesium is a metal or alloy containing by weight primarily the element magnesium and produced by decomposing raw materials into magnesium metal. Pure primary magnesium is used primarily as a chemical in the aluminum alloying, desulfurization, and chemical reduction industries. In addition, pure magnesium is used as an input in producing magnesium alloy. Pure magnesium encompasses products (including, but not limited to, butt ends, stubs, crowns and crystals) with the following primary magnesium contents:
(1) Products that contain at least 99.95% primary magnesium, by weight (generally referred to as “ultra pure” magnesium);
(2) Products that contain less than 99.95% but not less than 99.8% primary magnesium, by weight (generally referred to as “pure” magnesium); and
(3) Products that contain 50% or greater, but less than 99.8% primary magnesium, by weight, and that do not conform to ASTM specifications for alloy magnesium (generally referred to as “off-specification pure” magnesium).
“Off-specification pure” magnesium is pure primary magnesium containing magnesium scrap, secondary magnesium, oxidized magnesium or impurities (whether or not intentionally added) that cause the primary magnesium content to fall below 99.8% by weight. It generally does not contain, individually or in combination, 1.5% or more, by weight, of the following alloying elements: Aluminum, manganese, zinc, silicon, thorium, zirconium and rare earths.
Excluded from the scope of the order are alloy primary magnesium (that meets specifications for alloy magnesium), primary magnesium anodes, granular primary magnesium (including turnings, chips and powder) having a maximum physical dimension (
Pure magnesium products covered by the order are currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 8104.11.00, 8104.19.00, 8104.20.00, 8104.30.00, 8104.90.00, 3824.90.11, 3824.90.19 and 9817.00.90. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope is dispositive.
In the
Commerce determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b). We intend to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review. Additionally, consistent with Commerce's assessment practice in non-market economy cases, because Commerce determined that TMI/TMM had no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR, any suspended entries of subject merchandise during the POR from TMI/TMM will be liquidated at the PRC-wide rate.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of this notice of final results of the administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For TMI/TMM, which claimed no shipments, the cash deposit rate will remain unchanged from the rate assigned to TMI/TMM in the most recently completed review of the company; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed Chinese and non-Chinese exporters who are not under review in this segment of the proceeding but who have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) for all Chinese exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the China-wide rate of 111.73 percent;
This notice serves as a reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing these final results and this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application.
Notice is hereby given that the Virginia Aquarium and Marine Science Center (Responsible Party: W. Mark Swingle), 717 General Booth Boulevard, Virginia Beach, VA 23451, has applied in due form for a permit to take green (
Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before July 19, 2018.
The application and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the “Features” box on the Applications and Permits for Protected Species (APPS) home page,
These documents are also available upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376.
Written comments on this application should be submitted to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, at the address listed above. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile to (301) 713-0376, or by email to
Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division at the address listed above. The request should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this application would be appropriate.
Erin Markin or Amy Hapeman, (301) 427-8401.
The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
The Virginia Aquarium and Marine Science Center proposes to continue sea turtle research in the Chesapeake Bay and mid-Atlantic Ocean to enhance conservation and management of sea turtles in estuarine and marine waters. Specific research objectives are to (1) study the behavior, distribution, health, and nutrition and compare the relative abundance of green, Kemp's ridley, and loggerhead sea turtles in the Chesapeake Bay, Long Island Sound, and U.S. mid-Atlantic waters; and (2) investigate the survival and behavior of green, loggerhead, and Kemp's ridley sea turtles affected by human activities in the study area. Annually, up to 30 green, 30 Kemp's ridley, and 30 loggerhead sea turtles would be captured (hand, dip, tangle, or pound nets, or capture under another authority), biologically sampled (blood, tissue), and tagged (passive integrated transponder (PIT), flipper, and acoustic or satellite transmitters (by epoxy or drilling the carapace)), measured, weighed, and photographed. One leatherback sea turtle may be opportunistically taken during research and would receive a temporary carapace mark, PIT tag, and flipper tags as well as be blood sampled, measured, and photographed. The permit would be valid for 10 years.
Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).
Notice of public meeting.
This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda of a meeting of the NOAA Science Advisory Board (SAB). The members will discuss issues outlined in the section on Matters to be considered.
The meeting will be held Tuesday, July 17, 2018 from 9:45 a.m. EDT to 5:00 p.m. EDT and on Wednesday, July 18, 2018 from 9 a.m. EDT to 12 p.m. EDT. These times and agenda topics described below are subject to change. For the latest agenda please refer to the SAB website:
The meeting will be held at the Hugh Gregg Coastal Conservation Center, 93 Depot Road, Greenland, NH 03840. Members of the public may participate virtually by registering at:
Dr. Cynthia Decker, Executive Director, SSMC3, Room 11230, 1315 East-West Hwy., Silver Spring, MD 20910; Phone Number: 301-734-1156; Email:
The NOAA Science Advisory Board (SAB) was established by a Decision Memorandum dated September 25, 1997, and is the only Federal Advisory Committee with responsibility to advise the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere on strategies for research, education, and application of science to operations and information services. SAB activities and advice provide necessary input to ensure that National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) science programs are of the highest quality and provide optimal support to resource management.
Corporation for National and Community Service
Request for preliminary public input; Notification of listening sessions.
In accordance with the National and Community Service Act of 1990, as amended, and the President's Management Agenda for Modernizing the Federal Government, the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) is inviting informal public comment concerning its Transformation and Sustainability Plan. CNCS will host four in-person listening sessions and three conference calls for public input, and accept written comments. This input will be used to shape the implementation of the plan.
Written comments are due by Friday, August 24, 2018.
You may submit written comments by any of the following methods:
(1) Electronically via
(2) Electronically via email to
(3) By mail sent to: Amy Borgstrom, Docket Manager, Corporation for National and Community Service, 250 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20525.
For public input meeting registration and conference call information see:
Neill Minish, Special Initiatives Advisor, Corporation for National and Community Service, 250 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20525. Phone: 202-606-6664. Email:
CNCS is inviting preliminary informal input from the public on its Transformation and Sustainability Plan. The plan, and further information about the meetings and calls, can be viewed at
We will accept input in writing, as described in the
We are committed to hearing and considering input from all Americans. If you can't attend a face-to-face session, please attend a virtual session or provide your input via regulations.gov.
Department of the Air Force, DoD.
Information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by August 20, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
• Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Chief Management Officer, Directorate for Oversight and Compliance, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Mailbox #24, Suite 08D09, Alexandria, VA 22350-1700.
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to Chief Operations Division, Headquarters Air Force Recruiting Service, 550 D Street West Suite 1, Randolph AFB, TX 78150-4527, or call 703-862-3746.
The Air Force (AF) Active, Air National Guard (ANG), and Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC) duty field recruiters have a need for an automated tool to initially build prospective enlistees for all recruiting accessions for Enlisted, Officer, and Health Professions. Air Force Recruiting Information Support System-Total Force (AFRISS-TF) provides a comprehensive integration, interface, and standardization of all programs that manage personnel resources in support of recruiting and collecting personnel private information required to induct into the Armed Forces.
The system extends automated capabilities out to the individual recruiter, flight, squadron, and groups. It provides an automated interface to Military Entrance Processing Center Station (MEPS) where applicants undergo physical, testing, verification interviews, and tentative job reservation that can be entered into AFRISS-TF. It also provides reporting capabilities at all levels of management to make informed decisions on recruiting practices.
Department of the Air Force, DoD.
Information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by August 20, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to Air Force Office of Scientific Research, ATTN: Raheem A. Lawal, AFOSR/RTA, 875 North Randolph Street, Suite 325, Room 3112, Arlington, VA 22203-1768, or call AFOSR/RTA, at 703-696-7313.
Respondents are professors, associate professors, assistant professors, undergraduate and graduate students desiring to conduct stimulating research projects and activities at Air Force research sites. The online electronic application process provides information necessary for evaluation and selection of researchers.
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The Department of Defense is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the U.S. Army Science Board (ASB) will take place. This notice replaces the original meeting notice published in the
Thursday, July 19, 2018.
Arnold and Mabel Beckman Center of the National Academies of Sciences and Engineering, 100 Academy Way, Irvine, CA 92617.
Ms. Heather J. Gerard (Ierardi), (703) 545-8652 (Voice), 571-256-3383 (Facsimile),
This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.140 and 102-3.150.
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, DoD.
Information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by August 20, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to ATTN: CDR David Clark, 1500 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1500, or call (703) 693-1068.
Respondents are abused dependents or former dependents, or legal representatives of abused dependents or former dependents, of service members who are convicted or administratively separated from military service due to a dependent abuse offense. In order to receive the benefit, the recipient must complete the required information in DD Form 2698.
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, DoD.
30-Day information collection notice.
The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by July 19, 2018.
Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be emailed to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at
Fred Licari, 571-372-0493, or
You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:
•
Requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at
Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice; correction.
On June 7, 2018, we published in the
The correction is applicable June 19, 2018.
Karmon Simms-Coates, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 278-54, Washington, DC 20202-6200. Telephone: (202) 453-7917. Email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
On June 7, 2018, we published in the
In FR Doc. 2018-12291, in the
(a) On page 26448, in the middle column, in the last sentence of the first paragraph in the section entitled “Estimated Available Funds”, we remove the number “$54,833,000” and replace it with the number “$64,833,000”.
(b) On page 26448, in the middle column, after the words “Estimated Range of Awards”, we remove the numbers “$2,500,000-$3,500,000” and replace them with the numbers “$2,500,000-$5,000,000”.
(c) On page 26448, in the middle column, after the words “Estimated Average Size of Awards”, we remove the number “$3,000,000” and replace it with the number “$4,250,000”.
(d) On page 26448, in the middle column, in the first sentence of the section entitled “Maximum Award”, we remove the number “$3,500,000” and replace it with the number “$5,000,000”.
(e) On page 26448, in the middle column, after the words “Estimated Number of Awards”, we remove the number “18” and replace it with the number “15”.
You also may access documents of the Department published in the
Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
The Department of Education (Department) is issuing a notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2018 for the Child Care Access Means Parents in School (CCAMPIS) Program, Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number 84.335A.
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
Antoinette Clark Edwards, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 278-50, Washington, DC 20202-4260. Telephone: (202) 453-7121. Email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
This priority is:
Projects that utilize a sliding fee scale for child care services provided under section 419N of the HEA in order to support a high number of low-income parents pursuing postsecondary education at the institution.
This priority is:
Projects that leverage significant local or institutional resources, including in-kind contributions, to support the activities assisted under section 419N of the HEA.
(1) Demonstrate that the institution is an eligible institution;
(2) Specify the amount of funds requested;
(3) Demonstrate the need of low-income students at the institution for campus-based child care services by including in the application—
(A) information regarding student demographics;
(B) an assessment of child care capacity on or near campus;
(C) information regarding the existence of waiting lists for existing child care;
(D) information regarding additional needs created by concentrations of poverty or by geographic isolation; and
(E) other relevant data;
(4) Contain a description of the activities to be assisted, including whether the grant funds will support an existing child care program or a new child care program;
(5) Identify the resources, including technical expertise and financial support, the institution will draw upon to support the child care program and the participation of low-income students in the program, such as accessing social services funding, using student activity fees to help pay the costs of child care, using resources obtained by meeting the needs of parents who are not low-income students, and accessing foundation, corporate or other institutional support, and demonstrate that the use of the resources will not result in increases in student tuition;
(6) Contain an assurance that the institution will meet the child care needs of low-income students through the provision of services, or through a contract for the provision of services;
(7) Describe the extent to which the child care program will coordinate with the institution's early childhood education curriculum, to the extent the curriculum is available, to meet the needs of the students in the early childhood education program at the institution, and the needs of the parents and children participating in the child care program assisted under the applicant's project;
(8) In the case of an institution seeking assistance for a new child care program—
(A) provide a timeline, covering the period from receipt of the grant through the provision of the child care services, delineating the specific steps the institution will take to achieve the goal of providing low-income students with child care services;
(B) specify any measures the institution will take to assist low-income students with child care during the period before the institution provides child care services; and
(C) include a plan for identifying resources needed for the child care services, including space in which to provide child care services, and technical assistance if necessary;
(9) Contain an assurance that any child care facility assisted under this section will meet the applicable State or local government licensing, certification, approval, or registration requirements; and
(10) Contain a plan for any child care facility assisted under this section to become accredited within three years of the date the institution first receives assistance under this section.
Because there are no program-specific regulations for the CCAMPIS Program, applicants are encouraged to carefully read the authorizing statute: Title IV, part A, subpart 7, section 419N of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1070e).
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.
2.
3.
1.
2.
3.
4.
• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins.
• Double-space all text in the application narrative, and single-space titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs.
• Use a 12-point font.
• Use an easily readable font such as Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial.
The recommended 50-page limit does not apply to Part I, the Application for Federal Assistance cover sheet (SF 424); Part II, the Budget Information Summary form (ED Form 524); Part III, the CCAMPIS Program Profile form and the one-page Project Abstract form; or Part IV, the assurances and certifications. The recommended page limit also does not apply to a table of contents, which you should include in the application narrative. You must include your complete response to the selection criteria in the application narrative.
Applications that do not follow the page limit and formatting recommendations will not be penalized.
1.
We will award up to 100 points to an application under the selection criteria and up to 5 additional points to an application under the competitive preference priority, for a total peer review score of up to 105 points. The maximum score for each criterion is indicated in parentheses, and the maximum score for each subcriterion is in the application package for this competition.
(a)
In determining the need for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the extent to which the applicant demonstrates, in its application, the need for campus-based child care services for low-income students at the institution by including the following (see section 419N(c)(3) of the HEA):
(i) Information regarding student demographics.
(ii) An assessment of child care capacity on or near campus.
(iii) Information regarding the existence of waiting lists for existing child care.
(iv) Information regarding additional needs created by concentrations of poverty or by geographic isolation.
(v) Other relevant data.
(b)
In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following:
(i) The extent to which the applicant describes in its application the activities to be assisted, including whether the grant funds will support an existing child care program or a new child care program (see section 419N(c)(4) of the HEA).
(ii) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project are focused on those with the greatest needs (see 34 CFR 75.210(d)(3)(xi)).
For consistency in scoring applications, readers of applications will be instructed to include, in their assessment of focus on service of those with the greatest needs, the extent to which services are available during all hours that classes are in session, including evenings and weekends, to part-time students, and to students who need only emergency drop-in child care in the event that regularly scheduled child care is unexpectedly unavailable.
(iii) The likely impact of the services to be provided by the proposed project on the intended recipients of those services (see 34 CFR 75.210(d)(3)(iv)).
(iv) Whether the application includes an assurance that the institution will meet the child care needs of low-income students through the provision of services, or through a contract for the provision of services (see section 419N(c)(6) of the HEA).
(v) The extent to which the child care program will coordinate with the institution's early childhood education curriculum, to the extent the curriculum is available, to meet the needs of the students in the early childhood education program at the institution, and the needs of the parents and children participating in the child care program assisted under this section (see section 419N(c)(7) of the HEA).
(vi) The extent to which the proposed project encourages parental involvement (see 34 CFR 75.210(c)(2)(xix)).
(vii) If the applicant is requesting grant assistance for a new child care program (see section 419N(c)(8) of the HEA)—
(1) Whether the applicant provides in its application a timeline, covering the period from receipt of the grant through the provision of the child care services, delineating the specific steps the institution will take to achieve the goal of providing low-income students with child care services;
(2) The extent to which the applicant specifies in its application the measures the institution will take to assist low-income students with child care during the period before the institution provides child care services; and
(3) The extent to which the application includes a plan for identifying resources needed for the child care services, including space in which to provide child care services and technical assistance if necessary.
(c)
In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following:
(i) The extent to which the application includes a management plan that describes the resources, including technical expertise and financial support, the institution will draw upon to support the child care program and the participation of low-income students in the program, such as accessing social services funding, using student activity fees to help pay the costs of child care, using resources obtained by meeting the needs of parents who are not low-income students, and accessing foundation, corporate or other institutional support, and demonstrates that the use of the resources will not result in increases in student tuition (see section 419N(c)(5) of the HEA).
(ii) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of key project personnel (see 34 CFR 75.210(e)(3)(ii)).
(iii) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks (see 34 CFR 75.210(g)(2)(i)).
(d)
In determining the quality of the project evaluation, the Secretary considers the following:
(i) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project (see 34 CFR 75.210(h)(2)(i)).
(ii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation include the use of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the intended outcomes of the project and will produce quantitative and qualitative data to the extent possible (see 34 CFR 75.210(h)(2)(iv)).
(iii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes (see 34 CFR 75.210(h)(2)(vi)).
(e)
In determining the adequacy of resources for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following:
(i) The extent to which the budget is adequate to support the proposed project (see 34 CFR 75.210(f)(2)(iii)).
(ii) 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 (see 34 CFR 75.210(f)(2)(v)).
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 assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
For this competition, a panel of non-Federal readers will review each application in accordance with the selection criteria, consistent with 34 CFR 75.217. The individual scores of the reviewers will be added and the sum divided by the number of reviewers to determine the peer review score received in the review process.
If there are insufficient funds for all applications with the same total scores, the Secretary will choose among the tied applications so as to serve geographical areas that have been underserved by the CCAMPIS Program.
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 will notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
Additionally, a grantee or subgrantee that is awarded competitive grant funds must have a plan to disseminate these public grant deliverables. This dissemination plan can be developed and submitted after your application has been reviewed and selected for funding. For additional information on the open licensing requirements please refer to 2 CFR 3474.20.
4.
(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. In this case the Secretary establishes a data collection period.
5.
6.
In making a continuation grant, 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).
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of petition for waiver and grant of an interim waiver and request for comments.
This document announces receipt of, and publishes a petition for waiver from, Jamison Door Company (“Jamison”), which seeks an exemption from specified portions of the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) test procedure used for determining the energy consumption of walk-in cooler and walk-in freezer doors (collectively, “walk-in doors”). Jamison seeks to use an alternate test procedure to address issues involved in testing the basic models identified in its petition. Jamison asserts in its petition that the percent time off (“PTO”) value specified in the test procedure for walk-in door motors is unrepresentative of actual performance and causes the test procedure to over-estimate the energy use of the motors used in a number of its walk-in door basic models. Accordingly, Jamison seeks to test and rate the basic models identified in its petition using an alternative PTO value for walk-in door motors. DOE is granting Jamison an interim waiver from the DOE's walk-in door test procedure for its specified basic models, subject to use of the alternative test procedure as set forth in this document. DOE solicits comments, data, and information concerning Jamison's petition and its suggested alternate test procedure to inform its final decision on Jamison's waiver request.
DOE will accept comments, data, and information with respect to the Jamison petition until July 19, 2018.
Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
•
•
•
•
No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be accepted. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this process, see section V of this document.
The docket web page can be found at
Ms. Lucy deButts, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-
Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, Mail Stop GC-33, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0103. Telephone: (202) 586-8145. Email:
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as amended (“EPCA” or “the Act”),
Under EPCA, DOE's energy conservation program consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant provisions of the Act include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316).
The Federal testing requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of covered equipment must use as the basis for: (1) Certifying to DOE that their equipment complies with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)), and (2) making representations about the efficiency of that equipment (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)). Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the equipment complies with relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s))
Under 42 U.S.C. 6314, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for covered equipment. EPCA requires that any test procedures prescribed or amended under this section must be reasonably designed to produce test results reflecting the energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating costs during a representative average use cycle or period of use, and requires that test procedures not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) The test procedure for walk-in doors is contained in 10 CFR part 431, subpart R, appendix A.
The regulations set forth in 10 CFR 431.401 provide that upon receipt of a petition, DOE will grant a waiver from the test procedure requirements if DOE determines either that the basic model for which the waiver was requested contains a design characteristic that prevents testing of the basic model according to the prescribed test procedure, or that the prescribed test procedure evaluates the basic model in a manner so unrepresentative of its true energy consumption characteristics as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data. 10 CFR 431.401(f)(2).
DOE may grant a waiver subject to conditions, including adherence to alternate test procedures.
The waiver process also provides that DOE may grant an interim waiver if it appears likely that the underlying petition for waiver will be granted and/or if DOE determines that it would be desirable for public policy reasons to grant immediate relief pending a determination on the underlying petition for waiver. 10 CFR 431.401(e)(2). Within one year of issuance of an interim waiver, DOE will either: (i) Publish in the
When DOE amends the test procedure to address the issues presented in a waiver, the waiver will automatically terminate on the date on which use of that test procedure is required to demonstrate compliance. 10 CFR 431.401(h)(2).
On July 26, 2017, Jamison filed a petition for waiver and a petition for interim waiver from the test procedure applicable to walk-in doors set forth in 10 CFR part 431, subpart R, appendix A
In its petition, Jamison states that the DOE test procedure would grossly overstate the energy used by the motorized door models identified in its waiver request.
Jamison's suggested PTO value is dependent on its assumptions regarding the doors' size, motor speed and use frequency—that is, how many times per day the doors are opened. As an example, Jamison offered that its 96-inch doors have an average drive cycle time of 6 seconds and may undergo 40 door opening events per hour. Applying
Although not in the context of electricity-consuming devices, DOE previously considered the operational characteristics of passage and freight doors
DOE will grant an interim waiver if it appears likely that the petition for waiver will be granted, and/or if DOE determines that it would be desirable for public policy reasons to grant immediate relief pending a determination of the petition for waiver. See 10 CFR 431.401(e)(2). DOE understands that absent an interim waiver, Jamison's specified basic models cannot be tested and rated for energy consumption on a basis representative of their true energy consumption characteristics. DOE has reviewed the alternate procedure suggested by Jamison and concludes that the PTO value suggested by Jamison would allow for an accurate estimation of its walk-in door motor's energy use, and alleviate the problems with walk-in door testing identified by Jamison for the basic models specified in its petition. Thus, it appears likely that Jamison's petition for waiver will be granted. Furthermore, DOE has determined that it is desirable for public policy reasons to grant Jamison immediate relief pending a determination of the petition for waiver.
EPCA requires that manufacturers use DOE test procedures when making representations about the energy consumption and energy consumption costs of products covered by the statute. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)) Consistent representations are important for manufacturers to use in making representations about the energy efficiency of their products and to demonstrate compliance with applicable DOE energy conservation standards. Pursuant to the regulations applicable to waivers and interim waivers from applicable test procedures at 10 CFR 431.401 and after considering public comments on the petition, DOE will announce its decision as to an alternate test procedure for the equipment identified by Jamison in a subsequent Decision and Order.
In its petition, Jamison suggests that the basic models listed in the petition must be tested according to the test procedure for walk-in doors prescribed by DOE at 10 CFR part 431, subpart R, appendix A, except that the PTO value for door motors is modified from 25% to 93.5% for freight and passage doors.
During the period of the interim waiver in this document, the petitioner must test the specified basic models according to the test procedure as discussed in this section,
DOE has analyzed the technical performance data provided by Jamison and agrees that for the basic models specified in the waiver, the suggested 93.5% PTO for the door motors used in the specified models is more representative of actual energy use than the existing value of 25%. Based on Jamison's information, DOE concludes that a 93.5% PTO adequately accounts for the specified basic model's wide range in door sizes and door motor speeds.
For the reasons above, DOE is granting Jamison's petition for interim waiver from testing for its specified walk-in door basic models. The substance of DOE's Interim Waiver Order is summarized below.
