| Page Range | 2525-2731 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 83 FR 2731 - Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Terrorists Who Threaten To Disrupt the Middle East Peace Process | |
| 83 FR 2639 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 83 FR 2538 - Oil and Gas and Sulfur Operations on the Outer Continental Shelf-Civil Penalty Inflation Adjustment | |
| 83 FR 2679 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 83 FR 2648 - Termination of the Designation of Haiti for Temporary Protected Status | |
| 83 FR 2654 - Termination of the Designation of El Salvador for Temporary Protected Status | |
| 83 FR 2717 - Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee-New Task (Avionics Systems Harmonization Working Group) | |
| 83 FR 2715 - Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee-New Task (Part 145 Working Group) | |
| 83 FR 2713 - Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee Mixed Phase and Ice Crystal Icing Envelope (Deep Convective Clouds) Requirements-Revision of Appendix D to 14 CFR Part 33-New Task | |
| 83 FR 2536 - The 2018 Adjustment of the Penalty for Violation of Notice Posting Requirements | |
| 83 FR 2642 - Annual Update of the HHS Poverty Guidelines | |
| 83 FR 2724 - Guarantee Application Deadline | |
| 83 FR 2646 - Identification of Foreign Countries Whose Nationals Are Eligible To Participate in the H-2A and H-2B Nonimmigrant Worker Programs | |
| 83 FR 2675 - Notice of Proposed Settlement Agreement Under the Oil Pollution Act | |
| 83 FR 2723 - Hazardous Materials: Notice of Applications for Special Permits | |
| 83 FR 2721 - Hazardous Materials: Notice of Applications for Special Permits | |
| 83 FR 2638 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission | |
| 83 FR 2637 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority | |
| 83 FR 2615 - Bridger-Teton National Forest; Wyoming; Invasive Plant Management | |
| 83 FR 2644 - Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) Becoming the Sole CBP-Authorized Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) System for Processing Electronic Drawback Filings | |
| 83 FR 2645 - Modification of the National Customs Automation Program (NCAP) Test Regarding Reconciliation and Transition of the Test From the Automated Commercial System (ACS) to the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) | |
| 83 FR 2621 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Performance Measurement in AmeriCorps; Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 2685 - Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts; License Renewal; Issuance | |
| 83 FR 2639 - Notice of Agreements Filed | |
| 83 FR 2540 - Oil Spill Financial Responsibility Adjustment of the Limit of Liability for Offshore Facilities | |
| 83 FR 2660 - Consolidated Delegation of Authority for the Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae) | |
| 83 FR 2661 - Order of Succession for Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae) | |
| 83 FR 2712 - Notice of Public Meeting | |
| 83 FR 2662 - Rate Adjustments for Indian Irrigation Projects | |
| 83 FR 2667 - Indian Gaming; Approval of an Amendment to a Tribal-State Class III Gaming Compact in the State of Nevada | |
| 83 FR 2622 - Information Collection Requirement; Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Independent Research and Development Technical Descriptions | |
| 83 FR 2678 - National Industrial Security Program Policy Advisory Committee (NISPPAC) | |
| 83 FR 2678 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 2564 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Inseason Adjustment to the 2018 Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Pollock, Atka Mackerel, and Pacific Cod Total Allowable Catch Amounts; Correction | |
| 83 FR 2728 - Solicitation of Nominations for Appointment to the Advisory Committee on Cemeteries and Memorials | |
| 83 FR 2620 - Pacific Island Fisheries; Western Pacific Stock Assessment Review; Public Meeting | |
| 83 FR 2721 - Environmental Impact Statement: Strafford and Rockingham County, New Hampshire | |
| 83 FR 2719 - Automated Driving Systems | |
| 83 FR 2626 - Agency Information Collection Extension | |
| 83 FR 2686 - Income Tax Review | |
| 83 FR 2581 - Great Lakes Pilotage Rates-2018 Annual Review and Revisions to Methodology | |
| 83 FR 2640 - Submission for OMB Review; OMB Circular A-119 | |
| 83 FR 2639 - Submission for OMB Review; Place of Performance | |
| 83 FR 2626 - National Petroleum Council; Notice of Renewal | |
| 83 FR 2566 - Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Microwave Ovens | |
| 83 FR 2719 - Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions of Proposed Highway Improvement in California; Statute of Limitations on Claims | |
| 83 FR 2625 - Defense Intelligence Agency National Intelligence University Board of Visitors; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting | |
| 83 FR 2718 - Twenty Sixth RTCA SC-223 IPS and AeroMACS Plenary | |
| 83 FR 2715 - Fourteenth RTCA SC-229 406 MHz ELT Joint Plenary With EUROCAE WG-98 | |
| 83 FR 2713 - Fourth RTCA SC-236 Wireless Airborne Intra Communications (WAIC) Joint Plenary With EUROCAE WG-96 | |
| 83 FR 2679 - Request for Applications; Qualified Candidates for the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards | |
| 83 FR 2712 - Presidential Declaration Amendment of a Major Disaster for the State of Florida | |
| 83 FR 2712 - Presidential Declaration Amendment of a Major Disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of California | |
| 83 FR 2685 - President's Commission on White House Fellowships Advisory Committee: Closed Meeting | |
| 83 FR 2667 - National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related Actions | |