Jamison is required to use the alternate test procedures set forth in this document to test and rate the walk-in door basic models listed in Appendix I of its July 26, 2017 petition. See
DOE makes decisions on waivers and interim waivers for only those basic models specifically set out in the petition, not future models that may be manufactured by the petitioner. Jamison may request that DOE extend the scope of a waiver or an interim waiver to include additional basic models employing the same technology as the basic model(s) set forth in the original petition consistent with 10 CFR 431.401(g). In addition, DOE notes that granting of an interim waiver or waiver does not release a petitioner from the certification requirements set forth at 10 CFR part 429. See also 10 CFR 431.401(a) and (i).
Unless otherwise rescinded or modified, the interim waiver shall remain in effect consistent with 10 CFR 431.401(h). DOE may rescind or modify a waiver or interim waiver at any time upon a determination that the factual basis underlying the petition for waiver or interim waiver is incorrect, or upon a determination that the results from the alternate test procedure are unrepresentative of the basic model's true energy consumption characteristics. See 10 CFR 431.401(k). Furthermore, the interim waiver is conditioned upon the validity of the door motor performance characteristics, statements, representations, and documentary materials provided by Jamison.
DOE is publishing Jamison's petition for waiver in its entirety, pursuant to 10 CFR 431.401(b)(1)(iv), absent any
DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by July 19, 2018, comments and information on all aspects of the petition, including the alternate test procedure. Pursuant to 10 CFR 431.401(d), any person submitting written comments to DOE must also send a copy of such comments to the petitioner. The contact information for the petitioner is Jason Derrick,
Submitting comments via
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your comment. Persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to
DOE processes submissions made through
Submitting comments via email, hand delivery, or mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery, or mail also will be posted to
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via mail or hand delivery, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible. It is not necessary to submit printed copies. No facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are not secured, written in English and free of any defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting time.
Confidential Business Information. According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via email, postal mail, or hand delivery two well-marked copies: One copy of the document marked confidential including all the information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked “non-confidential” with the information believed to be confidential deleted. Submit these documents via email or on a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential status of the information and treat it according to its determination.
Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat submitted information as confidential include (1) a description of the items, (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as confidential within the industry, (3) whether the information is generally known by or available from other sources, (4) whether the information has previously been made available to others without obligation concerning its confidentiality, (5) an explanation of the competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from public disclosure, (6) when such information might lose its confidential character due to the passage of time, and (7) why disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public docket, without change and as received, including any personal information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be exempt from public disclosure).
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) is adopting a proposal to extend for three years, with revision, the Holding Company Report of Insured Depository Institutions' Section 23A Transactions with Affiliates (FR Y-8; OMB No. 7100-0126). The revisions are effective as of the June 30, 2018 report date.
Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551, (202) 452-3829. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263-4869, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.
OMB Desk Officer—Shagufta Ahmed—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-6974.
On June 15, 1984, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delegated to the Board authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to approve and assign OMB control numbers to collection of information requests and requirements conducted or sponsored by the Board. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. Copies of the Paperwork Reduction Act Submission, supporting statements and approved collection of information instrument(s) are placed into OMB's public docket files. The Board may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board Meeting Agenda June 25, 2018 In Person 8:30 a.m.
Information covered under 5 U.S.C. 552b (c)(4), (c)(9)(B).
Kimberly Weaver, Director Office of External Affairs (202) 942-1640
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received by August 20, 2018.
When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:
1.
2.
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' website address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
William Parham at (410) 786-4669.
This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the
1.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chap 35), the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 330 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20201. Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. Email address:
The Department specifically requests comments on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is publishing a list of information collections that have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Ila S. Mizrachi, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-7726,
The following is a list of FDA information collections recently approved by OMB under section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507). The OMB control number and expiration date of OMB approval for each information collection are shown in table 1. Copies of the supporting statements for the information collections are available on the internet at
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice of non-competitive FY 2018 supplemental award.
This noncompetitive supplement award to JSI will support and strengthen current Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program (RWHAP) Part A and Part B priority setting and resource allocation processes to ensure people living with HIV are linked to care, remain engaged in care, and achieve viral suppression.
Dr. Rene Sterling, Acting Director, Division of State HIV/AIDS Programs, HIV/AIDS Bureau, HRSA; 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 09W50, Rockville, MD 20857; Phone: (301) 443-9017, Email:
The proposed supplemental funding will provide RWHAP Parts A and B recipients with additional technical assistance (TA) specifically focused on resource allocation planning and implementation. These additional TA activities will build upon data elements identified in the Integrated Plan and provide jurisdictions with strategies, tools, and resources to effectively allocate annual available resources to prioritize HIV unmet needs. The TA activities will be directed at addressing more efficient and proactive methods in the Priority Setting and Resource Allocation (PSRA) process to increase the ability of health care providers and systems to ensure people living with HIV are linked to care, remain engaged in care, and achieve HIV viral suppression.
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
Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given that the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) Center for Substance Abuse Prevention's (CSAP) Drug Testing Advisory Board (DTAB) will convene via web conference on August 8, 2018, from 9:00 a.m. EDT to 5:00 p.m. EDT.
The board will meet in closed-session via web conference on August 8, 2018, from 9:00 a.m. EDT to 5:00 p.m. EDT to discuss the proposed Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs (hair specimens). Therefore, the meeting is closed to the public as determined by the Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use, SAMHSA, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4) and (9)(B), and 5 U.S.C. App. 2, Section 10(d).
Meeting registration information can be completed at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. 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). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings.
Comments are to be submitted on or before September 17, 2018.
The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1830, to Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
These proposed 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. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online at
The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location
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 declaration for the State of Indiana (FEMA-4363-DR), dated May 4, 2018, and related determinations.
This amendment was issued June 5, 2018.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Indiana is hereby amended to include the following area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of May 4, 2018.
Pulaski County for Public Assistance (already designated for Individual Assistance).
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Indiana (FEMA-4363-DR), dated May 4, 2018, and related determinations.
This amendment was issued June 5, 2018.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Indiana is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of May 4, 2018.
Kosciusko and Pulaski Counties for Individual Assistance.
Dearborn, Fulton, Jasper, LaPorte, Ohio, Porter, Spencer, Starke, Switzerland, Vanderburgh, and White Counties for Individual Assistance (already designated for Public Assistance).
Science and Technology Directorate, DHS.
Notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is seeking nominations and expressions of interest for filling two open positions on the Project 25 (P25) Compliance Assessment Program (CAP) Advisory Panel (AP). The P25 CAP AP holds quarterly meetings with the public on topics related to P25 CAP. The next meeting is scheduled for August 2018 timeframe.
All responses must be received by July 19, 2018 at the address listed below.
Expressions of interest and nominations shall be submitted to
Sridhar Kowdley, Program Manager, Office for Interoperability and Compatibility, Science and Technology Directorate, Department of Homeland Security, 202-254-8804,
P25 is a standards development process for the design, manufacture, and evaluation of interoperable digital two-way land mobile radio communications products created by and for public safety professionals. The goal of P25 is to specify formal standards for interfaces and features between the various components of a land mobile radio system commonly used by public safety agencies in portable handheld and mobile vehicle-mounted devices. The P25 standard enables interoperability among different suppliers' products.
P25 CAP was developed by DHS to test equipment designed to comply with P25 standards. P25 CAP ensures that communications equipment that is declared by the supplier to be P25-compliant, in fact, is tested against the standards with publicly published results. The program provides public safety agencies with evidence that the communications equipment they are purchasing is tested against and complies with the P25 standards for performance, conformance, and interoperability. The P25 CAP AP provides a resource by which DHS gains insight into the collective interest of organizations that procure P25-compliant equipment and a resource for DHS to continue to establish the policies of the P25 CAP, along with assisting the DHS Office for Interoperability and Compatibility (OIC) in the administration of the program.
P25 CAP is a voluntary program that provides a mechanism for the recognition of testing laboratories based on internationally accepted standards. It identifies competent P25 CAP testing laboratories for DHS-recognition through a robust assessment process and promotes the acceptance of compliant test results from these laboratories.
As a voluntary program, P25 CAP allows suppliers to publicly attest to their products' compliance with a selected group of requirements through Summary Test Report (STR) and Supplier's Declaration of Compliance (SDOC) documents based on the Detailed Test Report (DTR) from the DHS-recognized laboratory (ies) that performed the product testing. In turn, DHS makes these documents available to the first response community to inform their purchasing decisions via the
The Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) of DHS formed the P25 CAP AP to provide S&T with the views of active local, state, tribal, territorial and Federal government officials who use or whose offices use portable handheld and mobile vehicle-mounted radios. Those government officials selected to participate in the P25 CAP AP are selected based on their experience with the management and procurement of land mobile radio systems or knowledge of conformity assessment programs and methods. The OIC selection process balances viewpoints required to effectively address P25 CAP issues under consideration. To fill two open positions on the P25 CAP AP, OIC is particularly interested in receiving nominations and expressions of interest from individuals in the following categories:
• State, tribal, territorial, or local government agencies and organizations with expertise in communications issues and technologies.
• Federal government agencies with expertise in communications or homeland security matters.
While OIC can call for a meeting of the P25 CAP AP as it deems necessary and appropriate, for member commitment and planning purposes, it is anticipated that the P25 CAP AP will meet approximately 3-4 times annually in their role of providing guidance and support to the P25 CAP.
Those selected to serve on the P25 CAP AP will be required to sign a gratuitous services agreement and will not be paid or reimbursed for their participation; however, DHS S&T will, subject to the availability of funds, reimburse the travel expenses associated with the participation of non-Federal members in accordance with Federal Travel Regulations. OIC reserves the right to select primary and alternate members to the P25 CAP AP for terms appropriate for the accomplishment of the Board's mission. Members serve at the pleasure of the OIC Director.
Registered lobbyists pursuant to the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 are not eligible for membership on the P25 CAP AP and will not be considered.
The duties of the P25 CAP AP will include providing recommendations of its individual members to OIC regarding actions and steps OIC could take to promote the P25 CAP. The duties of the P25 CAP AP may include but are not limited to its members reviewing, commenting on, and advising on:
a. The laboratory component of the P25 CAP under established, documented laboratory recognition guidelines.
b. Proposed Compliance Assessment Bulletins (CABs).
c. Proposed updates to previously approved CABs, as Notices of Proposed CABs, to enable comment and input on the proposed CAB modifications.
d. OIC updates to existing test documents or establishing new test documents for new types of P25 equipment.
e. Best practices associated with improvement of the policies and procedures by which the P25 CAP operates.
f. Existing test documents including but not limited to SDOCs and STRs posted on the
g. Proposed P25 user input for improving functionality through the standards-making process.
Nominations and expressions of interest shall be received by OIC no later than July 19, 2018 at the address
• A cover letter that highlights a history of proven leadership within the public safety community including, if applicable, a description of prior experience with law enforcement, fire response, emergency medical services, emergency communications, National Guard, or other first responder roles and how the use of communications in those roles qualifies the nominee to participate on the P25 CAP AP.
• Name, title, and organization of the nominee.
• A resume summarizing the nominee's contact information (including the mailing address, phone number, facsimile number, and email address), qualifications, and expertise to explain why the nominee should be appointed to the P25 CAP AP.
• The resume must demonstrate a minimum of ten years (10) years of experience directly using P25 systems in an operational environment in support of established public safety communications or from a system implementer/administrator perspective; a bachelor's or associate degree with an emphasis in communications and engineering may be substituted for three (3) years, a master's/professional certification for seven (7) years, and a Ph.D. for ten (10) years of the requirement.
• The resume must discuss the nominee's familiarity with the current P25 CAP, including documents that are integral to the process such as the SDOCs, STRs, and CABs referenced in this notice.
• A letter from the nominee's supervisor indicating the nominee's agency's support for the nominee to participate on the P25 CAP AP as a representative from their respective agency.
• Disclosure of Federal boards, commissions, committees, task forces, or work groups on which the nominee currently serves or has served within the past 12 months.
• A statement confirming that the nominee is not registered as a lobbyist pursuant to the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995.
Office of Infrastructure Protection (IP), National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD), Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
60-Day notice and request for comments; new collection, 1670—NEW.
DHS NPPD IP will submit the following information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. NPPD IP is contracting a study to analyze a broad set of business security measures in terms of their costs and spillover effects, with an emphasis on identifying security measures that had a positive effect. Additionally, NPPD IP will survey the businesses' customers to evaluate the public's perceptions of the security measures, and evaluate the enhanced security measures on business operations and customers' responses.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until August 20, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number DHS-2018-0022, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Comments submitted in response to this notice may be made available to the public through relevant websites. For this reason, please do not include in your comments information of a confidential nature, such as sensitive personal information or proprietary information. If you send an email comment, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the internet. Please note that responses to this public comment request containing any routine notice about the confidentiality of the communication will be treated as public comments that may be made available to the public notwithstanding the inclusion of the routine notice.
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Bill Schweigart at 703-603-5148 or at
Title II of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-296), as amended (2006), directs the DHS to coordinate all Federal homeland security activities, including infrastructure protection. On behalf of DHS, NPPD IP manages the Department's program to protect and enhance the resilience of the Nation's physical and cyber infrastructure within the 16 critical infrastructure sectors designated by Presidential Policy Directive 21 Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience (PPD-21) (February 2013) by implementing the National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP) 2013: Partnering for Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience. NPPD IP accomplishes their mission by building sustainable partnerships with its public and private sector stakeholders to enable more effective sector coordination, information sharing, and program development and implementation.
The Homeland Security Act of 2002, as amended (2006), also grants DHS the authority to create university-based Centers of Excellence (COEs) using
NPPD IP is contracting a study through the approved BOA with CREATE to analyze a broad set of security measures in terms of their costs and spillover effects, with an emphasis on identifying security measures that had a positive effect. This includes examining a broad range of measures including increased police/security guard presence and other non- or less-invasive options. NPPD IP will work with business leaders to identify locations that have implemented various security measures already, and develop and administer surveys for statistical analysis and modeling. Additionally, NPPD IP will survey the businesses' customers to evaluate the public's perceptions of the security measures, and evaluate the enhanced security measures on business operations and customers' responses.
CREATE will work with NPPD personnel to identify locations that have implemented various security measures already, and develop and administer surveys for statistical analysis and modeling. Management professionals (Chief Operating Officers, Head of Marketing, and Head of Security) from five selected businesses will be asked questions tailored to the five specific businesses regarding current and planned safety measures, management understanding of customer perceptions of security measures, management beliefs about the impacts of security measures, management beliefs about how security measures change customer behaviors and business volume, and some select demographic information. This will be conducted as a structured interview, herein referred to as “Business Structured Interview”, and is needed to obtain necessary and relevant data for subsequent economic analyses. The purpose of these analyses is to evaluate whether specific counterterrorism efforts have a negative or positive impact on the company in question.
CREATE will administer a customer survey, herein referred to as “Customer Survey”, regarding awareness of countermeasures in the Commercial Facilities sector, attitudes and perceptions toward safety, impacts (physical, psychological, and monetary) countermeasures have on customers, and select demographic and individual difference questions. There will be five variations of this survey targeted to each of the five specific businesses with slight variations in the language as a result, however the same information is being sought from the groups. These surveys are intended to create an understanding of the impacts of security countermeasures on customers/visitors' perceptions and behaviors at each of the specific target businesses selected.
Information will be analyzed to determine whether the spillover effects are positive and negative and to what extent. Statistical analysis of the results will identify the direct impacts. These will be fed into an economy-wide modeling approach known as computable general equilibrium (CGE) analysis to determine the “ripple” effects on the entire local economy. The analysis will be performed with an eye toward uncertainty analysis, as well in terms of the framing of survey questions and, rigorously specifying the confidence intervals for the statistical results.
The DHS and CREATE research team will use the information being collected in order to inform the study described above.
The Business Structured Interview will be conducted as interviews, either in-person or via video conferencing that will have a list of questions to help structure and guide discussions. The Customer Survey will be created and sent utilizing a professional-grade software, “Research Core,” by Qualtrics. The software allows the researchers to send customized email invitations to respondents, track their progress, and prevent fraud and abuse of the survey.
This is a new information collection.
OMB is particularly interested in comments that:
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,
Transportation Security Administration, DHS.
30-Day notice.
This notice announces that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has forwarded the Information Collection Request (ICR), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number 1652-0063, abstracted below to OMB for review and approval of an extension of the currently approved collection under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. The collection involves the reimbursement of expenses incurred by airport operators for the provision of law enforcement officers (LEOs) to support airport security checkpoint screening.
Send your comments by July 19, 2018. A comment to OMB is most effective if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on
Christina A. Walsh, TSA PRA Officer, Office of Information Technology (OIT), TSA-11, Transportation Security Administration, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6011; telephone (571) 227-2062; email
TSA published a
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement 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;
(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 using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consistent with the requirements of Executive Order (E.O.) 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, and E.O. 13777, Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda, TSA is also requesting comments on the extent to which this request for information could be modified to reduce the burden on respondents.
Transportation Security Administration, DHS.
30-Day notice.
This notice announces that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has forwarded the Information Collection Request (ICR), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number 1652-0029, abstracted below to OMB for review and approval of revision of the currently approved collection under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. The collection is necessary to comply with a requirement for individuals to successfully complete a security threat assessment before operating an aircraft to or from the three Maryland airports (Maryland Three Airports) that are located within the Washington, DC, Metropolitan Area Flight Restricted Zone (FRZ), or serving as an airport security coordinator at one of these three airports.
Send your comments by July 19, 2018. A comment to OMB is most effective if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB. Comments should be addressed to Desk Officer, Department of Homeland Security/TSA, and sent via electronic mail to
Christina A. Walsh, TSA PRA Officer, Office of Information Technology (OIT), TSA-11, Transportation Security Administration, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6011; telephone (571) 227-2062; email
TSA published a
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement 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;
(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 using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consistent with the requirements of Executive Order (E.O.) 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, and E.O. 13777, Enforcing the
Transportation Security Administration, DHS.
30-Day notice.
This notice announces that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has forwarded the Information Collection Request (ICR), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number 1652-0027, abstracted below to OMB for review and approval of an extension of the currently approved collection under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. The collection involves applicant's voluntary submission of biometric and biographic information for TSA's security threat assessment required before obtaining the hazardous materials endorsement (HME) on a commercial driver's license (CDL) issued by States and the District of Columbia.
Send your comments by July 19, 2018. A comment to OMB is most effective if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB. Comments should be addressed to Desk Officer, Department of Homeland Security/TSA, and sent via electronic mail to
Christina A. Walsh, TSA PRA Officer, Office of Information Technology (OIT), TSA-11, Transportation Security Administration, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6011; telephone (571) 227-2062; email
TSA published a
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement 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;
(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 using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consistent with the requirements of Executive Order (E.O.) 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, and E.O. 13777, Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda, TSA is also requesting comments on the extent to which this request for information could be modified to reduce the burden on respondents.
Transportation Security Administration, DHS.
60-Day notice.
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) invites public comment on one currently approved Information Collection Request (ICR), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number 1652-0005, abstracted below that we will submit to OMB for an extension in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. This information collection is mandatory for foreign air carriers and must be submitted prior to entry into the United States.
Send your comments by August 20, 2018.
Comments may be emailed to
Christina A. Walsh at the above address, or by telephone (571) 227-2062.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement 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;
(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 using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consistent with the requirements of Executive Order (E.O.) 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, and E.O. 13777, Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda, TSA is also requesting comments on the extent to which this request for information could be modified to reduce the burden on respondents.
Additionally, foreign air carriers must maintain these records, as well as training records for crew members and individuals performing security-related functions, and make them available to TSA for inspection upon request. TSA will continue to collect information described above to determine foreign air carrier compliance with requirements of 49 CFR part 1546. TSA estimates that there will be approximately 180 respondents to the information collection, with an annual burden estimate of 1,278,352 hours.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; receipt of permit application, draft environmental assessment, draft habitat conservation plan, request for comment.
This notice advises the public that we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, have prepared a draft environmental assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1967, as amended, and it's implementing regulations. This notice also announces the receipt of an application for an incidental take permit under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, and receipt of a draft habitat conservation plan.
You may obtain a copy of the draft Habitat Conservation Plan, draft Environmental Assessment, and related documents on the internet at
Chad Mitcham, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, by mail to the address in
This notice advises the public that we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have prepared the draft environmental assessment (EA) under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1967, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321
This notice also announces the receipt of an application from Mary Beth Long of Fairview Corners LLC and Frederick Harris of the Gavilan Joint Community College District (Applicants) for a 25-year incidental take permit (ITP) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
The HCP is a combined effort between the Gavilan Joint Community College District and Fairview Corners, LLC, for development of a college campus and residential subdivision (maximum 220 units) on an approximately 137-acre site located southeast of the City of Hollister, in unincorporated San Benito County. In addition to measures proposed for the protection of the covered species during construction within the project site, the Applicants propose to mitigate impacts to the covered species and their habitat by placing a conservation easement over approximately 329 acres of the Mariposa Peak Conservation Preserve in eastern Santa Clara County.
Section 9 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544
Regulations governing permits for endangered and threatened species are at 50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32, respectively. Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act contains provisions for issuing such incidental take permits to non-Federal entities for the take of endangered and threatened species, provided the following criteria are met:
(1) The taking will be incidental;
(2) The applicants will, to the maximum extent practicable, minimize and mitigate the impact of such taking;
(3) The applicants will develop a proposed HCP and ensure that adequate funding for the HCP will be provided;
(4) The taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species in the wild; and
(5) The applicants will carry out any other measures that the Service may require as being necessary or appropriate for the purposes of the HCP.
The Service would issue an ITP to the Applicants for a period of 25 years for covered activities at the proposed project site in San Benito County. The proposed project would result in the permanent loss of approximately 137 acres of suitable habitat for the California tiger salamander and San Joaquin kit fox.
The project site is located southeast of the City of Hollister, in unincorporated San Benito County. The Gavilan Join Community College District owns approximately 77 acres of the southern portion of the 137-acre project site, while Fairview Corners, LLC, owns the remaining 60 acres. The project site currently consists of unimproved rangeland and agricultural fields of cultivated barley that are annually disked and periodically grazed by cattle.
The proposed section 10 ITP would allow take of covered wildlife species resulting from covered activities in the proposed HCP area. The Applicants are requesting incidental take authorization for covered species that could be affected by all activities associated with the construction of the Gavilan College San Benito Campus and Fairview Corners Residential Development project, as identified in the HCP.
Covered species are those species addressed in the HCP for which conservation actions will be implemented and for which the Applicants are seeking an ITP for a period of 25 years. Proposed covered species include the federally threatened California tiger salamander (
The EA was prepared to analyze the impacts of issuing an ITP based on the HCP and to inform the public of the proposed action, alternatives, and associated impacts and disclose any irreversible commitments of resources.
The proposed permit issuance triggers the need for compliance with NEPA. The proposed action presented in the EA is compared to the no-action and reduced development scale alternatives. The No-Action and Reduced Development Scale alternatives represent estimated future conditions to which the proposed action's estimated future conditions can be compared.
Under the No-Action Alternative, the Service would not issue an ITP, and the HCP would not be implemented. Under this alternative, the project site would continue to be utilized for the purposes of cultivation of barley and the periodic grazing of cattle. Under the No-Action Alternative, the permanent loss of suitable habitat for the covered species would not occur; although, agricultural activities would continue resulting in negative effects to the species. Additionally, offsite mitigation of higher quality habitat would not occur.
This alternative assumes that the Fairview Corners Residential Development would be developed with estate homes on minimum 5-acre lots, and a reduced version of the Gavilan College project would be also developed. This alternative could
If you wish to comment on this notice, the EA, and HCP, you may submit comments by any one of the methods in
Before including your address, phone number, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—might 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.
Issuance of an incidental take permit is a Federal proposed action subject to compliance with NEPA. We will evaluate the application, associated documents, and any public comments we receive to determine whether the application meets the requirements of NEPA regulations and section 10(a) of the Act. If we determine that those requirements are met, we will issue a permit to the applicant for the incidental take of the Covered Species. We will make our final permit decision no sooner than 30 days after the public comment period closes.
We publish this notice under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of Filing of Plats of Survey.
The plats of survey described below are scheduled to be officially filed in the New Mexico State Office, Bureau of Land Management, Santa Fe, New Mexico, thirty (30) calendar days from the date of this publication.
These plats will be available for inspection in the New Mexico State Office, Bureau of Land Management, 301 Dinosaur Trail, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Copies may be obtained from this office upon payment. Contact Carlos Martinez at 505-954-2096, or by email at
The plat representing the dependent resurvey and survey in Township 10 North, Range 7 West, of the New Mexico Principal Meridian, accepted May 15, 2018 for Group 1188 NM.
The plat representing the survey of Tract 24 within the Sebastian Martin Grant, of the New Mexico Principal Meridian, accepted May 29, 2018 for Group 1155 NM.
The plat, representing the dependent resurvey and survey in Township 7 North, Range 10 West, of the Indian Meridian, accepted May 17, 2018, for Group 234 OK.
The supplemental plat, restoring the lotting in section 3, created on January 18, 2007 in Township 5 South, Range 14 West, of the Indian Meridian, accepted January 30, 2018, for Group 236 OK.
The supplemental plat, restoring the lotting in sections 4 and 9, created on January 18, 2007 in Township 5 South, Range 14 West, of the Indian Meridian, accepted January 30, 2018, for Group 236 OK.
The plat representing the dependent resurvey and survey in Township 1 South, Range 18 East, of the Sixth Principal Meridian, accepted February 18, 2018 for Group 40 KS. These plats are scheduled for official filing 30 days from the notice of publication in the
If a protest against a survey, in accordance with 43 CFR 4.450-2, of the above plats is received prior to the date of official filing, the filing will be stayed pending consideration of the protest.
A plat will not be officially filed until the day after all protests have been dismissed and become final or appeals from the dismissal affirmed.
A person or party who wishes to protest against any of these surveys must file a written protest with the Bureau of Land Management New Mexico State Director stating that they wish to protest.
A statement of reasons for a protest may be filed with the Notice of Protest to the State Director or the statement of reasons must be filed with the State Director within thirty (30) days after the protest is filed.
Notice is hereby given that, on May 14, 2018, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. § 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and MCDC intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On November 13, 2015, MCDC filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on January 16, 2018. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on May 2, 2018, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, General Robotics, Van Nuys, CA; Rajant, Malvern, PA; Aerostar International, Inc., Sioux Falls, SD; Vista Research, Arlington, VA; Stark Aerospace, Arlington, VA; and PRO Barrier Engineering LLC, Middletown, PA, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and BSTC intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On May 30, 2012, BSTC filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on September 22, 2017. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on May 22, 2018, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. § 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and 3D PDF intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On March 27, 2012, 3D PDF filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on April 25, 2018. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on May 3, 2018, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, Aequor, Inc., Oceanside, CA; Brainpaths LLC, Las Vegas, NV; Combat Wounded Veteran Challenge, Inc., Saint Petersburg, FL; Infinite Arthroscopy, Inc., Cleveland Heights, OH; Institute for Applied Neurosciences, Charleston, SC; Kestrel Corporation, Albuquerque, NM; LifeLink Foundation, Inc., Tampa, FL; Maryland Development Center, Baltimore, MD; Nerves Incorporated, Dallas, TX; Neuroplast BV, Maastricht, THE NETHERLANDS; Northwestern University, Evanston, IL; NovaHep AB, Gothenburg, SWEDEN; Pertexa Healthcare Technologies, Inc., Ridgecrest, CA; The University of Cincinnati, Department of Surgery, Cincinnati, OH; Trideum BioSciences, Frederick, MD; University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC; University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT; and Vapogenix, Inc., Houston, TX, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and MTEC intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On May 9, 2014, MTEC filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on January 18, 2018. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on May 14, 2018, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place of business of the standards development organization is: Portable Lights American Trade Organization, St. Paul, MN. The nature and scope of PLATO's standards development activities are: Basic performance requirements for hand-held, portable flashlights, spotlights and headlamps that provide directional lighting. It includes relevant definitions, test methods and marking requirements in order to establish minimum performance for these consumer devices. The project will consider expanding the scope to include portable area lights in addition to directional lighting, as well as any relevant updates needed for test methods.
Notice is hereby given that, on May 14, 2018, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Dayton, Dayton, OH; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Cloud Front Group, Inc., Reston, VA; EMC Corporation, McLean, VA; NEBENS, LLC, Deer Park, IL; Digital Global Systems, Beltsville, MD; and Charles River Analytics Inc., Cambridge, MA, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and NSC intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On May 24, 2014, NSC filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on January 16, 2018. A notice was published in the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Office of Private Sector, Department of Justice.
60 Day notice.
The Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Office of Private Sector, is submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
The Department of Justice encourages public comment and will accept input until August 20, 2018.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Michael Whitaker, Supervisory Special Agent, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Office of Private Sector, 935 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20535,
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:
Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Office of Private Sector, including whether the information will have practical utility;
Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; and
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,
Overview of this information collection:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
In accordance with Departmental Policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that a proposed Consent Decree in
This proposed Consent Decree concerns a complaint filed by the United States against Defendant Jack Noble, pursuant to Clean Water Act Section 301(a), 33 U.S.C. 1311(a), and Endangered Species Act Section 9, 16
The Department of Justice will accept written comments relating to this proposed Consent Decree for thirty (30) days from the date of publication of this Notice. Please address comments to John Thomas H. Do, United States Department of Justice, Environment & Natural Resources Division, Post Office Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611 and refer to
The proposed Consent Decree may be examined at the Clerk's Office, United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102. In addition, the proposed Consent Decree may be examined electronically at
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is soliciting comments concerning the proposed extension of the International Price Program U.S. Import and Export Price Indexes. A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the individual listed below in the Addresses section of this notice.
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the Addresses section of this notice on or before August 20, 2018.
Send comments to Nora Kincaid, BLS Clearance Officer, Division of Management Systems, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Room 4080, 2 Massachusetts Avenue NE, Washington, DC 20212. Written comments also may be transmitted by fax to 202-691-5111 (this is not a toll free number).
Nora Kincaid, BLS Clearance Officer, 202-691-7628 (this is not a toll free number). (See
The U.S. Import and Export Price Indexes, produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics' International Price Program (IPP), measure price change over time for all categories of imported and exported products, as well as selected services. The IPP has produced the U.S. Import Price Indexes continuously since 1973 and the U.S. Export Price Indexes continuously since 1971. The Office of Management and Budget has listed the Import and Export Price Indexes as a Principal Federal Economic Indicator since 1982. The indexes are widely used in both the public and private sectors. The primary public sector use is the deflation of the U.S. monthly Trade Statistics and the quarterly estimates of U.S. Gross Domestic Product; the indexes also are used in formulating U.S. trade policy and in trade negotiations with other countries. In the private sector, uses of the Import Price Indexes include market analysis, inflation forecasting, contract escalation, and replacement cost accounting.
The IPP indexes are closely followed statistics, and are viewed as a key indicator of the economic environment. The U.S. Department of Commerce uses the monthly statistics to produce monthly and quarterly estimates of inflation-adjusted trade flows. Without continuation of data collection, it would be extremely difficult to construct accurate estimates of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product. In fact, DOL-BLS' attempt to curtail publication of the export price indexes beginning in FY15 was met with resistance from the Commerce Department who explained that a viable substitute is not available. The
Additionally, Federal policymakers in the Department of Treasury, the Council of Economic Advisers, and the Federal Reserve Board utilize these statistics on a regular basis to improve these agencies' formulation and evaluation of monetary and fiscal policy and evaluation of the general business environment.
Office of Management and Budget clearance is being sought for the U.S. Import and Export Price Indexes. The IPP continues to modernize data collection and processing to permit more timely release of its indexes, and to reduce reporter burden. The IPP has expanded the use of its web application, introduced in 2003 to allow respondents to update their data online and more rapidly than using a paper-based form. As of March 2018, 91 percent of IPP respondents were providing prices via the web application or had agreed to start using this repricing method. Field Economists currently offer web repricing to all new respondents and at initiation, it is the preferred method of collection offered to companies.
The Program continues its multi-year effort to develop a more effective sampling and collection strategy for companies that are considered major importers or exporters. Research has shown that, while hundreds of thousands of companies import and export goods into and from the United States each year, the volume of trade (in terms of dollar value) is heavily concentrated on a very small percentage of these companies. IPP's sampling methodology results in the large companies being sampled on a frequent basis. As a result of the continual fielding of these companies, Field Economists combine collection efforts for multiple IPP samples, as they deem appropriate. The collection of multiple IPP samples at once results in fewer visits and consequently, reduced burden.
Also, IPP has started revising its Data Collection Procedures, with the goal of improving collection methods for
The Bureau of Labor Statistics is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility.
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they also will become a matter of public record.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Request for public comments.
OSHA solicits public comments concerning its proposal to extend OMB approval of the information collection requirements contained in the 13 Carcinogens Standard.
Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by August 20, 2018.
Thomas Mockler or Christie Garner, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, (202) 693-2222.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (
The information collection requirements specified in the 13 Carcinogens Standard protect workers from the adverse health effects that may result from their exposure to the specified carcinogens. The following is a brief description of the collection of information requirements contained in the 13 Carcinogens Standard: Establishing and implementing a medical surveillance program for workers assigned to enter regulated areas; informing workers of their medical examination results; and providing workers with access to their medical records. Further, employers must retain worker medical records for specified time periods and make them available upon request to OSHA and NIOSH.
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.
OSHA is requesting that OMB extend the approval of the information collection requirements contained in the 13 Carcinogens Standard (29 CFR 1910.1003). OSHA is requesting an adjustment increase of 67 hours (from 1,493 hours to 1,560 hours). The increase is a result of a slight growth in the number of establishments affected by the Standards from 97 to 101.
The Agency will summarize any comments submitted in response to this notice and will include this summary in its request to OMB.
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
Information on using the
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 Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration announces a forthcoming meeting of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel.
Thursday, July 26, 2018, 1:00 p.m. to 2:15 p.m., Eastern Time.
NASA Headquarters, Room 9H40, 300 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20546.
Ms. Evette Whatley, Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel Administrative Officer, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-4733 or
The Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) will hold its Third Quarterly Meeting for 2018. This discussion is pursuant to carrying out its statutory duties for which the Panel reviews, identifies, evaluates, and advises on those program activities, systems, procedures, and management activities that can contribute to program risk. Priority is given to those programs that involve the safety of human flight. The agenda will include:
The meeting will be open to the public up to the seating capacity of the room. Seating will be on a first-come basis. This meeting is also available telephonically. Any interested person may call the USA toll free conference call number 888-566-6575; pass code 3391926. Attendees will be requested to sign a register and to comply with NASA security requirements, including the presentation of a valid picture ID before receiving access to NASA Headquarters. Foreign nationals attending this meeting will be required to provide a copy of their passport and visa in addition to providing the following information no less than 10 working days prior to the meeting: Full name; gender; date/place of birth; citizenship; visa information (number, type, expiration date); passport information (number, country, expiration date); employer/affiliation information (name of institution, address, country, telephone); title/position of attendee; and home address to Ms. Evette Whatley via email at
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of information collection.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
All comments should be submitted within 60 calendar days from the date of this publication.
All comments should be addressed to Gatrie Johnson, Mail Code JF000, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC 20546-0001 or
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Gatrie Johnson, NASA PRA Clearance Officer, NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street SW, Mail Code JF000, Washington, DC 20546, or
Since the mid-1960s, neutral buoyancy has been an invaluable tool for testing procedures, developing hardware, and training astronauts. Neutrally buoyant conditions sufficiently simulate reduced gravity conditions, comparable to the environmental challenges of space. The Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory (NBL) at NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) provides opportunities for astronauts to practice future on-orbit procedures, such as extravehicular activities (EVA), and to work through simulation exercises to solve problems encountered on-orbit. NASA hires individuals with demonstrated diving experience as NBL Working Divers in teams comprised of four divers; two safety divers, one utility diver, and one cameraman to assist astronauts practice various tasks encountered in space.
NASA allows guest divers, typically non-federal photographers representing the media, opportunities to engage in the NBL diving experience. To participate, guest divers must present a dive physical, completed within one year of the targeted diving opportunity, for review by the NASA Buoyancy Lab Dive Physician.
If the guest diver does not have a current U.S. Navy, Association of Diving Contractors (ADC), or current British standard for commercial diving physical, they are required to complete a medical examination, performed by a certified Diving Medical Examiner. The results of the physical will be documented by on the
A completed JSC Form 1830/Report of Medical Examination, with test results attached as applicable, must be submitted to enable NASA to validate an individual's physical ability to dive in the NBL at NASA Johnson Space Center. The completed JSC Form 1830 will be protected in accordance with the Privacy Act. Records will be retained in accordance with NASA Records Retention Schedules.
Paper.
Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announces a meeting of the Astrophysics Advisory Committee. This Committee reports to the Director, Astrophysics Division, Science Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters. The meeting will be held for the purpose of soliciting, from the scientific community and other persons, scientific and technical information relevant to program planning.
Monday, July 23, 2018, 8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.; and Tuesday, July 24, 2018, 8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m., Eastern Time.
NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20546. Day #1: Room 5H41; Day #2: Room 8Q40.
Ms. KarShelia Henderson, Science Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-2355, fax (202) 358-2779, or
The meeting will be open to the public up to the capacity of the room. The meeting will be available telephonically and by WebEx. You must use a touch-tone phone to participate in this meeting. Any interested person may dial the USA toll free conference call number 1-800-475-0361 or toll number 1-312-470-7233, passcode 4604167, to participate in this meeting by telephone on both days. The WebEx link is
The agenda for the meeting includes the following topics:
The agenda will be posted on the Astrophysics Advisory Committee web page
Attendees will be requested to sign a register and to comply with NASA Headquarters security requirements, including the presentation of a valid picture ID to Security before access to NASA Headquarters. Foreign nationals attending this meeting will be required to provide a copy of their passport and visa in addition to providing the following information no less than 10 days prior to the meeting: Full name; gender; date/place of birth; citizenship; passport information (number, country, telephone); visa information (number, type, expiration date); employer/affiliation information (name of institution, address, country, telephone); title/position of attendee. To expedite admittance, U.S. citizens and Permanent Residents (green card holders) are requested to provide full name and citizenship status no less than 3 working days in advance by contacting Ms. KarShelia Henderson via email at
It is imperative that the meeting be held on this date to accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of intent to grant partially exclusive license.
NASA hereby gives notice of its intent to grant a partially exclusive patent license in the United States to practice the invention described and claimed in U.S. Patent Application entitled, “Liquid-Filled Frequency-Tunable Vibration Damper”, NASA Case Number MFS-33613-1, to Thornton Tomasetti, Inc. having its principal place of business in New York, NY. The field of use may be limited to all commercial applications where a ducted fluid absorber can be utilized in buildings 300 feet and taller. The patent rights in this invention, a new type of vibration mitigation, have been assigned to the United States of America as represented by the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA has not yet made a determination to grant the requested license and may deny the requested license even if no objections are submitted within the comment period.
The prospective partially exclusive license may be granted unless NASA receives written objections, including evidence and argument no later than July 5, 2018 that establish that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements regarding the licensing of federally owned inventions as set forth in the Bayh-Dole Act and implementing regulations. Competing applications completed and received by NASA no later than July 5, 2018 will also be treated as objections to the grant of the contemplated partially exclusive license. Objections submitted in response to this notice will not be made available to the public for inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act.
Objections submitted in response to this notice will not be made available to the public for inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act.
Objections relating to the prospective license may be submitted to James J. McGroary, Chief Patent Counsel/LS01, NASA Marshall Space
Sammy A. Nabors, Technology Transfer Branch/ST22, NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL 35812, (256) 544-5226. Email
This notice of intent to grant a partially exclusive patent license is issued in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(e) and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i). The patent rights in these inventions have been assigned to the United States of America as represented by the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The prospective exclusive license will comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR. 404.7.
Information about other NASA inventions available for licensing can be found online at
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Notice of availability of proposed records schedules; request for comments.
The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) publishes notice at least once monthly of certain Federal agency requests for records disposition authority (records schedules). Once approved by NARA, records schedules provide mandatory instructions on what happens to records when agencies no longer need them for current Government business. The records schedules authorize agencies to preserve records of continuing value in the National Archives of the United States and to destroy, after a specified period, records lacking administrative, legal, research, or other value. NARA publishes notice in the
NARA must receive requests for copies in writing by July 19, 2018. Once NARA finishes appraising the records, we will send you a copy of the schedule you requested. We usually prepare appraisal memoranda that contain additional information concerning the records covered by a proposed schedule. You may also request these. If you do, we will also provide them once we have completed the appraisal. You have 30 days after we send to you these requested documents in which to submit comments.
You may request a copy of any records schedule identified in this notice by contacting Records Appraisal and Agency Assistance (ACRA) using one of the following means:
You must cite the control number, which appears in parentheses after the name of the agency that submitted the schedule, and a mailing address. If you would like an appraisal report, please include that in your request.
Margaret Hawkins, Director, by mail at Records Appraisal and Agency Assistance (ACRA); National Archives and Records Administration; 8601 Adelphi Road; College Park, MD 20740-6001, by phone at 301-837-1799, or by email at
NARA publishes notice in the
Each year, Federal agencies create billions of records on paper, film, magnetic tape, and other media. To control this accumulation, agency records managers prepare schedules proposing records retention periods and submit these schedules for NARA's approval. These schedules provide for timely transfer into the National Archives of historically valuable records and authorize the agency to dispose of all other records after the agency no longer needs them to conduct its business. Some schedules are comprehensive and cover all the records of an agency or one of its major subdivisions. Most schedules, however, cover records of only one office or program or a few series of records. Many of these update previously approved schedules, and some include records proposed as permanent.
The schedules listed in this notice are media neutral unless otherwise specified. An item in a schedule is media neutral when an agency may apply the disposition instructions to records regardless of the medium in which it creates or maintains the records. Items included in schedules submitted to NARA on or after December 17, 2007, are media neutral unless the item is expressly limited to a specific medium. (See 36 CFR 1225.12(e).)
Agencies may not destroy Federal records without Archivist of the United States' approval. The Archivist approves destruction only after thoroughly considering the records' administrative use by the agency of origin, the rights of the Government and of private people directly affected by the Government's activities, and whether or not the records have historical or other value.
In addition to identifying the Federal agencies and any subdivisions requesting disposition authority, this notice lists the organizational unit(s) accumulating the records (or notes that the schedule has agency-wide applicability when schedules cover records that may be accumulated throughout an agency); provides the control number assigned to each schedule, the total number of schedule items, and the number of temporary items (the records proposed for destruction); and includes a brief description of the temporary records. The records schedule itself contains a full description of the records at the file unit level as well as their disposition. If NARA staff has prepared an appraisal memorandum for the schedule, it also includes information about the records. You may request additional information about the disposition process at the addresses above.
1. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (DAA-0100-2018-0002, 9 items, 9 temporary items). Records related to safety and health inspections in area and field offices, including local policy, complaints, and whistleblower investigations.
2. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (DAA-0100-2018-0003, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Records related to responses to natural disasters or emergencies, including action plans, reports, and coordination with other agencies.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Biweekly notice.
Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, from May 22, 2018, to June 4, 2018. The last biweekly notice was published on June 5, 2018.
Comments must be filed by July 19, 2018. A request for a hearing must be filed by August 20, 2018.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Janet Burkhardt, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1384, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0114, facility name, unit number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2018-0114, facility name, unit number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in section 50.92 of title 10 of the
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission takes action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's website at
As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d), the petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements for standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner must provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to the specific sources and documents on which the petitioner intends to rely to support its position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions must be limited to matters within the scope of the proceeding. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene. Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.
Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document.
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of the amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section, except that under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located within its boundaries. Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 46562; August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC website at
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public website at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public website at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
For further details with respect to these license amendment applications, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional direction on accessing information related to this document, see the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change addresses conditions during which Secondary Containment SR 3.6.4.1.2 is not met. The Secondary Containment is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not increased. The consequences of an accident previously evaluated while utilizing the proposed change is no different than the consequences of an accident while utilizing the existing eight hour Completion Time for an inoperable Secondary Containment. As a result, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not significantly increased.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change does not alter the protection system design, create new failure
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed change addresses conditions during which Secondary Containment SR 3.6.4.1.2 is not met. The allowance for both an inner and outer Secondary Containment door to be open simultaneously for entry and exit does not affect the safety function of the Secondary Containment as the doors are promptly closed after entry or exit, thereby restoring the Secondary Containment boundary.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The time frame to take response action in accordance with LCO 3.0.3 is not an initiating condition for any accident previously evaluated. The proposed change does not authorize the addition of any new plant equipment or systems, nor does it alter the assumptions of any accident analyses. The small increase in the time allowed to reach Mode 2 would not place the plant in any significantly increased probability of an accident occurring. The unit would already be preparing for a plant shutdown condition because of the 1 hour requirement to initiate shutdown actions. There is no change in the time period to reach Mode 3. The Mode 3 Condition is the point at which the plant reactor core is no longer critical (
Therefore, since there is no change to the time period to reach the Hot Shutdown condition, the small change in the time to reach Mode 2 status does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change to the allowed time to reach Mode 2 in LCO 3.0.3 does not require any modification to the plant or change equipment operation. The proposed change will not introduce failure modes that could result in a new accident, and the change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis. The proposed change will not alter the design configuration, or method of operation of plant equipment beyond its normal functional capabilities. The proposed change does not create any new credible failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from those that have been previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed change to the allowed time to reach Mode 2 in LCO 3.0.3 does not alter or exceed a design basis or safety limit. There is no change being made to safety analysis assumptions or the safety limits that would adversely affect plant safety as a result of the proposed change. Margins of safety are unaffected by the proposed change and the applicable requirements of 10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii) and 10 CFR 50, Appendix A will continue to be met.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve any reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change revises the fuel assembly misload event analysis. The analysis of the fuel assembly misload event showed that the total number of failed fuel rods is less than other Waterford 3 Condition 3 events that have already been demonstrated to meet the 10 CFR 50.67 acceptance criteria. For Waterford 3, the Excess Load with Loss of Alternating Current (LOAC) has this same release and fuel failure that has been shown to meet the offsite dose requirements. Since the worst undetectable misload has a fuel failure less than the excess load with LOAC event, the fuel assembly misload event is consistent with the Standard Review Plan 15.4.7 and meets the 10 CFR 50.67 requirements.
This change is only analyzing the consequences of the fuel assembly misload event and no changes are being made that would impact the probability of the event occurring.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change revises the fuel assembly misload event analysis. The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the methods governing plant operations. The proposed change will not introduce new failure modes or effects and will not, in the absence of other unrelated failures, lead to an accident whose
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed change revises the fuel assembly misload event analysis. The worst undetectable misloads have fuel failure less than the excess load with the Excess Load with Loss of Alternating Current (LOAC) event; the fuel assembly misload event meets the 10 CFR 50.67 criteria and is consistent with the Standard Review Plan Section 15.4.7 guidance. The new analysis shows more adverse consequences than were shown in previous fuel assembly misload event analyses, but remains within the regulatory acceptance limits. Since the event remains within the 10 CFR 50.67 requirements and is bounded by the excess load with LOAC event, this is not a significant reduction in margin.
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change allows a delay time before declaring supported Technical Specification (TS) systems inoperable when the associated snubber(s) cannot perform its required safety function. Entrance into Actions or delaying entrance into Actions is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. Consequently, the probability of an accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased. The consequences of an accident while relying on the delay time allowed before declaring a TS supported system inoperable and taking its Conditions and Required Actions are no different than the consequences of an accident under the same plant conditions while relying on the existing TS supported system Conditions and Required Actions. Therefore, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not significantly increased by this change. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change allows a delay time before declaring supported TS systems inoperable when the associated snubber(s) cannot perform its required safety function. The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed change allows a delay time before declaring supported TS systems inoperable when the associated snubber(s) cannot perform its required safety function. The proposed change restores an allowance in the pre-Improved Standard Technical Specifications (ISTS) conversion TS that was unintentionally eliminated by the conversion. The pre-ISTS TS were considered to provide an adequate margin of safety for plant operation, as does the post-ISTS conversion TS. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis for each site and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed test interval extensions do not involve either a physical change to the plant or a change in the way the plant is operated or controlled. The containment is designed to provide an essentially leak tight barrier against the uncontrolled release of radioactivity to the environment for postulated accidents. As such, the containment and the testing requirements invoked to periodically demonstrate the integrity of the containment exist to ensure the plant's ability to mitigate the consequences of an accident, and do not involve the prevention or identification of any precursors of an accident. Therefore, the proposed extensions do not involve a significant increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated.
The effect resulting from changing the Type A test frequency to 1 per 15 years, measured as an increase to the total integrated plant risk for those accident sequences influenced by Type A testing, is
The integrity of the containment is subject to two types of failure mechanisms that can be categorized as: (1) Activity based, and (2) time based. Activity based failure mechanisms are defined as degradation due to system and component modifications or maintenance. Local leak rate test requirements and administrative controls such as configuration management and procedural requirements for system restoration ensure that containment integrity is not degraded by plant modifications or maintenance activities. The design and construction requirements of the containment combined with the containment inspections performed in accordance with [American Society for Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME Code)], Section XI, and Technical Specification requirements serve to provide a high degree of assurance that the containment would not degrade in a manner that is detectable only by a Type A test. Based on the above, the proposed test interval extensions do not significantly increase the consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed amendment also deletes two previously granted exceptions to Primary Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program guidelines. The exception regarding the performance of a Type A test no later than a specified date would be deleted as this Type A test has already been performed. Additionally, the exception to use the corrections to NEI 94-01, Revision 0, would be deleted as those corrections would no longer be in use. These changes to the exceptions in Technical Specification 5.5.12 are administrative in nature and do not affect the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not result in a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Containment Type A and Type C testing requirements periodically demonstrate the integrity of the containment and exist to ensure the plant's ability to mitigate the consequences of an accident. These tests do not involve any accident precursors or initiators.
The proposed change does not involve a physical modification to the plant (that is, no new or different type of equipment will be installed) nor does it alter the design, configuration, or change the manner in which the plant is operated or controlled beyond the standard functional capabilities of the equipment.
The proposed amendment also deletes two previously granted exceptions. The exception regarding the performance of a Type A test no later than a specified date would be deleted as this Type A test has already been performed. Additionally, the exception to use the corrections to NEI 94-01, Revision 0, would be deleted as those corrections would no longer be in use. These changes to the exceptions in Technical Specification 5.5.12 are administrative in nature and do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed license amendment does not alter the way safety limits, limiting safety system set points, or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The specific requirements and conditions of the Technical Specification Primary Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program exist to ensure that the degree of containment structural integrity and leak-tightness that is considered in the plant safety analysis is maintained. The overall containment leak rate limit specified by Technical Specifications is maintained. The design, operation, testing methods and acceptance criteria for Type A, B, and C containment leakage tests specified in applicable codes and standards would continue to be met, with the acceptance of this proposed amendment, since they are not affected by implementation of a performance-based containment testing program. This ensures that the margin of safety in the plant safety analysis is maintained.
The proposed amendment also deletes two previously granted exceptions. The exception regarding the performance of a Type A test no later than a specified date would be deleted as this Type A test has already been performed. Additionally, the exception to use the corrections to NEI 94-01, Revision 0, would be deleted as those corrections would no longer be in use. These changes to the exceptions in Technical Specification 5.5.12 are administrative in nature and do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed amendment adopts the NRC-accepted guidelines of NEI 94-01, Revision 3-A, “Industry Guideline for Implementing Performance-Based Option of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix J,” for development of the PBNP performance-based containment testing program. NEI 94-01 allows, based on risk and performance, an extension of Type A and Type C containment leak test intervals. Implementation of these guidelines continues to provide adequate assurance that during design basis accidents, the primary containment and its components will limit leakage rates to less than the values assumed in the plant safety analyses.
The findings of the PBNP risk assessment confirm the general findings of previous studies that the risk impact with extending the containment leak rate is small. Per the guidance provided in Regulatory Guide 1.174, an extension of the leak test interval in accordance with NEI 94-01, Revision 3-A results in an estimated change within, the very small change region.
Since the change is implementing a performance-based containment testing program, the proposed amendment does not involve either a physical change to the plant or a change in the manner in which the plant is operated or controlled. The requirement for containment leakage rate acceptance will not be changed by this amendment.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change to implement a performance-based containment testing program, associated with integrated leakage rate test frequency, does not change the design or operation of structures, systems, or components of the plant.
The proposed change would continue to ensure containment integrity and would ensure operation within the bounds of existing accident analyses. There are no accident initiators created or affected by this change. Therefore, the proposed change will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Margin of safety is related to confidence in the ability of the fission product barriers (fuel cladding, reactor coolant system, and primary containment) to perform their design functions during and following postulated accidents. The proposed change to implement a performance-based containment testing program, associated with integrated leakage rate test and local leak rate testing frequency, does not affect plant operations, design functions, or any analysis that verifies the capability of a structure, system, or component of the plant to perform a design function. In addition, this change does not affect safety limits, limiting safety system setpoints, or limiting conditions for operation.
The specific requirements and conditions of the TS Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program exist to ensure that the degree of containment structural integrity and leak-tightness that is considered in the plant safety analysis is maintained. The overall containment leak rate limit specified by TS is maintained. This ensures that the margin of safety in the plant safety analysis is maintained. The design, operation, testing methods and acceptance criteria for Type A, B, and C containment leakage tests specified in applicable codes and standards would continue to be met with the acceptance of this proposed change since these are not affected by implementation of a performance-based containment testing program.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed TS amendment does not affect the design of the AC inverters, the operational characteristics or function of the inverters, the interfaces between the inverters and other plant systems, or the reliability of the inverters. An inoperable AC inverter is not considered an initiator of an analyzed event. In addition, TS Actions and the associated Allowed Outage Times are not initiators of previously evaluated accidents. Extending the Allowed Outage Time for an inoperable AC inverter would not have a significant impact on the frequency of occurrence of an accident previously evaluated. The proposed amendment will not result in modifications to plant activities associated with inverter maintenance, but rather, provides operational flexibility by allowing additional time to perform inverter troubleshooting, corrective maintenance, and post-maintenance testing on-line.
The proposed extension of the Completion Time for an inoperable AC inverter will not significantly affect the capability of the inverters to perform their safety function, which is to ensure an uninterruptible supply of 120-volt AC electrical power to the associated power distribution subsystems. An evaluation, using PRA methods, confirmed that the increase in plant risk associated with implementation of the proposed Allowed Outage Time extension is consistent with the NRC's Safety Goal Policy Statement, as further described in RG [Regulatory Guide] 1.174 and RG 1.177. In addition, a deterministic evaluation concluded that plant defense-in-depth philosophy will be maintained with the proposed Allowed Outage Time extension.
There will be no impact on the source term or pathways assumed in accidents previously evaluated. No analysis assumptions will be changed and there will be no adverse effects on onsite or offsite doses as the result of an accident.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed amendment does not involve physical alteration of the HCGS. No new equipment is being introduced, and installed equipment is not being operated in a new or different manner. There is no change being made to the parameters with in which the HCGS is operated. There are no setpoints at which protective or mitigating actions are initiated that are affected by this proposed action. The use of the alternate Class 1E power source for the AC distribution panel is consistent with the HCGS plant design. The change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis. This proposed action will not alter the manner in which equipment operation is initiated, nor will the functional demands on credited equipment be changed. No alteration is proposed to the procedures that ensure the HCGS remains with in analyzed limits, and no change is being made to procedures relied upon to respond to an off-normal event. As such, no new failure modes are being introduced.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Margin of safety is related to the confidence in the ability of the fission product barriers to perform their design functions during and following an accident. These barriers include the fuel cladding, the reactor coolant system, and the containment system. The proposed change, which would increase the AOT from 24 hours to 7 days for one inoperable inverter, does not exceed or alter a setpoint, design basis or safety limit.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
The requested amendment proposes changes to COL Appendix C (and plant-specific Tier 1) to reflect a new design of containment sump level sensors that affects the acceptance criterion for the detected containment sump level change test and the associated minimum detectable unidentified leakage rate in plant-specific DCD Tier 2 information.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change is to the containment sump water level instrumentation and its expected [reactor coolant system (RCS)] leakage detection capability. The affected equipment is not safety-related, but the containment sump water level sensors are seismically qualified. The change in containment sump level monitoring instruments has no adverse effect on the ability to detect a 0.5 [gallons per minute (gpm)] leak in containment, and therefore, has no adverse effect on design criteria for leak-before-break. The change does not affect the operation of any systems or equipment that initiate an analyzed accident or alter any structures, systems, and components (SSC) accident initiator or initiating sequence of events.
Because the containment sump water level monitoring channels are still capable of detecting a 0.5 gpm leak in containment, the change to the SSC has no effect on plant operations. There is no change to plant systems or the response of systems to postulated accident conditions. There is no change to the predicted radioactive releases due to normal operation or postulated accident conditions.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change does not affect the operation of any systems or equipment that may initiate a new or different kind of accident, or alter any SSC such that a new accident initiator or initiating sequence of events is created. The proposed change to the containment sump water level instrumentation and its expected RCS leakage detection capability has no adverse effect on the ability to detect a 0.5 gpm leak in containment. The containment sump level instrumentation functions are unchanged and leak-before-break design criteria are not adversely affected.
Loss of coolant accidents for a spectrum of pipe sizes and locations are already postulated in UFSAR Chapter 15, Section 15.6. Breaks in the main steam lines inside containment are also analyzed in UFSAR Chapter 15, Section 15.1. Unidentified leakage detection and operator action in response to unidentified leakage are not postulated for any of the design basis accident analyses described in UFSAR Chapter 15.
Therefore, the requested amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The described change to the containment sump water level instrumentation and its expected RCS leakage detection capability is proposed to verify that the ability to detect a 0.5 gpm leak in containment is maintained. The proposed change does not alter any safety-related equipment, applicable design codes, code compliance, design function, or safety analysis. By ensuring that the chosen equipment can detect a 0.5 gpm leak in containment with the described accuracy, guidance in Regulatory Guide 1.45, Revision 0, as committed to in the UFSAR, and requirements in the Technical Specifications are met which ensures that leak-before-break design criteria are not adversely affected. Consequently, no safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the proposed change, thus the margin of safety is not reduced.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and based on this review it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazard consideration
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed changes do not affect the operation or reliability of any system, structure or component (SSC) required to maintain a normal power operating condition or to mitigate anticipated transients without safety-related systems. Testing has demonstrated that the passive fire stops prevent propagation of fires along the length of cable trays and prevent the propagation of cable tray fires to adjacent fire zones. The proposed changes do not affect the operation of equipment whose failure could initiate an accident previously analyzed. The existence or failure of passive fire stops in fire zone 1100 AF 11300B does not affect normal equipment operation.
The proposed changes do not adversely affect the reliability or function of an SSC relied upon to mitigate an accident previously analyzed. The existence or failure of passive fire stops in fire zone 1100 AF 11300B will not adversely affect passive core cooling system (PXS) performance during containment recirculation because the passive fire stops are located outside of the zone of influence (ZOI) of postulated high energy line breaks, and the passive fire stops' material-of-construction complies with in-containment refueling water storage tank (IRWST) and containment recirculation screens design criteria for debris generation and transport.
The existing active open nozzle cable tray suppression system is not fully automatic, is nonsafety-related, and is not credited in the probabilistic risk assessment (PRA). Therefore, replacing the active open nozzle cable tray suppression system with passive fire stops does not have an impact on PRA calculations and results.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed changes do not affect the operation of systems or equipment that could initiate a new or different kind of accident, or alter any SSC such that a new accident initiator or initiating sequence of events is created. The use of passive fire stops is recognized by Regulatory Guide 1.189. The passive fire stops in nonsafety-related open cable trays are more reliable than active systems such as the current open nozzle cable tray suppression system because they require no mechanical or human action to perform their protective function. When protection is required, there is no delay for operator or mechanical response. Testing has demonstrated that the passive fire stops prevent propagation of fires along the length of cable trays and prevent the propagation of cable tray fires to adjacent fire zones.
The existence or failure of passive fire stops in fire zone 1100 AF 11300B will not adversely affect passive core cooling system (PXS) performance during containment recirculation because the passive fire stops are located outside of the zone of influence (ZOI) of postulated high energy line breaks, and their material-of-construction complies with in-containment refueling water storage tank (IRWST) and containment recirculation screens design criteria for debris generation and transport.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed changes do not affect existing safety margins. The current open nozzle cable tray suppression system is nonsafety-related. The use of passive fire stops is recognized by Regulatory Guide 1.189. The passive fire stops in nonsafety-related open cable trays are more reliable than active systems such as the current open nozzle cable tray suppression system because they require no mechanical or human action to perform their protective function. When protection is required, there is no delay for operator or mechanical response. Testing has demonstrated that the passive fire stops prevent propagation of fires along the length of cable trays and prevent the propagation of cable tray fires to adjacent fire zones.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and based on this review it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazard consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed changes do not affect the operation of any systems or equipment that initiate an analyzed accident or alter any structures, systems, and components (SSC) accident initiator or initiating sequence of events.
The proposed changes do not affect the physical design and operation of the Passive Residual Heat Removal Heat Exchanger (PRHR HX) or In-containment Refueling Water Storage Tank (IRWST) as described in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). The proposed changes do not affect the probability of inadvertent operation or failure. Therefore, the probabilities of the accidents previously evaluated in the UFSAR are not affected.
The proposed changes do not affect the ability of the PRHR HX and IRWST to perform their design functions. The designs of the PRHR HX and IRWST continue to meet the same regulatory acceptance criteria, codes, and standards as required by the UFSAR. In addition, the proposed changes maintain the capabilities of the PRHR HX and IRWST to mitigate the consequences of an accident and to meet the applicable regulatory acceptance criteria.
The proposed changes do not affect the prevention and mitigation of other abnormal events (
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed changes do not affect the operation of any systems or equipment that may initiate a new or different kind of accident, or alter any SSC such that a new accident initiator or initiating sequence of events is created.
The proposed changes do not affect any other SSC design functions or methods of operation in a manner that results in a new failure mode, malfunction, or sequence of events that affect safety-related or nonsafety related equipment. Therefore, this activity does not allow for a new fission product release path, result in a new fission product barrier failure mode, or create a new sequence of events that result in significant fuel cladding failures.
Therefore, the requested amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different type of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed changes maintain existing safety margins. The proposed changes verify and maintain the capabilities of the PRHR HX and IRWST to perform their design functions. Therefore, the proposed changes
No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the proposed changes, and no margin of safety is reduced.
Therefore, the requested amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Reactor coolant specific activity is not an initiator for any accident previously evaluated, and the allowed time period when primary coolant gross activity is not within limits is not an initiator for any accident previously evaluated. In addition, the current variable limit on primary coolant iodine concentration is not an initiator to any accident previously evaluated. Updating the Alternative Source Term analyses does not require any changes to any plant structures, systems, or components (SSCs) and therefore does not affect any accident initiators. As a result, the proposed changes do not significantly increase the probability of an accident. The proposed TS change will limit primary coolant noble gases to concentrations consistent with the accident analyses, and the proposed completion time when the limit may be exceeded has no impact on the consequences of any design basis accident since the consequences of an accident during this time period is the same as the consequences of an accident during the existing time periods. The revised assessments of the radiological consequences due to design basis accidents listed in the Surry Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, using the updated AST methodology and proposed assumptions and inputs, conclude that the Exclusion Area Boundary (EAB), Low Population Zone (LPZ), and Control Room doses are within the limits of 10 CFR 50.67 and within the limits of Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.183. As a result, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not significantly increased.
The proposed TS change in specific activity limits and the updated AST dose consequences analyses do not alter any physical part of the plant, (
The proposed TS change in specific activity limits is consistent with the assumptions in -the safety analyses and will ensure the monitored values protect the initial assumptions in the safety analyses. The proposed changes for radiological events related to the computer code used to calculate dose, revised X/Qs for control room and offsite receptors (including the computer code and method used to determine control room X/Qs for SG releases), the computer code used to determine core inventory, the change in FHA [Fuel Handling Accident] gap fraction methodology, and removing the LRA [Locked Rotor Accident] from the radiological design basis have been analyzed and result in acceptable consequences, meeting the criteria as specified in 10 CFR 50.67 and RG 1.183. The proposed changes will not result in plant operation in a configuration outside the analyses or design basis and do not adversely affect systems that are required to respond for safe shutdown of the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe operating condition. Therefore, the changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation, and/or Environmental Assessment as indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 24, 2018.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety evaluation dated April 13, 2018.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 25, 2018.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 29, 2018.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 31, 2018.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 22, 2017.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 30, 2018.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuance of amendments to licenses held by Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon, the licensee) for the operation of Braidwood Station (Braidwood), Unit Nos. 1 and 2; Byron Station (Byron), Unit Nos. 1 and 2; Clinton Power Station (Clinton), Unit No. 1; Dresden Nuclear Power Station (Dresden), Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3; LaSalle County Station (LaSalle), Unit Nos. 1 and 2; and Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station (Quad Cities), Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (the facilities). The proposed amendments would revise the emergency response organization (ERO) positions identified in the emergency plan for each facility. The NRC is issuing an environmental assessment (EA) and finding of no significant impact (FONSI) associated with the proposed license amendments.
The EA referenced in this document is available on June 19, 2018.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0122 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Blake A. Purnell, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1380; email:
The NRC is considering issuance of amendments to the following licenses held by Exelon: (1) Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-72 and NPF-77 for the operation of Braidwood, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, respectively, located in Will County, Illinois; (2) Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-37 and NPF-66 for the operation of Byron, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, respectively, located in Ogle County, Illinois; (3) Facility Operating License No. NPF-62 for the operation of Clinton located in DeWitt County, Illinois; (4) Facility Operating License No. DPR-2 for the possession and maintenance of Dresden, Unit No. 1, located in Grundy County, Illinois; (5) Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-19 and DPR-25 for the operation of Dresden, Unit Nos. 2 and 3, respectively, located in Grundy County, Illinois; (6) Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-11 and NPF-18 for the operation of LaSalle, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, respectively, located in LaSalle County, Illinois; and (7) Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-29 and DPR-30 for the operation of Quad Cities, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, located in Rock Island County, Illinois.
In accordance with section 51.21 of title 10 of the
The proposed action would revise the ERO positions identified in the emergency plan for each facility. The on-shift, minimum, and full-augmentation ERO staffing requirements listed in the emergency plan would be revised. The proposed revisions include eliminating ERO positions; adding ERO positions; changing position descriptions, duties, and duty locations; and relocating certain position descriptions to other parts of the emergency plan or to implementing procedures.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application dated January 31, 2018 (ADAMS Package Accession No. ML18053A159).
Nuclear power plant owners, Federal agencies, and State and local officials work together to create a system for emergency preparedness and response that will serve the public in the unlikely event of an emergency. An effective emergency preparedness program decreases the likelihood of an initiating event at a nuclear power reactor proceeding to a severe accident. Emergency preparedness cannot affect the probability of the initiating event, but a high level of emergency preparedness increases the probability of accident mitigation if the initiating event proceeds beyond the need for initial operator actions.
Each licensee is required to establish an emergency plan to be implemented in the event of an accident. The emergency plan, in part, covers preparation for evacuation, sheltering, and other actions to protect individuals near plants in the event of an accident.
The NRC, as well as other Federal and State regulatory agencies, reviews the emergency plan to ensure that it provides reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency.
Separate from this EA, the NRC staff is performing a safety assessment of Exelon's proposed changes to the emergency plan for each facility. This safety review will be documented in a safety evaluation. The safety evaluation will determine whether, with the
The proposed action is needed to align the emergency plans for Exelon's facilities with draft Revision 2 to NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, “Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants” (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML14163A605 and ML17083A815). This change will provide Exelon with greater flexibility in staffing ERO positions, and reflects changes in NRC regulations and guidance and advances in technologies and best practices that have occurred since NUREG-0654 was originally issued in 1980. The State of Illinois reviewed a draft of the licensee's application and recommended its approval. The State of Iowa reviewed a draft of the license amendment request for Quad Cities, and had no comments or concerns.
The NRC staff has completed its evaluation of the environmental impacts of the proposed action.
The proposed action consists mainly of changes related to the staffing levels and positions specified in the emergency plans for Braidwood, Byron, Clinton, Dresden, LaSalle, and Quad Cities. The on-shift, minimum, and full-augmentation ERO staffing requirements listed in the emergency plan would be revised. The revisions include eliminating ERO positions; adding ERO positions; changing position descriptions, duties, and duty locations; and relocating certain position descriptions to other parts of the emergency plan or to implementing procedures.
With regard to potential nonradiological environmental impacts, the proposed changes would have no direct impacts on land use or water resources, including terrestrial and aquatic biota, as they involve no new construction or modification of plant operational systems. There would be no changes to the quality or quantity of nonradiological effluents and no changes to the plant's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit are needed. Changes in staffing levels could result in minor changes in vehicular traffic and associated air pollutant emissions, but no significant changes in ambient air quality would be expected from the proposed changes. In addition, there would be no noticeable effect on socioeconomic conditions in the region, no environment justice impacts, and no impacts to historic and cultural resources from the proposed changes. Therefore, there are no significant nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
With regard to potential radiological environmental impacts, if the NRC staff's safety review of the proposed changes to the licensee's emergency plans determines that, with the proposed changes, the emergency plans continue to meet the standards of 10 CFR 50.47(b) and the requirements in appendix E to 10 CFR part 50, then the proposed action would not increase the probability or consequences of radiological accidents. Additionally, the NRC staff has concluded that the proposed changes would have no direct radiological environmental impacts. There would be no change to the types or amounts of radioactive effluents that may be released and, therefore, no change in occupational or public radiation exposure from the proposed changes. Moreover, no changes would be made to plant buildings or the site property from the proposed changes. Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
As an alternative to the proposed action, the NRC staff considered denial of the proposed action (
There are no unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources under the proposed action.
No additional agencies or persons were consulted regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action.
The licensee has requested license amendments pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(q) to revise the ERO positions identified in the emergency plans for Braidwood, Byron, Clinton, Dresden, LaSalle, and Quad Cities by eliminating ERO positions; adding ERO positions; changing position descriptions, duties, and duty locations; and relocating certain position descriptions to other parts of the emergency plan or to implementing procedures. The NRC is considering issuing the requested amendments. The proposed action would not significantly affect plant safety, would not have a significant adverse effect on the probability of an accident occurring, and would not have any significant radiological and nonradiological impacts. The reason the environment would not be significantly affected is because the proposed changes would only result in minor changes in staffing levels and a small change in in air pollutant emissions associated with vehicular traffic. This FONSI incorporates by reference the EA in Section II of this notice. Therefore, the NRC concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action.
Previous considerations regarding the environmental impacts of operating Braidwood, Unit Nos. 1 and 2; Byron, Unit Nos. 1 and 2; Clinton, Unit No. 1; Dresden, Unit Nos. 2 and 3; LaSalle, Units 1 and 2; and Quad Cities, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, in accordance with their original or renewed operating licenses, as applicable, are described in the following documents:
• NUREG-1437, Supplement 55, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Regarding Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2,” Final Report, dated November 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15314A814).
• NUREG-1437, Supplement 54, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Regarding Byron Station, Units 1 and 2,” Final Report, dated July 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15196A263).
• NUREG-0854, “Final Environmental Statement Related to the Operation of Clinton Power Station, Unit No. 1,” dated May 1982 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15098A042).
• NUREG-1437, Supplement 17, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Regarding the Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3,” Final Report, dated June 2004 (ADAMS Accession No. ML041890266).
• NUREG-1437, Supplement 57, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of
• NUREG-1437, Supplement 16, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Regarding the Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2,” Final Report, dated June 2004 (ADAMS Accession No. ML041880213).
Previous considerations regarding the environmental impacts of decommissioning Dresden, Unit 1, are described in the following documents:
• “Environmental Assessment by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Regarding Order Authorizing Facility Decommissioning and Amendment of License No. DPR-2, Commonwealth Edison Company, Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, Docket No. 50-010,” dated August 30, 1993 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17123A156).
• NUREG-0586, Supplement 1, Volumes 1 and 2, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities: Regarding the Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors,” Final Report, dated November 2002 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML023470304 and ML023500187).
This FONSI and other related environmental documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. Publicly-available records will be accessible online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at
Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC's PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or send an email to
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as indicated.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning negotiated service agreements. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
The June 20, 2018 comment due date applies to Docket Nos. MC2018-167 and CP2018-239; MC2018-168 and CP2018-240; MC2018-169 and CP2018-241; MC2018-170 and CP2018-242; MC2018-171 and CP2018-243.
The June 21, 2018 comment due date applies to Docket Nos. MC2018-172 and CP2018-244; MC2018-173 and CP2018-245.
The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the market dominant or the competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the market
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern market dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3010, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
This notice will be published in the
Railroad Retirement Board (RRB).
Notice of a modified matching program.
As required by the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the RRB is issuing public notice of its renewal of an ongoing computer-matching program with the Social Security Administration (SSA). The purpose of this notice is to advise individuals applying for or receiving benefits under the Railroad Retirement Act of the use made by RRB of this information obtained from SSA by means of a computer match. The RRB is also issuing public notice, on behalf of the SSA, of their intent to conduct a computer-matching program based on information provided to them by the RRB.
Public comments are welcome until July 19, 2018. We will file a report of this computer-matching program with the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate; the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of Representatives; and the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The matching program will continue for 18 months after the effective date and may be extended for an additional 12 months, if the conditions specified in 5 U.S.C. 552a(o)(2)(D) have been met.
Interested parties may comment on this publication by writing to Ms. Martha P. Rico-Parra, Secretary to the Board, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611-2092.
Mr. Timothy Grant, Associate Chief Information Officer, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611-2092, telephone 312-751-4869 or email at
The Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988, (Pub. L. 100-503), amended by the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a) as amended, requires a Federal agency participating in a computer matching program to publish a notice in the
The Privacy Act, as amended, regulates the use of computer matching by Federal agencies when records contained in a Privacy Act System of Records are matched with other Federal, State, or local government records. It requires Federal agencies involved in computer matching programs to:
(1) Negotiate written agreements with the other agency or agencies participating in the matching programs;
(2) Obtain the approval of the matching agreement by the Data Integrity Boards (DIB) of the participating Federal agencies;
(3) Publish notice of the computer matching program in the
(4) Furnish detailed reports about matching programs to Congress and OMB;
(5) Notify applicants and beneficiaries that their records are subject to matching; and
(6) Verify match findings before reducing, suspending, terminating, or denying a person's benefits or payments. The last notice for this matching program was published in the
1. Daily exchanges:
a. The RRB will obtain from SSA a record of the wages reported to SSA for persons who have applied for benefits under the Railroad Retirement Act and a record of the amount of benefits paid by that agency to persons who are receiving or have applied for benefits under the Railroad Retirement Act. The wage information is needed to compute the amount of the tier I annuity component provided by sections 3(a), 4(a) and 4(f) of the Railroad Retirement Act (45 U.S.C. 231b(a), 45 U.S.C. 231c(a) and 45 U.S.C. 231c(f)). The benefit information is needed to adjust the tier I annuity component for the receipt of the Social Security benefit. This information is available from no other source.
b. The RRB will receive from SSA the amount of certain social security benefits which the RRB pays on behalf of SSA. Section 7(b)(2) of the Railroad Retirement Act (45 U.S.C. 231f(b)(2)) provides that the RRB shall make the payment of certain social security benefits. The RRB also requires this information in order to adjust the amount of any annuity due to the receipt of a social security benefit. Section 10(a) of the Railroad Retirement Act (45 U.S.C. 231i(a)) permits the RRB to recover any overpayment from the accrual of social security benefits. This information is not available from any other source.
c. The SSA will receive from RRB earnings information on selected individuals. The transfer of information may be initiated either by RRB or by SSA. SSA needs this information to determine eligibility to Social Security benefits and, if eligibility is met, to determine the benefit amount payable. Section 18 of the Railroad Retirement Act (45 U.S.C. 231q(2)) requires that earnings considered as compensation under the Railroad Retirement Act be considered as wages under the Social Security Act for the purposes of determining entitlement under the Social Security Act if the person has less than 10 years of railroad service or has 10 or more years of service but does not have a current connection with the railroad industry at the time of his/her death.
2.
1. RRB-5, Master File of Railroad Employees' Creditable Compensation, September 30, 2014 (79 FR 58877)
2. RRB-22, Railroad Retirement, Survivor, and Pensioner Benefit System, May 15, 2015 (80 FR 28018)
The applicable SSA Privacy Act Systems of Records used and their
1. SSA 60-0058, Master Files of Social Security Number (SSN) Holders and SSN Applications (the Enumeration System), last published on December 29, 2010 (75 FR 82121), July 5, 2013 (78 FR 40542), and February 13, 2014 (79 FR 8780).
2. SSA/OS, 60-0059, Earnings Recording and Self-Employment Income System (MEF), last published on January 11, 2006 (71 FR 1819), July 5, 2013 (78 FR 40542).
3. SSA/ORSIS 60-0090, Master Beneficiary Record (MBR), last published on January 11, 2006 (71 FR 1826), December 10, 2007 (72 FR 69723), and July 5, 2013 (78 FR 40542).
4. SSA/ODISSIS 60-103, Supplemental Security Income Record and Special Veteran Benefits last published on January 11, 2006 (71 FR 1830), December 10, 2007 (72 FR 69723).
5. SSA/OPB 60-0269, Prisoner Update Processing System (PUPS), last published on March 8, 1999 (64 FR 11076), December 10, 2007 (72 FR 69723), and July 5, 2013 (78 FR 40542).
By authority of the Board.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the fee schedule applicable to Members
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule applicable to its equities trading platform (“BYX Equities”) to (i) eliminate Add Volume Tier 6 and (ii) modify criteria in certain Add and Remove Volume Tiers, effective June 1, 2018.
By way of background, for orders that yield fee codes B, V, and Y, the Exchange assesses a standard transaction fee of $0.0019 per share for orders that add liquidity for securities at or above $1.00. The Exchange also currently offers six tiers under footnote 1 that offer reduced fees for orders that add liquidity yielding fee codes B, V, and Y. The Exchange first proposes to eliminate Add Volume Tier 6. Add Volume Tier 6 currently provides Members a reduced fee of $0.0017 per share where a MPID (i) has an ADAV
The Exchange next proposes to modify the criteria for Add Volume Tiers 2 and 3. Pursuant to Add Volume Tier 2, a Member will be assessed a reduced fee of $0.0013 per share where a Member adds an ADAV greater than or equal to 0.40% of the TCV. The Exchange proposes to increase the ADAV requirement to greater than or equal to 0.45% of the TCV. Pursuant to Add Volume Tier 3, a Member will be assessed a reduced fee of $0.0012 per share where a Member adds an ADAV greater than or equal to 0.80% of the TCV. The Exchange proposes to increase the ADAV requirement to greater than or equal to 1.00% of the TCV.
The Exchange next proposes to modify the criteria for Remove Volume Tiers 8 and 9. Currently, for orders that yield fee codes N, W, and BB, the Exchange provides a rebate of $0.0005 per share for orders that remove liquidity for securities at or above $1.00. The Exchange currently offers four tiers under footnote 1 that offer enhanced rebates for orders that remove liquidity yielding fee codes BB, N, and W. Pursuant to Remove Volume Tier 8 (proposed to be renumbered to Remove Volume Tier 7), a Member will receive an enhanced rebate of $0.0016 per share where a Member (i) has a Step-Up Remove
Pursuant to Remove Volume Tier 9 (proposed to be renumbered Remove Volume Tier 8), a Member will receive an enhanced rebate of $0.0017 per share where a Member (i) has a Step-Up Remove TCV from December 2017 greater than or equal to 0.075% and (ii) has an ADV greater than or equal to 0.10% of TCV. The Exchange proposes to modify the first prong to increase the Step-Up Remove TCV from 0.075% to 0.10% of TCV. The Exchange notes that the modification to the first prong renders the second prong unnecessary, as the second prong criteria will always be met if the proposed first prong criteria is met. The Exchange therefore proposes to eliminate the second prong of Remove Volume Tier 9.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes that the proposal to eliminate Add Volume Tier 6 is reasonable, fair, and equitable because the current tier is not providing the desired result of incentivizing
The Exchange next notes that volume-based discounts such as those currently maintained on the Exchange have been widely adopted by exchanges and are equitable and non-discriminatory because they are open to all Members on an equal basis and provide additional benefits or discounts that are reasonably related to the value of an exchange's market quality associated with higher levels of market activity, such as higher levels of liquidity provision and/or growth patterns, and introduction of higher volumes of orders into the price and volume discovery processes. While the proposed modification to Add/Remove Volume Tiers 2, 3, 8 and 9 makes such tiers slightly more difficult to attain, it is intended to incentivize Members to send additional volume to the Exchange in an effort to qualify or continue to qualify for the reduced fees and enhanced rebates, as applicable, made available by the tiers. As such, the Exchange also believes that the proposed changes are reasonable. The Exchange notes that increased volume on the Exchange provides greater trading opportunities for all market participants.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that any of the proposed change to the Exchange's tiered pricing structure burden competition, but instead, that they enhance competition as they are intended to increase the competitiveness of BYX by modifying pricing incentives in order to attract order flow and incentivize participants to increase their participation on the Exchange. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee structures to be unreasonable or excessive. The Exchange does not believe the proposed amendments would burden intramarket competition as they would be available to all Members uniformly.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from Members or other interested parties.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend The Nasdaq Options Market LLC (“NOM”) Rules at Supplementary Material to Chapter III, Section 7, entitled “Position Limits,” and Section 9, entitled “Exercise Limits,” to amend position limits for options on the SPDR® S&P 500® exchange-traded fund (“SPY ETF” or “SPY”), which list and trade under the symbol “SPY.”
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
NOM Rules at Supplementary Material to Chapter III, Section 7, entitled “Position Limits” and Section 9, entitled “Exercise Limits” indicate the manner in which positions for aggregate positions in option contracts are treated on the Exchange. SPY is among the certain select underlying securities listed in each such Rule. Indicates [sic] the manner in which positions for aggregate positions in option contracts are treated on the Exchange.
The Exchange proposes to amend Chapter III, Section 7 to allow the SPY Pilot Program to terminate on July 12, 2018, the current expiration date of the SPY Pilot Program. In lieu of extending the SPY Pilot Program for another year, the Exchange proposes to allow the SPY Pilot Program to terminate and to establish position and exercise limits of 1,800,000 contracts, for options on SPY, with such change becoming operative on July 12, 2018, so that there is no lapse in time between termination of the SPY Pilot Program and the establishment of the new limits. Furthermore, as a result of the termination of the SPY Pilot Program, the Exchange does not believe it is necessary to submit a SPY Pilot Program Report at the end of the SPY Pilot Program. Based on the prior SPY Pilot Program Reports provided to the Commission,
Position limits are designed to address potential manipulative schemes and adverse market impact surrounding the use of options, such as disrupting the market in the security underlying the options. The potential manipulative schemes and adverse market impact are balanced against the potential of setting the limits so low as to discourage participation in the options market. The level of those position limits must be balanced between curtailing potential manipulation and the cost of preventing potential hedging activity that could be used for legitimate economic purposes.
The SPY Pilot Program was established in 2013 in order to eliminate position and exercise limits for physically-settled SPY options.
The underlying SPY tracks the performance of the S&P 500 Index and the Exchange notes that the SPY and SPY options have deep, liquid markets that reduce concerns regarding manipulation and disruption in the underlying markets. In support of this proposed rule change, the Exchange has collected the following trading statistics for SPY and SPY Options: (1) The average daily volume (“ADV”) to date (as of May 15, 2018) for SPY is 108.32 million shares; (2) the ADV to date in 2018 for SPY options is 3.9 million contracts per day; (3) the total shares outstanding for SPY are 965.43 million; and (4) the fund market cap for SPY is 261.65 billion. The Exchange represents further that there is tremendous liquidity in the securities that make up the S&P 500 Index.
Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to amend Chapter III, Section 7 [sic] to set forth that the position and exercise limits for options on SPY would be 1,800,000 contracts on the same side of the market. These position and exercise limits equal the current position and exercise limits for options on QQQ, which the Commission previously approved to be increased from 900,000 contracts on the same side of the market, to 1,800,000 contracts on the same side of the market.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
Increased position limits for select actively traded options, such as that proposed herein (increased as compared to the 900,000 limit in place prior to the SPY Pilot Program),
Lastly, the Commission expressed the belief that implementing higher position and exercise limits may bring additional depth and liquidity without increasing concerns regarding intermarket manipulation or disruption of the options or the underlying securities.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes the entire proposal is consistent with Section (6)(b)(8) of the Act
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On March 6, 2018, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (“CHX” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”)
Currently, under the Exchange's rules, Routable Orders
Because Qualifed Contingent Trade (“QCT”) Crosses
The Exchange has proposed to adopt the Route QCT Cross routing option, which will permit only Institutional Brokers (“IBs”)
Specifically, the Exchange has proposed to adopt proposed Article 19, Rule 4 (Routing Options) to provide that routing options may be combined with all available order types, modifiers and related terms, except for order types, modifiers, and related terms that are inconsistent with the terms of a routing option, and that the Exchange may activate or deactivate any routing option at its discretion and, if practicable, after notice to Participants.
As Route QCT Cross orders would be routed away from the Exchange without being submitted to the Matching System for execution, the Exchange proposes to amend Article 19, Rules 1(a) and (c), and Rule 2(a) to replace the term “Matching System” with “Exchange.” Moreover, since Route QCT Cross orders are a subset of cross orders that will not be handled IOC upon receipt by the Exchange, and all cross orders currently received by the Exchange are deemed to have been received IOC, the Exchange proposes to amend the definition of “cross orders” under Article 1, Rule 2(a)(2) to provide that all cross orders
The Exchange has also proposed to amend Article 19, Rule 3(a) to provide that a Routable Order that is submitted to the Matching System would be routed away from the Matching System pursuant to the CHX Routing Services if a Routing Event is triggered.
In addition, the Exchange proposes non-substantive amendments to Article 19, Rules 3(a)(1)-(5) to clarify the current operation of the Routing Events.
The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act,
The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional analysis of the proposed rule change's consistency with Sections 6(b)(5)
The Commission requests that interested persons provide written submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of interested persons concerning whether the proposal is consistent with Sections 6(b)(5) and 6(b)(8), or any other provision of the Exchange Act, or the rules and regulations thereunder. Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval that would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments regarding whether the proposal should be approved or disapproved by July 10, 2018. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by July 24, 2018.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List to (1) add a new incentive for member organizations and Supplemental Liquidity Providers (“SLP”) in Tape A securities when adding liquidity in securities traded pursuant to Unlisted Trading Privileges (“UTP”) (Tapes B and C) on the Pillar Trading Platform; (2) add a new Tier 4 for SLPs; and (3) make non-substantive changes to eliminate obsolete footnotes. The Exchange proposes to implement these changes to its Price List effective June 1, 2018. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List to (1) add a new incentive for member organizations and SLPs on Tape A when adding liquidity in UTP Securities (Tapes B and C) on the Pillar Trading Platform; (2) add a new Tier 4 for SLPs; and (3) make non-substantive changes to eliminate obsolete footnotes.
The Exchange proposes to implement these changes to its Price List effective June 1, 2018.
The Exchange proposes an additional incentive to member organizations and SLPs in Tape A securities that add liquidity to the Exchange in UTP Securities, as follows.
As proposed, member organizations that meet the current requirements for the Non-Tier Adding Credit, Tier 3 Adding Credit, and Tier 4 Adding Credit on Tape A would be eligible to receive an additional $0.0001 per share if the member organization adds liquidity, excluding liquidity added as an SLP, in UTP Securities of at least 0.20% of Tape B and Tape C consolidated average daily volume (“CADV”) combined.
Similarly, SLPs that (1) meet the current requirements for SLP Tier 3, SLP Tier 2 and SLP Tier 1A credits, and (2) add liquidity in UTP Securities of at least 0.30% of Tape B and Tape C CADV combined, would be eligible for an additional $0.0001 per share in securities with a per share price of $1.00 or more that meet the 10% average or more quoting requirement in an assigned security pursuant to Rule 107B (quotes of an SLP-Prop and an SLMM of the same member organization would not be aggregated).
The Exchange proposes a new, fifth SLP Tier designated “4” that would provide that an SLP that either (1) is in the first two calendar months as an SLP, or (2) adds liquidity for all assigned SLP securities in the aggregate (including shares of both an SLP-Prop and an SLMM
Currently, as reflected in footnote * to the section of the Price List setting forth adding tiers for trading UTP Securities,
The proposed changes are not otherwise intended to address any other issues, and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that member organizations would have in complying with the proposed change.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that providing an additional incentive in Tape A securities for member organizations that add liquidity in UTP Securities is reasonable because it would further contribute to incenting member organizations to provide additional liquidity to a public exchange in UTP Securities, thereby promoting price discovery and transparency and enhancing order execution opportunities for member organizations. The Exchange believes that that the proposal is reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory because it would apply to all member organizations eligible for the relevant Tape A tier credits equally. The Exchange further believes that limiting the additional credit to Non-Tier, Adding Tier 3 and Adding Tier 4 is reasonable because members qualifying for Adding Tier 1 and Adding Tier 2 would already receive a higher credit for such executions. Similarly, the Exchange believes that limiting the additional credit to SLP Tier 3, SLP Tier 2 and SLP Tier 1A is reasonable because SLPs qualifying for SLP Tier 1 would already receive a higher credit for such executions.
The Exchange believes that the proposal to introduce a new SLP Tier 4 is reasonable because it provides SLPs as well as SLPs that are also DMMs with an additional way to qualify for a rebate, thereby providing SLPs with greater flexibility and creating an added incentive for SLPs to bring additional order flow to a public market. In particular, as noted above, the Exchange believes that the new tier will provide greater incentives for newer and less active SLPs to add liquidity to the Exchange, to the benefit of the investing public and all market participants. Moreover, offering a higher credit for the first two months would provide an incentive for new and less active SLPs to add liquidity and meet the SLP quoting requirements, thereby contributing to additional levels of liquidity at the Exchange, which benefits all market participants. The Exchange also believes that the two-month period for new SLPs and inactive SLPs to qualify for the new tier is reasonable because it will allow newer and less active SLPs more time to meet the SLP volume requirements while building up the SLPs' liquidity providing activities during the first two months. Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed tier is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it would apply equally to all SLPs and because there are two ways to qualify for the proposed tier.
The Exchange believes that the proposed deletion of footnotes * and ** removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market by adding clarity as to whether waivers are operative and when, thereby reducing potential confusion, and making the Exchange's rules easier to navigate. The Exchange also believes that eliminating obsolete material from its rulebook also removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market by removing confusion that may result from having obsolete material in the Exchange's rulebook. The Exchange believes that eliminating such obsolete material would not be inconsistent with the public interest and the protection of investors because investors will not be harmed and in fact would benefit from increased transparency, thereby reducing potential confusion.
Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement regarding the burden on competition.
For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees and rebates to remain competitive with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees and credits in
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend BX Rules at Supplementary Material to Chapter III, Section 7, entitled “Position Limits,” and Section 9, entitled “Exercise Limits,” to amend position limits and exercise limits for options on the SPDR® S&P 500® exchange-traded fund (“SPY ETF” or “SPY”),
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The
BX Rules at Supplementary Material to Chapter III, Section 7, entitled “Position Limits” and Section 9, entitled “Exercise Limits” indicate the manner in which positions for aggregate positions in option contracts are treated on the Exchange. SPY is among the certain select underlying securities listed in each such Rule. Currently, these Rules provide that there are no position limits and there are no exercise limits on options overlying SPY pursuant to a pilot program, which is scheduled to expire on July 12, 2018 (“SPY Pilot Program”).
The Exchange proposes to amend Chapter III, Sections 7 and 9 to allow the SPY Pilot Program to terminate on July 12, 2018, the current expiration date of the SPY Pilot Program. In lieu of extending the SPY Pilot Program for another year, the Exchange proposes to allow the SPY Pilot Program to terminate and to establish position and exercise limits of 1,800,000 contracts, for options on SPY, with such change becoming operative on July 12, 2018, so that there is no lapse in time between termination of the SPY Pilot Program and the establishment of the new limits. Furthermore, as a result of the termination of the SPY Pilot Program, the Exchange does not believe it is necessary to submit a SPY Pilot Program Report at the end of the SPY Pilot Program. Based on the prior SPY Pilot Program Reports provided to the Commission,
Position limits are designed to address potential manipulative schemes and adverse market impact surrounding the use of options, such as disrupting the market in the security underlying the options. The potential manipulative schemes and adverse market impact are balanced against the potential of setting the limits so low as to discourage participation in the options market. The level of those position limits must be balanced between curtailing potential manipulation and the cost of preventing potential hedging activity that could be used for legitimate economic purposes.
The SPY Pilot Program was established in 2013 in order to eliminate position and exercise limits for physically-settled SPY options.
The underlying SPY tracks the performance of the S&P 500 Index and the Exchange notes that the SPY and SPY options have deep, liquid markets that reduce concerns regarding manipulation and disruption in the underlying markets. In support of this proposed rule change, the Exchange has collected the following trading statistics for SPY and SPY Options: (1) The average daily volume (“ADV”) to date (as of May 15, 2018) for SPY is 108.32 million shares; (2) the ADV to date in 2018 for SPY options is 3.9 million contracts per day; (3) the total shares outstanding for SPY are 965.43 million; and (4) the fund market cap for SPY is 261.65 billion. The Exchange represents further that there is tremendous liquidity in the securities that make up the S&P 500 Index.
Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to amend Chapter III, Sections 7 and 9 to set forth that the position and exercise limits for options on SPY would be 1,800,000 contracts on the same side of the market. These position and exercise limits equal the current position and exercise limits for options on QQQ, which the Commission previously approved to be increased from 900,000 contracts on the same side of the market, to 1,800,000 contracts on the same side of the market.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
Increased position limits for select actively traded options, such as that proposed herein (increased as compared to the 900,000 limit in place prior to the SPY Pilot Program),
Lastly, the Commission expressed the belief that implementing higher position and exercise limits may bring additional depth and liquidity without increasing concerns regarding intermarket manipulation or disruption of the options or the underlying securities.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes the entire proposal is consistent with Section (6)(b)(8) of the Act
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On April 20, 2018, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds 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 proposed rule change. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Alaska (FEMA-4369-DR), dated 06/08/2018.
Issued on 06/08/2018.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 06/08/2018, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 15555B and for economic injury is 155560.
Pursuant to the authority granted to the United States Small Business Administration under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended, under Section 309 of the Act and Section 107.1900 of the Small Business Administration Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107.1900) to function as a small business investment company under the Small Business Investment Company License No. 05/75-0267 issued to Alpha Capital III SBIC, L.P., said license is hereby declared null and void.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of New Jersey (FEMA-4368-DR), dated 06/08/2018.
Issued on 06/08/2018.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 06/08/2018, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 15553B and for economic injury is 155540.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of New Hampshire (FEMA-4370-DR), dated 06/08/2018.
Issued on 06/08/2018.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 06/08/2018, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 155576 and for economic injury is 155580.
Department of State.
Notice.
The Secretary of State issued a Presidential permit to Borrego Crossing Pipeline, LLC (“Borrego”) on May 25, 2018, authorizing Borrego to construct, connect, operate, and maintain pipeline facilities (“Borrego Pipeline facilities”) at the U.S.-Mexico border near Laredo, Texas, for the export of refined petroleum products, including gasoline, premium gasoline, ultra-low-sulfur diesel (“ULSD”), and jet fuels.
Richard W. Westerdale II, Bureau of Energy Resources, U.S. Department of State, 2201 C St. NW, Suite 4422, Washington, DC 20520, (202) 647-7947.
Additional information concerning the Borrego Pipeline facilities and documents related to the Department of State's review of the application for a Presidential permit can be found at
By virtue of the authority vested in me as Secretary of State, including those authorities under Executive Order 13337, 69 FR 25299 (2004); having considered the environmental effects of the proposed action consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (83 Stat. 852; 42 U.S.C. 4321
The term “facilities” as used in this permit means the relevant portion of the pipeline and any land, structures, installations, or equipment appurtenant thereto.
The term “United States facilities” as used in this permit means those parts of the facilities located in the United States. The United States facilities consist of a 20-inch diameter pipeline for the transport of up to 150,000 barrels per day of refined petroleum products, including gasoline, premium
The United States facilities also include certain appurtenant facilities, including such metering facilities as are required by the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
This permit is subject to the following conditions:
(2) The construction, operation, and maintenance of the United States facilities shall be in all material respects as described in the permittee's application for a Presidential permit under Executive Order 13337, filed on August 12, 2016, and consistent with the resource protection measures identified in the Final Environmental Assessment (EA), dated January 2018.
(2) The permittee shall hold harmless and indemnify the United States from any claimed or adjudged liability arising out of construction, connection, operation, or maintenance of the facilities, including but not limited to environmental contamination from the release or threatened release or discharge of hazardous substances and hazardous waste.
(3) The permittee shall maintain the United States facilities and every part thereof in a condition of good repair for their safe operation, and in compliance with prevailing environmental standards and regulations.
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Notice with request for comments.
The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) is
Although USTR will accept any comments received during the course of the dispute settlement proceedings, you should submit your comment on or before July 16, 2018, to be assured of timely consideration by USTR.
USTR strongly prefers electronic submissions made the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Associate General Counsel Brian Janovitz at (202) 395-7139 or Assistant General Counsel Philip Butler at (202) 395-5804.
Section 127(b)(1) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) (19 U.S.C. 3537(b)(1)) requires notice and opportunity for comment after the United States submits or receives a request for the establishment of a WTO dispute settlement panel. Pursuant to this provision, USTR is providing notice that the United States has received a request for a dispute settlement panel pursuant to the WTO
On April 16, 2018, Korea requested the establishment of a WTO dispute settlement panel regarding the use by the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) of facts available in various segments of the following investigations:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Korea alleges that the challenged measures are inconsistent with U.S. WTO obligations under Article 6.8 and Annex II of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article 12.7 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM Agreement). Korea further alleges that the United States failed to comply with a number of supposedly related procedural and substantive obligations under the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the SCM Agreement.
In addition, Korea alleges that section 776 of the Tariff Act of 1930, codified at 19 U.S.C. 1677e, as amended by section 502 of the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, and the certain related legal provisions governing the use of facts available, are “as such” inconsistent with the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the SCM Agreement. Korea also challenges DOC's “use of adverse facts available” as a purported “ongoing conduct, or rule or nom” when DOC allegedly “selects facts from the record that are adverse to the interests of the foreign producers or exporters without (i) establishing that the adverse inferences can reasonably be drawn in light of the degree of cooperation received, and (ii) ensuring that such facts are the `best information available' in the particular circumstances.”
USTR invites written comments concerning the issues raised in this dispute. All submissions must be in English and sent electronically via
The
For any comments submitted electronically containing business confidential information, the file name of the business confidential version should begin with the characters “BC.” Any page containing business confidential information must be clearly marked “BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL” on the top and bottom of that page and the submission should clearly indicate, via brackets, highlighting, or other means, the specific information that is business confidential. If you request business confidential treatment, you must certify in writing that disclosure of the information would endanger trade secrets or profitability, and that the information would not customarily be released to the public. Filers of submissions containing business confidential information also must submit a public version of their comments. The file name of the public version should begin with the character “P”. The “BC” and “P” should be followed by the name of the person or entity submitting the comments or rebuttal comments. If these products are not sufficient to protect business confidential information or otherwise protect business interests, please contact Sandy McKinzy at (202) 395-9483 to discuss whether alternative arrangements are possible.
USTR may determine that information or advice contained in a comment, other than business confidential information, is confidential in accordance with section 135(g)(2) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2155(g)(2)). If a submitter believes that information or advice is confidential, s/he must clearly designate the information or advice as confidential and mark it as “SUBMITTED IN CONFIDENCE” at the top and bottom of the cover page and each succeeding page, and provide a
Pursuant to section 127(e) of the URAA (19 U.S.C. 3537(e)), USTR will maintain a docket on this dispute settlement proceeding, docket number USTR-2018-0010, accessible to the public at
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC); DOT.
Notice of Public Meeting.
This notice announces the public meeting via conference call of the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation Advisory Board.
The public meeting will be held on (all times Eastern):
• Monday, July 23, 2018 from 2:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m. EST
The meeting will be held via conference call at the SLSDC's Headquarters, 55 M Street SE, Suite 930, Washington, DC 20003.
Wayne Williams, Chief of Staff, Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; 202-366-0091
Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92-463; 5 U.S.C. App. I), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Advisory Board of the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC). The agenda for this meeting will be as follows:
Attendance at the meeting is open to the interested public but limited to the space available. With the approval of the Administrator, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing further information should contact the person listed under the heading,
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). The IRS is soliciting comments concerning third-party disclosure requirements in IRS regulations.
Written comments should be received on or before August 20, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Laurie Brimmer, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulations should be directed to Sandra Lowery at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet, at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number.
Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held July 10, 2018, and July 11, 2018.
Lisa Billups at 1-888-912-1227 or (214) 413-6523.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee will be held Tuesday, July 10, 2018 and Wednesday, July 11, 2018, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Notification of intent to participate must be made with Lisa Billups. For more information please contact Lisa Billups at 1-888-912-1227 or (214) 413-6523, or write TAP Office, 1114 Commerce Street, Dallas, TX 75242-1021, or post comments to the website:
The agenda will include various committee issues for submission to the IRS and other TAP related topics. Public input is welcomed.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning qualified transportation fringe benefits.
Written comments should be received on or before August 20, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Roberto Mora-Figueroa, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224. Requests for additional information or copies of the regulations should be directed to R. Joseph Durbala, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington DC 20224, or through the internet, at
The following paragraph applies to all the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number.
Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained if their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the ICR for OMB approval of the extension of the information collection; they will also become a matter of public record.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 712, Life Insurance Statement.
Written comments should be received on or before August 20, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Roberto Mora-Figueroa, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224. Requests for additional information or copies of the regulations should be directed to R. Joseph Durbala, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington DC 20224, or through the internet, at
The following paragraph applies to all the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number.
Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained if their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Desired Focus of Comments: The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the ICR for OMB approval of the extension of the information collection; they will also become a matter of public record.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning the guidance for taxpayers regarding when gain or loss from common business hedging transactions is considered for tax purposes.
Written comments should be received on or before August 20, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Roberto Mora-Figueroa, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224. Requests for additional information or copies of the regulations should be directed to R. Joseph Durbala, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet, at
The following paragraph applies to all the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number.
Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained if their contents may become material in the administration of any
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the ICR for OMB approval of the extension of the information collection; they will also become a matter of public record.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 8881, Credit for Small Employer Pension Plan Startup Costs.
Written comments should be received on or before August 20, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Laurie Brimmer, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Sara Covington, at (202) 317-6038, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet, at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number.
Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
Notice of a new matching program.
Pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Guidelines on the Conduct of Matching Programs, notice is hereby given that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) intends to conduct a computer matching program with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Data from the proposed match will be used to verify the unearned income of nonservice-connected veterans, and those veterans who are zero percent service-connected (noncompensable), whose eligibility for VA medical care is based on their inability to defray the cost of medical care. These veterans supply household income information that includes their spouses and dependents at the time of application for VA health care benefits.
Comments on this matching program must be received no later than July 19, 2018. If no public comment is received during the period allowed for comment or unless otherwise published in the
Written comments may be submitted through
LeRoy F. Garcia, Acting Director, Health Eligibility Center, (404) 848-5300 (this is not a toll free number).
The Department of Veterans Affairs has statutory authorization under 38 U.S.C. 5317, 38 U.S.C. 5106, 26 U.S.C. 6103(l)(7)(D)(viii) and 5 U.S.C. 552a to establish matching agreements and request and use income information from other agencies for purposes of verification of income for determining eligibility for benefits. 38 U.S.C. 1710(a)(2)(G), 1710(a)(3), and 1710(b) identify those veterans whose basic eligibility for medical care benefits is dependent upon their financial status. Eligibility for nonservice-connected and zero percent noncompensable service-connected veterans is determined based on the veteran's inability to defray the expenses for necessary care as defined in 38 U.S.C. 1722. This determination can affect their responsibility to participate in the cost of their care through copayments and their assignment to an enrollment priority group. The goal of this match is to obtain IRS unearned income information data needed for the income verification process. The VA records involved in the match are “Income Verification Records—VA” (89VA10NB). The IRS records are from the Information Return Master File (IRMF) Process File, Treas/IRS 22.061, through the Disclosure of Information to Federal, State and Local Agencies (DIFSLA) program. A copy of this notice has been sent to both Houses of Congress and OMB.
The Senior Agency Official for Privacy, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. John Buck, Director for the Office of Privacy, Information and Identity Protection, Department of Veterans Affairs approved this document on June 13, 2018 for publication.
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 19, 2018.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor, Office of Quality, Privacy and Risk (OQPR), Department of
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
Department of Homeland Security; Department of Agriculture; Department of Energy; National Aeronautics and Space Administration; Department of Commerce; Consumer Product Safety Commission; Social Security Administration; Agency for International Development; Department of Housing and Urban Development; Department of Labor; Department of Defense; Department of Education; Department of Veterans Affairs; Environmental Protection Agency; Department of Health and Human Services; National Science Foundation; and Department of Transportation.
Final rule.
In a final rule published on January 19, 2017, a number of federal departments and agencies revised to the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects (often referred to as the “Common Rule”), which each department and agency adopted into regulations in its part of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) adopted the same changes in a final rule published on September 18, 2017. The revised Common Rule was scheduled to become effective on January 19, 2018, with a general compliance date of the same date. By an interim final rule issued on January 17, 2018 and published in the
On April 20, 2018, the federal departments and agencies listed here published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing and seeking comments as to whether the general compliance date for the 2018 Requirements should be delayed for an additional 6-month period. The NPRM also proposed and sought comments on whether to allow regulated entities to implement certain burden-reducing provisions of the 2018 Requirements in specified circumstances during such continued delay period.
Through this final rule, we are adopting the proposals described in the April 20, 2018 NPRM. This rule delays the general compliance date for the 2018 Requirements for an additional 6-month period, until January 21, 2019. As a result of this delay, regulated entities will be required, with an exception, to continue to comply with the requirements of the pre-2018 version of the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects (the “pre-2018 Requirements”) until January 21, 2019. The one exception to this general rule is that institutions will be permitted (but not required) to implement, for certain research, three burden-reducing provisions of the 2018 Requirements during the delay period (July 19, 2018, through January 20, 2019). Those three provisions are: The revised definition of “research,” which deems certain activities not to be research covered by the Common Rule; the elimination of the requirement for annual continuing review with respect to certain categories of research; and the elimination of the requirement that institutional review boards (IRBs) review grant applications or other funding proposals related to the research. Institutions taking advantage of the three-burden reducing provisions must comply with all other pre-2018 Requirements during the delay period. The three burden-reducing provisions of the 2018 Requirements can only be implemented during the delay period with respect to studies initiated prior to January 21, 2019 that will transition to compliance with the revised Common Rule. Any study that implements these three burden-reducing provisions during the delay period must, beginning on January 21, 2019, comply with all of the 2018 Requirements for the balance of the study's duration.
Jerry Menikoff, M.D., J.D., Office for Human Research Protections, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 200, Rockville, MD 20852.
Jerry Menikoff, M.D., J.D., Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP), Department of Health and Human Services, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 200, Rockville, MD 20852; telephone: 240-453-6900 or 1-866-447-4777; facsimile: 301-402-2071; email
On January 19, 2017, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and other federal departments and agencies published a final rule revising the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects (generally referred to as “the Common Rule”). 82 FR 7149. The CPSC adopted the same regulatory changes in a separate final rule published on September 18, 2017. 82 FR 43459. The revised Common Rule was originally scheduled to become effective on January 19, 2018, with a general compliance date of January 19, 2018 (with the exception of the revisions to the cooperative research provision at § ___.114(b), which has a compliance date of January 20, 2020).
Some representatives of the regulated community expressed concern regarding their ability to implement all of the 2018 Requirements by the scheduled general compliance date.
See the June 9, 2017 letter to Secretary Thomas Price from the American Medical Informatics Association at
See also August 2, 2017 SACHRP Letter to HHS Secretary, Attachment A- Recommendations on Compliance Dates and Transition Provisions,
On January 17, 2018, HHS and other federal departments and agencies placed on display at the Office of the
On April 20, 2018, federal departments and agencies published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) soliciting comments on two proposals. 83 FR 17595. The first proposed an additional 6-month delay for the general compliance date for the 2018 Requirements (from July 19, 2018 to January 21, 2019). The second proposed a flexibility that would allow regulated entities to take advantage of three burden-reducing provisions of the 2018 Requirements during the delay period. Both proposals are described more fully below, together with a discussion of the public comments submitted, and our response to public comments. For the reasons provided below, this final rule adopts the proposals set forth in the NPRM.
Public comment was solicited on the interim final rule between January 22, 2018 and March 19, 2018. Public comment was solicited on the NPRM to delay the implementation of the 2018 Requirements while permitting the use of three burden-reducing provisions of the 2018 Requirements between April 20, 2018 and May 21, 2018.
We received 62 public comments on the interim final rule. Of these, 36 comments were related to the Common Rule. The remaining 26 comments were not related to the Common Rule in any way. We received 73 comments on the NPRM. Five of these comments were not related to the Common Rule.
Several common themes emerged from the public comments on the interim final rule and the NPRM. These included:
Both sets of comments tended to endorse some type of delay beyond July 19, 2018 in the general compliance date for the 2018 Requirements. Comments on the interim final rule tended to suggest that institutions be permitted to voluntarily implement the 2018 Requirements in their entirety at any time after July 19, 2018, while comments on the NPRM indicated broad support for the narrower approach of permitting the voluntary use of three burden-reducing provisions during the delay period.
As well as soliciting comments on the delay of the implementation of the 2018 Requirements, the interim final rule solicited comments on the following:
We received no comments on our assumption that 50 percent of regulated entities would have gone forward using the new or expanded exemption categories had the implementation date of the 2018 Requirements remained January 19, 2018. We received one comment addressing whether or not the interim final rule should be considered regulatory or de-regulatory. This comment indicated that the 2018 Requirements should be considered de-regulatory, without commenting on the regulatory or de-regulatory status of the interim final rule.
Of the 36 comments received on the interim final rule related to the Common Rule (and more specifically on delaying the effective and general compliance dates of the 2018 Requirements to July 19, 2018), several themes were present. Many of these comments discussed issues with the timing and issuance of the interim final rule, claiming that the fact that it was put on public display in the
Additionally, commenters expressed concern that given the short timeline between the closing of the comment period and the new general implementation date of July 19, 2018, any further delay of the 2018 Requirements would similarly create chaos and confusion in the regulated community. Commenters also generally expressed that the 6-month delay granted by the interim final rule created a situation in which regulated entities that were ready to implement the 2018 Requirements in January 2018 had to spend the personnel hours to “undo” these changes, which seemed contradictory to the overall goal of the revisions to the Common Rule of reducing administrative burden. A few commenters focused entirely on how the relative silence by Common Rule departments and agencies since publication of the 2018 Requirements has created a confusing environment for this regulated community and requested more transparency from the regulating departments and agencies in the future.
[
Almost half of the comments related to the Common Rule advocated for the Common Rule departments and agencies to retain the July 19, 2018 effective date for the 2018 Requirements, and to delay the general compliance date. These commenters argued that during the period between the effective date and delayed general compliance date, institutions should be permitted to voluntarily comply (on a study-by-study basis) with the 2018 Requirements. A couple of these comments advocated for institutions to be able to implement select 2018 Requirements during this voluntary compliance period, as opposed to choosing to comply with the entirety of the 2018 Requirements, in order to provide institutions with the most flexibility. A majority of the comments described in this paragraph advocated for delaying the general compliance date to January 21, 2019, as these commenters did not believe that full compliance with the 2018 Requirements would be possible by July 19, 2018. A few commenters advocated delaying the general compliance date beyond January 21, 2019 to permit institutions as much time as possible to comply with the 2018 Requirements
One commenter suggested that both the effective and general compliance dates be delayed by 6 months to one year after Common Rule departments and agencies issue critical guidance documents. Other commenters suggested that Common Rule departments and agencies should be given a date by which they must publish key guidance documents. Several comments included a description of guidance documents that they would like for Common Rule departments and agencies to focus on initially. Suggestions included: OHRP's decision charts, key information in informed consent, broad consent, and continuing review (§ ___.109(f)).
Some of the comments relevant to the Common Rule advocated for no additional delay in the implementation of the 2018 Requirements beyond July 19, 2018. These comments argued that institutions and Common Rule departments and agencies have had sufficient time to prepare for the implementation of the Rule. One comment suggested that while guidance would certainly be helpful, it is possible to implement the Rule without such guidance, as evidenced by the fact that many institutions were ready to implement the 2018 Requirements before the publication of the interim final rule.
Several commenters also addressed whether certain aspects of the 2018 Requirements would be difficult to implement in the absence of agency guidance. These commenters acknowledged the importance of guidance to implement many areas of the 2018 Requirements but noted that the confusion and chaos created by late-breaking announcements of delays in the implementation of the 2018 Requirements ultimately caused more administrative burden within institutions. One large public university system in the United States indicated that if guidance is issued after institutions have revised their policies, procedures, and IT systems, it likely will create a burdensome situation where policies, procedures, and IT systems will need to be revised again to comport with department and agency guidance.
[
We recognize the difficulty in implementing the 2018 Requirements in the absence of guidance and will strive to issue guidance on key aspects of the 2018 Requirements as quickly as possible, while also engaging stakeholders.]
A small subset of comments suggested additional revisions to the Common Rule. For example, one commenter discussed the inclusion of a provision that would permit parents to decline certain procedures on behalf of their children.
[
Others discussed concerns with the waiver provision at § ___.101(i) and suggested that this provision be strengthened such that departments and agencies are only permitted to waive the Common Rule with regard to certain research activities when such a waiver
[
Some commenters expressed concerns with how the transition provision essentially creates a dual regulatory system for human subjects protections. One commenter explicitly advocated for the Common Rule to require all research subject to the Common Rule to comply with the 2018 Requirements by a certain date given the additional protections to subjects that the revised Common Rule affords research participants.
[
A few comments suggested that the general compliance date of the 2018 Requirements should coincide with FDA's revision of its human subjects protection regulations in order for there not to be a time period where FDA regulations are not harmonized with the other Common Rule departments and agencies.
[
One commenter argued that the 2018 Requirements should not be implemented at all, as in their view, the pre-2018 Requirements adequately protect human subjects.
[
A couple of commenters argued that the general compliance date for the cooperative research provision (§ ___.114) should be delayed to 2022.
[
The April 20, 2018 NPRM sought comment on two primary proposals: (1) The proposal to delay the general compliance date for the 2018 Requirements to January 21, 2019; and (2) whether institutions should be allowed to implement three burden-reducing provisions in the 2018 Requirements during the delay period from July 19, 2018 to January 21, 2019. The NPRM also solicited comment on the advisability of two alternative approaches to delaying the 2018 Requirements: (1) The alternative of delaying the effective date and general compliance date until January 21, 2019, but without the option to implement certain 2018 Requirements during that delay period; and (2) the alternative of delaying the effective date and general compliance date beyond January 21, 2019. The NPRM also solicited comment on whether the general compliance date for the 2018 Requirements should remain July 19, 2018.
The NPRM proposed to modify the transition provision at § ___.101(l) to permit an institution or IRB (and not just an IRB) to document the institution's decision to transition a study to comply with the 2018 Requirements. (We received no public comments on this proposal.)
A majority of comments that discussed the NPRM proposals supported some kind of delay to the implementation of the 2018 Requirements. A majority supported the NPRM proposals as drafted but indicated that their support was contingent upon the Common Rule departments and agencies issuing the relevant guidance prior to July 19, 2018 for the three burden-reducing provisions, and all other key guidance documents before the January 2019 general compliance date. In particular, commenters noted that critical guidance documents would need to be available to the regulated community at least four months prior to the proposed general compliance date of January 21, 2019. These commenters specifically stated that if critical guidance documents were not available by September 19, 2019, they would support an additional delay of the general compliance date.
Comments in response to the NPRM generally supported the position that many institutions need additional time to prepare to implement the 2018 Requirements, and that the Common Rule departments and agencies need more time to develop and issue guidance. Several commenters specifically noted that the Department of Veterans Affairs is not yet ready to implement the 2018 Requirements and needs more time.
Commenters suggested guidance documents that should be provided as quickly as possible to the regulated community. These suggestions included revising existing guidance, or issuing new guidance, as follows:
[
One commenter noted that if Common Rule departments and agencies envisioned a specific way that institutions or IRBs should document the use of the three burden-reducing provisions in the 2018 Requirements or document the fact that an ongoing study has transitioned to comply with the 2018 Requirements, that information must be communicated to the regulated community as soon as possible.
[
Several alternatives were suggested for how a delay might be structured. These included:
A minority of comments indicated concern that the NPRM proposals would be confusing for the regulated community to implement accurately. However, several of these comments indicated that if the Common Rule departments and agencies determined that moving forward with a delay was still appropriate, the structure proposed in the NPRM would be acceptable.
Regardless of the delay structure endorsed, commenters noted that no matter the delay option chosen by Common Rule departments and agencies, guidance needed to be issued in order for the regulated community to make use of the delay period and prepare their institutions.
[
We do not believe a delay of the general compliance date beyond January 21, 2019 is necessary. As discussed in the NPRM, we continue to believe that the regulated community will not need additional time beyond January 2019 to comply with the 2018 Requirements. Most NPRM comments supported the idea that January 2019 would be sufficient to allow for implementation of the 2018 Requirements, provided that the Common Rule departments and agencies issued key guidance.
We recognize that the implementation structure in this final rule might be confusing to some in the regulated community. We intend to engage in educational outreach to help the regulated community better understand what is permitted and what is not under the revised transition provision at § __.101(l).]
Several commenters indicated that understanding OHRP's plan for modifying the Federalwide Assurance (“FWA”) process to comport with the 2018 Requirements would also be helpful. Specific concerns were raised about the deletion of the option to “check the box” on the FWA and how the removal of this option will, in certain states with separate human subjects requirements, present administrative challenges for institutions. Another commenter expressed concern about whether, after January 21, 2019, FWAs would still be valid given that they would include statements and elections no longer required under the 2018 Requirements.
[
One commenter expressed concern with how auditors would handle IRBs reviewing protocols governed by both
[
While the NPRM did not solicit comments on the requirement for cooperative research to be reviewed by a single IRB (see § ___.114), we received several comments discussing this provision. Several asked for an additional 2-year delay before the changes at § ___.114(b) become effective. Others said that this provision should be amended such that use of a single IRB is voluntary in cooperative research. These comments argued that the 2018 Requirements' preamble (published in the January 19, 2017 final rule) underestimated the costs of the single IRB mandate and the confusion that implementing this policy would create for investigators. Several of these comments acknowledged that over time, as institutions become accustomed to developing reliance agreements and managing the single IRB process, the costs currently being experienced would decrease.
[
One comment suggested adding the exemption category for secondary use where consent is not required (§ ___.104(d)(4)) to the burden-reducing provisions. This commenter noted that because the inability to implement the revised exemptions during the delay period (
[
One commenter argued that the 2018 Requirements should be withdrawn, and that Common Rule departments and agencies should issue several smaller NPRMs to revise specific aspects of the Common Rule.
[
One commenter proposed that institutions or other Common Rule departments and agencies be required to file interim reports with HHS about their status with regard to full implementation and compliance with the 2018 Requirements. This commenter suggested that HHS could issue waivers for full implementation of the rule based on these interim reports. Additionally, such a reporting requirement would give HHS and other Common Rule departments and agencies the data necessary to determine if another adjustment to the 2018 Requirements might be needed.
[
One commenter indicated a desire to see a final rule containing the flexibility included in the original publication of the 2018 Requirements, on January 19, 2017, that institutions be permitted to implement provisions of the 2018 Requirements at any time before the effective date.
[
As with the comments on the interim final rule, a few comments expressed concern with the waiver provision at § ___.101(i) allowing federal departments and agencies to waive some or all provisions of the Common Rule (which could allow research to be conducted on people without their informed consent). These comments additionally expressed concern with institutions being permitted to implement the exclusion of certain operational activities conducted by intelligence agencies during the delay period and suggested that this carve-out from the definition of research be removed from the 2018 Requirements.
[
Through this final rule, the general compliance date for the 2018 Requirements is delayed for a 6-month period until January 21, 2019. Section __.101(l)(2) is revised to make this delay explicit. The dates included in the transition provision, set forth at § ___.101(l)(3), (4), and (5), are also modified to reflect this revised general compliance date.
As a result of this rule, regulated entities will be required to comply with the pre-2018 Requirements prior to January 21, 2019 (putting aside the
The compliance date for the cooperative research provision of the 2018 Requirements (§ ___.114(b)) remains January 20, 2020.
As detailed in revised § ___.101(l)(4) and as set forth below in more detail, during the additional 6-month period that the general compliance date for the 2018 Requirements is delayed (July 19, 2018 through January 20, 2019), institutions may transition a research study to the 2018 Requirements in order to take advantage of three burden-reducing provisions of the 2018 Requirements. This final rule also restructures § ___.101(l)(3) and (4) (now numbered (5)) to aid readability. A new section (now § ___.101(1)(4)) describes how the requirements apply to research transitioning to take advantage of the burden-reducing provisions during different time periods. Below, we provide an overview of the revised transition provision to clarify its application to different types of studies, including studies taking early advantage of the three burden-reducing provisions of the 2018 Requirements.
As a default, studies initiated (
Research initiated (
Section __.101(l)(4)(ii) applies to studies following the pre-2018 Requirements that transition to comply with the 2018 Requirements on or after January 21, 2019. In such circumstances, the study must be conducted in compliance with the 2018 Requirements beginning on the transition date (
As described in
Beginning on the date that the transition determination is documented, through January 20, 2019, such studies must comply with the pre-2018 Requirements, except that the studies will comply with the three burden-reducing provisions instead of or in addition to the comparable pre-2018 Requirements (specified in § ___.101(l)(4)(i)(A)(
• Pursuant to § ___.101(l)(4)(i)(A)(
• Pursuant to § ___.101(l)(4)(i)(A)(
• Pursuant to § __.101(l)(4)(i)(A)(
This approach is designed to afford institutions additional time before they are required to comply with all provisions of the 2018 Requirements, while enabling them to take advantage of the three burden-reducing provisions during the delay period.
In addition, beginning on January 21, 2019, such studies must, for the balance of their duration, comply with the 2018 Requirements in their entirety.
We believe this rule strikes an appropriate balance of permitting voluntary early adoption of provisions that reduce burdens without creating significant complexities. An institution's decision about whether to transition a study to the 2018 Requirements to take advantage of the three burden-reducing provisions might vary depending on the nature and progress of the study, including any elements of the study to be conducted on or after January 21, 2019. For example, studies planning to recruit some subjects on or after January 21, 2019 would have to meet the new requirements for obtaining the informed consent of those subjects. In contrast, for studies in which the remaining activities consist only of completing data analyses, the new requirements for informed consent generally would not be applicable.
While the three burden-reducing provisions are a regulatory package, an institution that takes advantage of this flexibility may, as a matter of institutional policy, adopt a more stringent standard (such as that of the pre-2018 Requirements) for any or all of the circumstances addressed by these three provisions. For example, if an institution chooses to adopt a policy that studies that qualify for expedited review under a certain category should continue to be subject to annual continuing review, this rule does not prevent the institution from adopting and implementing that policy.
Given that studies taking advantage of this flexibility will be complying with provisions from both the pre-2018 Requirements and the 2018 Requirements during the delay period, we explain how some provisions interact and clarify our intended
1. In applying the definition of research under the 2018 Requirements (§ ___.102(l)(3)), the reference to a “public health authority” will be given the meaning provided in the definition of “public health authority” in the 2018 Requirements (§ ___.102(k)). This interpretation arises because “public health authority” is defined in the 2018 Requirements, but not in the pre-2018 Requirements.
2. In applying § ___.103(d) of the 2018 Requirements, the reference to research “exempted under § __.104” will be interpreted to refer to research exempted under § ___.101(b) of the pre-2018 Requirements. This interpretation arises given that only the exemptions set forth in the pre-2018 Requirements will be in effect during the 6-month delay period.
3. The reference to “[r]esearch eligible for expedited review in accordance with § ___.110” in § ___.109(f)(1)(i) of the 2018 Requirements will be interpreted to refer to § ___.110 of the pre-2018 Requirements.
4. The documentation requirements described in § ___.115(a)(3) of the 2018 Requirements (documenting an IRB's rationale for conducting continuing review not otherwise required) are not applicable during this period.
5. Section__.103(d) of the 2018 Requirements will be substituted for § ___.103(f) of the pre-2018 Requirements. Both sections address the requirement for certification of research supported by a federal department or agency. In addition to removing the requirement that IRBs review grant applications or proposals, § ___.103(d) of the 2018 Requirements reflects other minor wording changes necessary to accommodate the removal of the grant application or proposal review requirement or to provide additional clarifications.
The regulatory provisions are not prescriptive regarding how an institution chooses to make its transition decisions. An institution may elect to transition research protocols to the 2018 Requirements on a protocol-by-protocol basis, or for a class of protocols (
Section __.101(l)(4)(ii) applies to studies following the pre-2018 Requirements that, at some point on or after January 21, 2019, transition to comply with the 2018 Requirements. If the determination to transition a study to the 2018 Requirements is documented on or after January 21, 2019, as of the date of documentation the study must be conducted in compliance with the 2018 Requirements for its duration.
We clarify that the transition provision at § ___.101(l)(4) of the 2018 Requirements extends to research newly initiated during the delay period. Research newly initiated between July 19, 2018 and January 20, 2019 may be either conducted under the pre-2018 Requirements, in accordance with § __.101(l)(3); or, an institution may transition research newly initiated during the delay period to the 2018 Requirements, in accordance with § __.101(l)(4), in which event the research would be conducted under the pre-2018 Requirements, with substitution of the three burden-reducing provisions of the 2018 Requirements for the comparable provisions of the pre-2018 Requirements. In addition, on or after January 21, 2019, an institution may choose to transition research initiated during the delay period that was initially conducted under the pre-2018 Requirements, to compliance with the 2018 Requirements. In the NPRM, proposed § ___.101(l)(4) referenced application by an institution “engaged in research” to “ongoing” research. In order to clarify the Common Rule departments' and agencies' intention that research newly initiated during the delay period may transition to the 2018 Requirements, this final rule no longer includes the qualifier of “ongoing” to describe research that transitions to the 2018 Requirements in accordance with § ___.101(l)(4). The final rule at § ___.101(l)(4) also includes the additional wording “planning or” before “engaged in research” to clarify that institutions are allowed to take advantage of the 2018 Requirements' carve-outs from the definition of research for studies newly initiated during the delay period (which would allow a study that qualifies for one of the carve-outs to be conducted without prior IRB review and approval or application of the other regulatory requirements).
This final rule revises the requirement, now set forth at § ___.101(l)(4), regarding which entity may document an institution's decision to transition research. This change will offer institutions greater flexibility regarding who documents the transition determination. Under the January 19, 2017 final rule, an institutional determination that research would transition to comply with the 2018 Requirements had to be documented by an IRB. Under this rule, such a determination may be documented either by an IRB or an institution (through officials who have the authority to make such determinations on behalf of the institution). Such documentation must include the date of the transition determination, and records documenting the transition decision must be retained in accordance with § ___.115(b).
As a general matter, once an institution decides to transition a study to the 2018 Requirements and that determination is documented, the date of documentation will serve as the de facto compliance date for either the three-burden reducing provisions for transition determinations documented between July 19, 2018 and January 20, 2019, or the 2018 Requirements as applied to the study for transition determinations documented on or after January 21, 2019.
This final rule has an effective date of July 19, 2018, to enable regulated entities to take advantage of the three burden-reducing provisions during the delay period. However, as explained in this rule, the requirements a study must comply with beginning on July 19, 2018 are detailed in the transition provision codified at § ___.101(l)(1)-(5). Finally, for consistency, headings were added to § ___.101(l)(1) and (2).
The legal authorities for the departments and agencies that are signatories to this action are as follows:
Department of Homeland Security, 5 U.S.C. 301; Public Law 107-296, sec. 102, 306(c); Public Law 108-458, sec. 8306. Department of Agriculture, 5 U.S.C. 301; 42 U.S.C. 300v-1(b). Department of Energy, 5 U.S.C. 301; 42 U.S.C. 7254; 42 U.S.C. 300v-1(b). National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 5 U.S.C. 301; 42 U.S.C. 300v-1(b). Department of Commerce, 5 U.S.C. 301; 42 U.S.C. 300v-1(b). Consumer Product Safety Commission, 5 U.S.C. 301; 42 U.S.C. 300v-1(b). Social Security Administration, 5 U.S.C. 301; 42 U.S.C. 289(a). Agency for International Development, 5 U.S.C. 301; 42 U.S.C. 300v-1(b), unless otherwise noted. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 5 U.S.C. 301; 42 U.S.C. 300v-1(b); 3535(d). Department of Labor, 5 U.S.C. 301; 29 U.S.C. 551. Department of Defense, 5 U.S.C. 301. Department of Education, 5 U.S.C. 301; 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 3474.
We have examined the effects of this final rule under Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review (September 30, 1993), Executive Order 13563 on Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review (January 18, 2011), Executive Order 13771 on Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs (January 30, 2017), the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354, September 19, 1980), the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), and Executive Order 13132 on Federalism (August 4, 1999).
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 is supplemental to and reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review as established in Executive Order 12866, emphasizing the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. In accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12866, this rule was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and has been determined to be a “significant” regulatory action. This regulation has been designated as “regulatory” under Executive Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, issued on January 30, 2017). We estimate that this rule generates $2.02 million in annualized costs at a 7% discount rate, discounted relative to year 2016, over a perpetual time horizon. Details on the estimated costs of this final rule can be found in the economic analysis below.
On January 19, 2017, HHS and 15 other federal departments and agencies published the 2018 Requirements designed to more thoroughly address the broader types of research conducted or otherwise supported by all of the Common Rule departments and agencies. In addition, the CPSC adopted the same regulatory changes on September 18, 2017. This rule was amended in a final rule published in the
This final rule allows regulated entities to continue to comply with the pre-2018 requirements until January 21, 2019. As discussed above, this final rule also permits institutions, during the period between July 19, 2018 and January 21, 2019, to take advantage of three provisions in the 2018 Requirements intended to minimize burdens on regulated entities. Those three burden-reducing 2018 Requirements are (1) the 2018 Requirements' definition of “research,” which deems certain activities not to be research, (2) the elimination of the requirement for annual continuing review of certain categories of research, and (3) the elimination of the requirement that IRBs review grant applications or proposals related to the research. As described in section III above, this flexibility is permitted for studies for which an institution makes a choice to have those studies be subject to the 2018 Requirements.
The April 20, 2018 NPRM RIA solicited comment on the following assumptions:
—That this rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
We received several comments on the costs and benefits associated with the April 20, 2018 NPRM to delay the 2018 Requirements. None of these comments provided specific feedback on the cost and benefit assumptions included in the NPRM.
These comments indicated that the timing and implementation of the interim final rule created additional administrative burden on institutions that were prepared to implement the 2018 Requirements on January 19, 2018.
As discussed above, one comment noted that if we permitted the exemption at § ___.104(d)(4) for secondary research where consent is not required to be implemented prior to the general compliance date, this delay would essentially be cost neutral. While we appreciate that there might be economic benefits to permitting the early implementation of one or more of the new or revised exemption categories, we did not include the exemptions as one of the provisions of the 2018 Requirements institutions can utilize during the delay period finalized in this rule because of the added complexity of implementing the exemptions in the absence of guidance.
Finally, we received several comments indicating that the January 19, 2017 final rule preamble underestimated the costs of implementing the cooperative research provision at § ___.114. These comments argued that, at best, this provision would represent a shifting of administrative costs and burdens, but would not represent an overall cost savings. We continue to believe that the original compliance date of this provision in January 2020 gives institutions sufficient time to prepare and implement this requirement. While these commenters anecdotally indicated that implementing this requirement has been more costly to institutions than the January 19, 2017 final rule preamble estimated, no commenter provided data about the actual costs to implement this provision. In the absence of specific
The RIA for the 2018 Requirements described the benefits and costs of 16 broad categories of changes finalized. The RIA for this final rule uses the information and calculations described in the preamble to the 2018 Requirements as a base for estimating benefits and costs of delaying the general implementation of the 2018 Requirements by six months. The time period for the analysis in this RIA is the 6-month period from July 2018 to January 2019.
Table 1 summarizes the quantified benefits and costs of delaying the general implementation of 2018 Requirements. Over the period of July 2018 to January 2019, annualized benefits of $6.4 million are estimated using a 3 percent discount rate; annualized benefits of $5.9 million are estimated using a 7 percent discount rate. Annualized costs of $37.2 million are estimated using a 3 percent discount rate; annualized costs of $34.4 million are estimated using a 7 percent discount rate. Note that all values are represented in millions of 2016 dollars, and 2016 is used as the frame of reference for discounting.
The estimated benefits and costs of delaying the general implementation date of the 2018 Requirements by 6 months are shown in Table 2 below. Note that the categorization shown below includes the same 16 categories used in the RIA of the 2018 Requirements.
We assume that in almost all categories described in the RIA for the 2018 Requirements the foregone benefits (costs) of delaying the 2018 Requirements by 6 months are what would have been the benefits of implementing the 2018 Requirements during the period of July 2018 through January 2019. Similarly, we assume that, in almost all categories described in the RIA for the 2018 Requirements, the benefits (cost-savings) associated with delaying the 2018 Requirements by 6 months are what would have been the costs of implementing the 2018 Requirements during the period of July 2018 through January 2019. We assume this because regulated entities likely would not have difficulty implementing these provisions in the absence of guidance from Common Rule departments or agencies, and thus could have been implemented as assumed in the economic analysis contained in the RIA for the 2018 Requirements.
Categories with different assumptions are described below.
a. Regulated Community Learning New Requirements and Developing Training Materials; OHRP Developing Training and Guidance Materials, and Implementing the 2018 Requirements
We assume that even with the proposed 6-month delay, regulated entities and OHRP will still assume costs related to learning the new requirements and developing training materials. Thus, there are no effects estimated here.
We expect that some entities would experience cost savings as a result of this final rule, and some entities will experience costs as a result of this rule, but we lack data to quantify these effects.
We assume that 50 percent of regulated entities will take advantage of the option included in this final rule to implement three burden-reducing provisions of the 2018 Requirements prior to the general compliance date. We assume this because an institution's decision about whether to transition a study to the 2018 Requirements to take advantage of the three burden-reducing provisions might vary depending on the nature and progress of the study, including any elements of the study to be conducted on or after January 21, 2019. For example, studies planning to recruit some subjects on or after January 21, 2019 would have to meet the new requirements for obtaining the informed consent of those subjects. In contrast, for studies whose remaining activities consist only of completing data analyses, the new requirements for informed consent would generally not be applicable. Therefore, we assume that there are situations in which an institution would want to take advantage of the three burden-reducing provisions, and situations in which an institution would not want to take advantage of this flexibility. We note that we intend to publish guidance on the carve-outs from the definition of research prior to July 19, 2018, which may also impact an institution's decision to elect to implement the three burden-reducing provisions or not.
Thus, these entities will still obtain the benefits and costs described in the RIA for the 2018 Requirements, implying no effects of this rule for 50 percent of regulated entities. For the regulated entities that do not take advantage of these flexibilities, we assume that the foregone benefits (costs) of delaying implementation of these provisions are what would have been the benefits of implementing these provisions in January 2018. Similarly, we assume that the benefits (cost-savings) associated with delaying the implementation of these provisions are what would have been the costs of implementing these provisions in July 2018. We assume that these regulated entities account for 50 percent of the costs and benefits that would have been experienced in 2018 absent this delay.
We also assume that institutional or IRB staff at the IRB Administrative staff level
Some members of the regulated community have indicated that even though the 2018 Requirements yield cost savings, these institutions are still hesitant to transition ongoing research to the 2018 Requirements, largely because of the burden of making studies already in compliance with the pre-2018 requirements comply with the 2018 requirements. Also, some institutions seem inclined to make all of the transitions at once. This interconnectedness is key to some of the assumptions noted elsewhere in this analysis. For example, if the three burden-reducing provisions are considered on their own, a reasonable assumption would be that 100 percent of affected entities would realize the associated cost savings as soon as possible. The use, instead, of a 50 percent estimate reflects entities' possible inclinations to make all transitions at once.
The 2018 Requirements include five new exemption categories and modify
Because the guidance documents that would be helpful to assist regulated entities in implementing these provisions of the 2018 Requirements have not yet been issued, we assume that 50 percent of the regulated entities would not have taken advantage of the expansion in exemptions during this six month-delay. For these entities, we assume that there are no benefits and costs of the proposed delay, because they would not have changed their operations. We assume that 50 percent of the regulated entities would have gone forward with using the new or expanded exemption categories under the 2018 Requirements; for these entities, there are costs of delaying the implementation of this provision during the six-month delay proposed in this NPRM.
We do not have data to support our assumption of what percent of regulated entities would have gone forward with the implementation of these provisions in the absence of additional guidance, and what percent would not have gone forward.
An alternative to the proposal finalized in this rule was to delay the effective date and general compliance date to January 21, 2019.
Table 3 summarizes the quantified benefits and costs of the alternative proposal of delaying the general implementation of 2018 Requirements without the option to implement certain provisions of the 2018 Requirements. Over the period of July 2018 to January 2019, annualized benefits of $7.4 million are estimated using a 3 percent discount rate; annualized benefits of $6.9 million are estimated using a 7 percent discount rate. Annualized costs of $50.8 million are estimated using a 3 percent discount rate; annualized costs of $47.0 million are estimated using a 7 percent discount rate. Note that all values are represented in millions of 2016 dollars, and 2016 is used as the frame of reference for discounting.
This final rule contains collections of information that are subject to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), as amended (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). A description of these provisions is given in this document with an estimate of the annual reporting and recordkeeping burden.
Section 101(l)(4)(i) permits studies to transition to the 2018 Requirements between July 19, 2018 and January 21, 2019 (which would be the new general compliance date for the 2018 Requirements). Between July 19, 2018 and January 21, 2019, institutions that elect to transition studies to the 2018 Requirements would, after the decision to transition has been documented, be able to take advantage of the three burden-reducing 2018 Requirements.
This option is described in a revision to § ___.101(l)(4)(i). As described, studies taking advantage of this option would be subject to the three burden-reducing 2018 Requirements instead of, or in addition to, the comparable provisions of the pre-2018 Requirements. As discussed above, the three burden-reducing 2018 Requirements are (1) the 2018 Requirements' definition of “research” at § ___.102(l) (instead of § ___.102(d) of the pre-2018 Requirements), which deems certain activities not to be research, (2) the elimination of the requirement that an IRB review the grant application or proposal related to the research at § ___.103(d) of the 2018 Requirements (instead of § ___.103(f) of the pre-2018 Requirements), and (3) the elimination of the requirement for annual continuing review of certain categories of research at § ___.109(f)(1)(i) and (iii) of the 2018 Requirements (instead of § ___.103(b), as related to the requirement for continuing review, and in addition to § ___.109 of the pre-2018 Requirements).
We estimate that approximately 92,084 protocols would take advantage of the voluntary election described in § ___.101(l)(4)(i). We estimate that institutional staff would spend 5 minutes per protocol documenting that the study will be subject to the three burden-reducing provisions of the 2018 Requirements during the time period of July 19, 2018 through January 21, 2019. We estimate that this provision includes 7,674 burden hours.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
We have determined that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. This final rule would not impose a regulatory burden for regulated small entities because it would delay the general compliance date for the 2018 Requirements, allowing the status quo to be retained for the period of delay. Additionally, regulated small entities are permitted to comply voluntarily with those aspects of the 2018 Requirements that do not conflict with the pre-2018 Requirements, prior to January 21, 2019. We have therefore concluded that this action will have no net regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.
Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year.” In 2018, that threshold is approximately $150 million. We do not expect this rule to result in expenditures that will exceed this amount. This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments.2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates a rule that imposes substantial direct requirement costs on state and local governments or has federalism implications. We have determined that this rule would not contain policies that would have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The changes in this rule represent the Federal Government regulating its own program. Accordingly, we conclude that the rule does not propose policies that have federalism implications as defined in Executive Order 13132 and, consequently, a federalism summary impact statement is not required.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects, as published in the
1. Amend § ___.101 by adding a heading for paragraph (l)(1), revising paragraphs (l)(2), (3), and (4), and adding paragraph (l)(5) to read as follows:
(l) * * *
(1)
(2)
(3)
(i) Research initially approved by an IRB under the pre-2018 Requirements before January 21, 2019;
(ii) Research for which IRB review was waived pursuant to § ___.101(i) of the pre-2018 Requirements before January 21, 2019; and
(iii) Research for which a determination was made that the research was exempt under § .101(b) of the pre-2018 Requirements before January 21, 2019.
(4)
(i) If the determination to transition is documented between July 19, 2018, and January 20, 2019, the research shall:
(A) Beginning on the date of such documentation through January 20, 2019, comply with the pre-2018 Requirements, except that the research shall comply with the following:
(
(
(
(B) Beginning on January 21, 2019, comply with the 2018 Requirements.
(ii) If the determination to transition is documented on or after January 21, 2019, the research shall, beginning on the date of such documentation, comply with the 2018 Requirements.
(5)
(i) Research initially approved by an IRB on or after January 21, 2019;
(ii) Research for which IRB review is waived pursuant to paragraph (i) of this section on or after January 21, 2019; and
(iii) Research for which a determination is made that the research is exempt on or after January 21, 2019.
Human research subjects, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, Department of Homeland Security further amends 6 CFR part 46 as published in the
5 U.S.C. 301; Pub. L. 107-296, sec. 102, 306(c); Pub. L. 108-458, sec. 8306.
(l) * * *
(1)
(2)
(3)
(i) Research initially approved by an IRB under the pre-2018 Requirements before January 21, 2019;
(ii) Research for which IRB review was waived pursuant to § 46.101(i) of the pre-2018 Requirements) before January 21, 2019; and
(iii) Research for which a determination was made that the research was exempt under § 46.101(b) of the pre-2018 Requirements before January 21, 2019.
(4)
(i) If the determination to transition is documented between July 19, 2018, and January 20, 2019, the research shall:
(A) Beginning on the date of such documentation through January 20, 2019, comply with the pre-2018 Requirements, except that the research shall comply with the following:
(
(
(
(B) Beginning on January 21, 2019, comply with the 2018 Requirements.
(ii) If the determination to transition is documented on or after January 21, 2019, the research shall, beginning on the date of such documentation, comply with the 2018 Requirements.
(5)
(i) Research initially approved by an IRB on or after January 21, 2019;
(ii) Research for which IRB review is waived pursuant to paragraph (i) of this section on or after January 21, 2019; and
(iii) Research for which a determination is made that the research is exempt on or after January 21, 2019.
Human research subjects, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, Department of Agriculture further amends 7 CFR part 1c as published in the
5 U.S.C. 301; 42 U.S.C. 300v-1(b).
(l) * * *
(1)
(2)
(3)
(i) Research initially approved by an IRB under the pre-2018 Requirements before January 21, 2019;
(ii) Research for which IRB review was waived pursuant to § 1c.101(i) of the pre-2018 Requirements before January 21, 2019; and
(iii) Research for which a determination was made that the research was exempt under § 1c.101(b)
(4)
(i) If the determination to transition is documented between July 19, 2018, and January 20, 2019, the research shall:
(A) Beginning on the date of such documentation through January 20, 2019, comply with the pre-2018 Requirements, except that the research shall comply with the following:
(
(
(
(B) Beginning on January 21, 2019, comply with the 2018 Requirements.
(ii) If the determination to transition is documented on or after January 21, 2019, the research shall, beginning on the date of such documentation, comply with the 2018 Requirements.
(5)
(i) Research initially approved by an IRB on or after January 21, 2019;
(ii) Research for which IRB review is waived pursuant to paragraph (i) of this section on or after January 21, 2019; and
(iii) Research for which a determination is made that the research is exempt on or after January 21, 2019.
Human research subjects, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, Department of Energy further amends 10 CFR part 745 as published in the
5 U.S.C. 301; 42 U.S.C. 7254; 42 U.S.C. 300v-1(b).
(l) * * *
(1)
(2)
(3)
(i) Research initially approved by an IRB under the pre-2018 Requirements before January 21, 2019;
(ii) Research for which IRB review was waived pursuant to § 745.101(i) of the pre-2018 Requirements before January 21, 2019; and
(iii) Research for which a determination was made that the research was exempt under § 745.101(b) of the pre-2018 Requirements before January 21, 2019.
(4)
(i) If the determination to transition is documented between July 19, 2018, and January 20, 2019, the research shall:
(A) Beginning on the date of such documentation through January 20, 2019, comply with the pre-2018 Requirements, except that the research shall comply with the following:
(
(
(
(B) Beginning on January 21, 2019, comply with the 2018 Requirements.
(ii) If the determination to transition is documented on or after January 21, 2019, the research shall, beginning on the date of such documentation, comply with the 2018 Requirements.
(5)
(i) Research initially approved by an IRB on or after January 21, 2019;
(ii) Research for which IRB review is waived pursuant to paragraph (i) of this section on or after January 21, 2019; and
(iii) Research for which a determination is made that the research is exempt on or after January 21, 2019.
Human research subjects, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, National Aeronautics and Space Administration further amends 14 CFR part 1230 as published in the
5 U.S.C. 301; 42 U.S.C. 300v-1(b).
(l) * * *
(1)
(2)
(3)
(i) Research initially approved by an IRB under the pre-2018 Requirements before January 21, 2019;
(ii) Research for which IRB review was waived pursuant to § 1230.101(i) of the pre-2018 Requirements before January 21, 2019; and
(iii) Research for which a determination was made that the research was exempt under § 1230.101(b) of the pre-2018 Requirements before January 21, 2019.
(4)
(i) If the determination to transition is documented between July 19, 2018, and January 20, 2019, the research shall:
(A) Beginning on the date of such documentation through January 20, 2019, comply with the pre-2018 Requirements, except that the research shall comply with the following:
(
(
(
(B) Beginning on January 21, 2019, comply with the 2018 Requirements.
(ii) If the determination to transition is documented on or after January 21, 2019, the research shall, beginning on the date of such documentation, comply with the 2018 Requirements.
(5)
(i) Research initially approved by an IRB on or after January 21, 2019;
(ii) Research for which IRB review is waived pursuant to paragraph (i) of this section on or after January 21, 2019; and
(iii) Research for which a determination is made that the research is exempt on or after January 21, 2019.
Human research subjects, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, Department of Commerce further amends 15 CFR part 27 as published in the
5 U.S.C. 301; 42 U.S.C. 300v-1(b).
(l) * * *
(1)
(2)
(3)
(i) Research initially approved by an IRB under the pre-2018 Requirements before January 21, 2019;
(ii) Research for which IRB review was waived pursuant to § 27.101(i) of the pre-2018 Requirements before January 21, 2019; and
(iii) Research for which a determination was made that the research was exempt under § 27.101(b) of the pre-2018 Requirements before January 21, 2019.
(4)
(i) If the determination to transition is documented between July 19, 2018, and January 20, 2019, the research shall:
(A) Beginning on the date of such documentation through January 20, 2019, comply with the pre-2018 Requirements, except that the research shall comply with the following:
(
(
(
(B) Beginning on January 21, 2019, comply with the 2018 Requirements.
(ii) If the determination to transition is documented on or after January 21, 2019, the research shall, beginning on the date of such documentation, comply with the 2018 Requirements.
(5)
(i) Research initially approved by an IRB on or after January 21, 2019;
(ii) Research for which IRB review is waived pursuant to paragraph (i) of this section on or after January 21, 2019; and
(iii) Research for which a determination is made that the research is exempt on or after January 21, 2019.
Human research subjects, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, Consumer Product Safety Commission further amends 16 CFR part 1028 as published in the
5 U.S.C. 301; 42 U.S.C. 300v-1(b).
(l) * * *
(1)
(2)
(3)
(i) Research initially approved by an IRB under the pre-2018 Requirements before January 21, 2019;
(ii) Research for which IRB review was waived pursuant to § 1028.101(i) of the pre-2018 Requirements before January 21, 2019; and
(iii) Research for which a determination was made that the research was exempt under § 1028.101(b) of the pre-2018 Requirements before January 21, 2019.
(4)
(i) If the determination to transition is documented between July 19, 2018, and January 20, 2019, the research shall:
(A) Beginning on the date of such documentation through January 20, 2019, comply with the pre-2018 Requirements, except that the research shall comply with the following:
(
(
(
(B) Beginning on January 21, 2019, comply with the 2018 Requirements.
(ii) If the determination to transition is documented on or after January 21, 2019, the research shall, beginning on the date of such documentation, comply with the 2018 Requirements.
(5)
(i) Research initially approved by an IRB on or after January 21, 2019;
(ii) Research for which IRB review is waived pursuant to paragraph (i) of this section on or after January 21, 2019; and
(iii) Research for which a determination is made that the research is exempt on or after January 21, 2019.
Human research subjects, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, Social Security Administration further amends 20 CFR part 431 as published in the
5 U.S.C. 301; 42 U.S.C. 289(a).
(l) * * *
(1)
(2)
(3)
(i) Research initially approved by an IRB under the pre-2018 Requirements before January 21, 2019;
(ii) Research for which IRB review was waived pursuant to § 431.101(i) of the pre-2018 Requirements before January 21, 2019; and
(iii) Research for which a determination was made that the research was exempt under § 431.101(b) of the pre-2018 Requirements before January 21, 2019.
(4)
(i) If the determination to transition is documented between July 19, 2018, and January 20, 2019, the research shall:
(A) Beginning on the date of such documentation through January 20, 2019, comply with the pre-2018
(
(
(
(B) Beginning on January 21, 2019, comply with the 2018 Requirements.
(ii) If the determination to transition is documented on or after January 21, 2019, the research shall, beginning on the date of such documentation, comply with the 2018 Requirements.
(5)
(i) Research initially approved by an IRB on or after January 21, 2019;
(ii) Research for which IRB review is waived pursuant to paragraph (i) of this section on or after January 21, 2019; and
(iii) Research for which a determination is made that the research is exempt on or after January 21, 2019.
Human research subjects, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, Agency for International Development further amends 22 CFR part 225 as published in the
5 U.S.C. 301; 42 U.S.C. 300v-1(b), unless otherwise noted.
(l) * * *
(1)
(2)
(3)
(i) Research initially approved by an IRB under the pre-2018 Requirements before January 21, 2019;
(ii) Research for which IRB review was waived pursuant to § 225.101(i) of the pre-2018 Requirements before January 21, 2019; and
(iii) Research for which a determination was made that the research was exempt under § 225.101(b) of the pre-2018 Requirements before January 21, 2019.
(4)
(i) If the determination to transition is documented between July 19, 2018, and January 20, 2019, the research shall:
(A) Beginning on the date of such documentation through January 20, 2019, comply with the pre-2018 Requirements, except that the research shall comply with the following:
(
(
(
(B) Beginning on January 21, 2019, comply with the 2018 Requirements.
(ii) If the determination to transition is documented on or after January 21, 2019, the research shall, beginning on the date of such documentation, comply with the 2018 Requirements.
(5)
(i) Research initially approved by an IRB on or after January 21, 2019;
(ii) Research for which IRB review is waived pursuant to paragraph (i) of this section on or after January 21, 2019; and
(iii) Research for which a determination is made that the research is exempt on or after January 21, 2019.
Human research subjects, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, Department of Housing and Urban Development further amends 24 CFR part 60 as published in the
5 U.S.C. 301; 42 U.S.C. 300v-1(b) and 3535(d).
(l) * * *
(1)
(2)
(3)
(i) Research initially approved by an IRB under the pre-2018 Requirements before January 21, 2019;
(ii) Research for which IRB review was waived pursuant to § 60.101(i) of the pre-2018 Requirements before January 21, 2019; and
(iii) Research for which a determination was made that the research was exempt under § 60.101(b) of the pre-2018 Requirements before January 21, 2019.
(4)
(i) If the determination to transition is documented between July 19, 2018, and January 20, 2019, the research shall:
(A) Beginning on the date of such documentation through January 20, 2019, comply with the pre-2018 Requirements, except that the research shall comply with the following:
(
(
(
(B) Beginning on January 21, 2019, comply with the 2018 Requirements.
(ii) If the determination to transition is documented on or after January 21, 2019, the research shall, beginning on the date of such documentation, comply with the 2018 Requirements.
(5)
(i) Research initially approved by an IRB on or after January 21, 2019;
(ii) Research for which IRB review is waived pursuant to paragraph (i) of this section on or after January 21, 2019; and
(iii) Research for which a determination is made that the research is exempt on or after January 21, 2019.
Human research subjects, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, Department of Labor further amends 29 CFR part 21 as published in the
5 U.S.C. 301; 29 U.S.C. 551.
(l) * * *
(1)
(2)
(3)
(i) Research initially approved by an IRB under the pre-2018 Requirements before January 21, 2019;
(ii) Research for which IRB review was waived pursuant to § 21.101(i) of the pre-2018 Requirements before January 21, 2019; and
(iii) Research for which a determination was made that the research was exempt under § 21.101(b) of the pre-2018 Requirements before January 21, 2019.
(4)
(i) If the determination to transition is documented between July 19, 2018, and January 20, 2019, the research shall:
(A) Beginning on the date of such documentation through January 20, 2019, comply with the pre-2018 Requirements, except that the research shall comply with the following:
(
(
(
(B) Beginning on January 21, 2019, comply with the 2018 Requirements.
(ii) If the determination to transition is documented on or after January 21, 2019, the research shall, beginning on the date of such documentation, comply with the 2018 Requirements.
(5)
(i) Research initially approved by an IRB on or after January 21, 2019;
(ii) Research for which IRB review is waived pursuant to paragraph (i) of this section on or after January 21, 2019; and
(iii) Research for which a determination is made that the research is exempt on or after January 21, 2019.
Human research subjects, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, Department of Defense
5 U.S.C. 301; 42 U.S.C. 300v-1(b).
(l) * * *
(1)
(2)
(3)
(i) Research initially approved by an IRB under the pre-2018 Requirements before January 21, 2019;
(ii) Research for which IRB review was waived pursuant to § 219.101(i) of the pre-2018 Requirements before January 21, 2019; and
(iii) Research for which a determination was made that the research was exempt under § 219.101(b) of the pre-2018 Requirements before January 21, 2019.
(4)
(i) If the determination to transition is documented between July 19, 2018, and January 20, 2019, the research shall:
(A) Beginning on the date of such documentation through January 20, 2019, comply with the pre-2018 Requirements, except that the research shall comply with the following:
(
(
(
(B) Beginning on January 21, 2019, comply with the 2018 Requirements.
(ii) If the determination to transition is documented on or after January 21, 2019, the research shall, beginning on the date of such documentation, comply with the 2018 Requirements.
(5)
(i) Research initially approved by an IRB on or after January 21, 2019;
(ii) Research for which IRB review is waived pursuant to paragraph (i) of this section on or after January 21, 2019; and
(iii) Research for which a determination is made that the research is exempt on or after January 21, 2019.
Human research subjects, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, Department of Education further amends 34 CFR part 97 as published in the
5 U.S.C. 301; 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 3474; 42 U.S.C. 300v-1(b).
(l) * * *
(1)
(2)
(3)
(i) Research initially approved by an IRB under the pre-2018 Requirements before January 21, 2019;
(ii) Research for which IRB review was waived pursuant to § 97.101(i) of the pre-2018 Requirements before January 21, 2019; and
(iii) Research for which a determination was made that the research was exempt under § 97.101(b) of the pre-2018 Requirements before January 21, 2019.
(4)
(i) If the determination to transition is documented between July 19, 2018, and January 20, 2019, the research shall:
(A) Beginning on the date of such documentation through January 20, 2019, comply with the pre-2018 Requirements, except that the research shall comply with the following:
(
(
(
(B) Beginning on January 21, 2019, comply with the 2018 Requirements.
(ii) If the determination to transition is documented on or after January 21, 2019, the research shall, beginning on the date of such documentation, comply with the 2018 Requirements.
(5)
(i) Research initially approved by an IRB on or after January 21, 2019;
(ii) Research for which IRB review is waived pursuant to paragraph (i) of this section on or after January 21, 2019; and
(iii) Research for which a determination is made that the research is exempt on or after January 21, 2019.
Human research subjects, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, Department of Veterans Affairs further amends 38 CFR part 16 as published in the
5 U.S.C. 301; 38 U.S.C. 501, 7331, 7334; 42 U.S.C. 300v-1(b).
(l) * * *
(1)
(2)
(3)
(i) Research initially approved by an IRB under the pre-2018 Requirements before January 21, 2019;
(ii) Research for which IRB review was waived pursuant to § 16.101(i) of the pre-2018 Requirements before January 21, 2019; and
(iii) Research for which a determination was made that the research was exempt under § 16.101(b) of the pre-2018 Requirements before January 21, 2019.
(4)
(i) If the determination to transition is documented between July 19, 2018, and January 20, 2019, the research shall:
(A) Beginning on the date of such documentation through January 20, 2019, comply with the pre-2018 Requirements, except that the research shall comply with the following:
(
(
(
(B) Beginning on January 21, 2019, comply with the 2018 Requirements.
(ii) If the determination to transition is documented on or after January 21, 2019, the research shall, beginning on the date of such documentation, comply with the 2018 Requirements.
(5)
(i) Research initially approved by an IRB on or after January 21, 2019;
(ii) Research for which IRB review is waived pursuant to paragraph (i) of this section on or after January 21, 2019; and
(iii) Research for which a determination is made that the research is exempt on or after January 21, 2019.
Human research subjects, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, Environmental Protection Agency further amends 40 CFR part 26 as published in the
5 U.S.C. 301; 7 U.S.C. 136a(a) and 136w(a)(1); 21 U.S.C. 346a(e)(1)(C); sec. 201, Pub. L. 109-54, 119 Stat. 531; and 42 U.S.C. 300v-1(b).
(l) * * *
(1)
(2)
(3)
(i) Research initially approved by an IRB under the pre-2018 Requirements before January 21, 2019;
(ii) Research for which IRB review was waived pursuant to § 26.101(i) of the pre-2018 Requirements before January 21, 2019; and
(iii) Research for which a determination was made that the research was exempt under § 26.101(b) of the pre-2018 Requirements before January 21, 2019.
(4)
(i) If the determination to transition is documented between July 19, 2018, and January 20, 2019, the research shall:
(A) Beginning on the date of such documentation through January 20, 2019, comply with the pre-2018 Requirements, except that the research shall comply with the following:
(
(
(
(B) Beginning on January 21, 2019, comply with the 2018 Requirements.
(ii) If the determination to transition is documented on or after January 21, 2019, the research shall, beginning on the date of such documentation, comply with the 2018 Requirements.
(5)
(i) Research initially approved by an IRB on or after January 21, 2019;
(ii) Research for which IRB review is waived pursuant to paragraph (i) of this section on or after January 21, 2019; and
(iii) Research for which a determination is made that the research is exempt on or after January 21, 2019.
Human research subjects, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, Department of Health and Human Services further amends 45 CFR part 46 as published in the
5 U.S.C. 301; 42 U.S.C. 289(a); 42 U.S.C. 300v-1(b).
(l) * * *
(1)
(2)
(3)
(i) Research initially approved by an IRB under the pre-2018 Requirements before January 21, 2019;
(ii) Research for which IRB review was waived pursuant to § 46.101(i) of the pre-2018 Requirements before January 21, 2019; and
(iii) Research for which a determination was made that the research was exempt under § 46.101(b) of the pre-2018 Requirements before January 21, 2019.
(4)
(i) If the determination to transition is documented between July 19, 2018, and January 20, 2019, the research shall:
(A) Beginning on the date of such documentation through January 20, 2019, comply with the pre-2018 Requirements, except that the research shall comply with the following:
(
(
(
(B) Beginning on January 21, 2019, comply with the 2018 Requirements.
(ii) If the determination to transition is documented on or after January 21, 2019, the research shall, beginning on the date of such documentation, comply with the 2018 Requirements.
(5)
(i) Research initially approved by an IRB on or after January 21, 2019;
(ii) Research for which IRB review is waived pursuant to paragraph (i) of this section on or after January 21, 2019; and
(iii) Research for which a determination is made that the research is exempt on or after January 21, 2019.
Human research subjects, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, National Science Foundation further amends 45 CFR part 690 as published in the
5 U.S.C. 301; 42 U.S.C. 300v-1(b).
(l) * * *
(1)
(2)
(3)
(i) Research initially approved by an IRB under the pre-2018 Requirements before January 21, 2019;
(ii) Research for which IRB review was waived pursuant to § 690.101(i) of the pre-2018 Requirements before January 21, 2019; and
(iii) Research for which a determination was made that the research was exempt under § 690.101(b) of the pre-2018 Requirements before January 21, 2019.
(4)
(i) If the determination to transition is documented between July 19, 2018, and January 20, 2019, the research shall:
(A) Beginning on the date of such documentation through January 20, 2019, comply with the pre-2018 Requirements, except that the research shall comply with the following:
(
(
(
(B) Beginning on January 21, 2019, comply with the 2018 Requirements.
(ii) If the determination to transition is documented on or after January 21, 2019, the research shall, beginning on the date of such documentation, comply with the 2018 Requirements.
(5)
(i) Research initially approved by an IRB on or after January 21, 2019;
(ii) Research for which IRB review is waived pursuant to paragraph (i) of this section on or after January 21, 2019; and
(iii) Research for which a determination is made that the research is exempt on or after January 21, 2019.
Human research subjects, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, Department of Transportation further amends 49 CFR part 11 as published in the
5 U.S.C. 301; 42 U.S.C. 300v-1(b).
(l) * * *
(1)
(2)
(3)
(i) Research initially approved by an IRB under the pre-2018 Requirements before January 21, 2019;
(ii) Research for which IRB review was waived pursuant to § 11.101(i) of the pre-2018 Requirements before January 21, 2019; and
(iii) Research for which a determination was made that the research was exempt under § 11.101(b) of the pre-2018 Requirements before January 21, 2019.
(4)
(i) If the determination to transition is documented between July 19, 2018, and January 20, 2019, the research shall:
(A) Beginning on the date of such documentation through January 20, 2019, comply with the pre-2018 Requirements, except that the research shall comply with the following:
(
(
(
(B) Beginning on January 21, 2019, comply with the 2018 Requirements.
(ii) If the determination to transition is documented on or after January 21, 2019, the research shall, beginning on the date of such documentation, comply with the 2018 Requirements.
(5)
(i) Research initially approved by an IRB on or after January 21, 2019;
(ii) Research for which IRB review is waived pursuant to paragraph (i) of this section on or after January 21, 2019; and
(iii) Research for which a determination is made that the research is exempt on or after January 21, 2019.
| 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 |