| 83 FR 2623 - Arms Sales Notification | |
| 83 FR 2619 - North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings | |
| 83 FR 2619 - Fisheries of the South Atlantic; South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting | |
| 83 FR 2636 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority | |
| 83 FR 2563 - Technology Transitions, USTelecom Petition for Declaratory Ruling That Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers Are Non-Dominant in the Provision of Switched Access Services, Policies and Rules Governing Retirement of Copper Loops by Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers and Special Access for Price Cap Local Exchange Carriers | |
| 83 FR 2626 - Defense Programs Advisory Committee | |
| 83 FR 2617 - Approval of Subzone Status; Orgill, Inc., Tifton, Georgia | |
| 83 FR 2617 - Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Reviews, and Revocation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, in Part | |
| 83 FR 2630 - Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications; Public Notice | |
| 83 FR 2635 - Lock 13 Hydro Partners, LLC; Notice Soliciting Scoping Comments | |
| 83 FR 2627 - Woomera Energy, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
| 83 FR 2631 - Utah Board of Water Resources; Notice Suspending Procedural Schedule | |
| 83 FR 2627 - Algonquin Power (Beaver Falls), LLC; Notice of Authorization for Continued Project Operation | |
| 83 FR 2635 - Brookfield White Pine, LLC; Notice of Authorization for Continued Project Operation | |
| 83 FR 2634 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
| 83 FR 2631 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 83 FR 2631 - Lock +TM | |
| 83 FR 2630 - Utah Board of Water Resources; Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order | |
| 83 FR 2628 - Steel Reef Pipelines US LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Saskatchewan Pipeline Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues | |
| 83 FR 2633 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
| 83 FR 2635 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
| 83 FR 2630 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 83 FR 2632 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 83 FR 2670 - Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Belarus, Russia, and the United Arab Emirates | |
| 83 FR 2670 - Certain Audio Processing Hardware, Software, and Products Containing the Same; Commission Determination To Review-in-Part the Final Initial Determination; Schedule for Filing Written Submissions on the Issues Under Review | |
| 83 FR 2725 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Special Projects Committee | |
| 83 FR 2725 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Notices and Correspondence Project Committee | |
| 83 FR 2727 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Communications Project Committee | |
| 83 FR 2676 - Respiratory Protection Standard; Extension of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork) Requirements | |
| 83 FR 2726 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Tax Forms and Publications Project Committee | |
| 83 FR 2725 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Toll-Free Phone Line Project Committee | |
| 83 FR 2726 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Assistance Center Project Committee | |
| 83 FR 2726 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation Project | |
| 83 FR 2727 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request for Regulation Project | |
| 83 FR 2692 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend BOX Rule 3030 To Establish Rules Related to the Use of Floor Broker Error Accounts | |
| 83 FR 2686 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX PEARL, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the MIAX PEARL Fee Schedule | |
| 83 FR 2700 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Change To Modify the NYSE American Options Fee Schedule | |
| 83 FR 2694 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend MIAX Options Rules 700, 1308, and 1322 | |
| 83 FR 2695 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade the Shares of the Goldman Sachs Access Emerging Markets Local Currency Bond ETF Under Commentary .02 to NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E(j)(3) | |
| 83 FR 2704 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade Shares of the GraniteShares Bitcoin ETF and the GraniteShares Short Bitcoin ETF, a Series of the GraniteShares ETP Trust, Under Rule 14.11(f)(4), Trust Issued Receipts | |
| 83 FR 2641 - William Ralph Kincaid; Denial of Hearing; Final Debarment Order | |
| 83 FR 2532 - Special Conditions: Dassault Aviation Model Falcon 2000EX Airplanes; Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery Installations | |
| 83 FR 2529 - Special Conditions: Dassault Aviation Model Falcon 900EX Airplanes; Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery Installations | |
| 83 FR 2526 - Special Conditions: Dassault Aviation, Model Falcon 7X Airplane; Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery Installations | |
| 83 FR 2680 - Southern California Edison Company; San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 | |
| 83 FR 2535 - Amendment of Class E Airspace; Charles City, IA | |
| 83 FR 2616 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Montana Advisory Committee | |
| 83 FR 2574 - Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Merced, CA | |
| 83 FR 2671 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Chemtos, LLC | |
| 83 FR 2675 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Alcami Wisconsin Corporation | |
| 83 FR 2525 - Incorporation by Reference of American Society of Mechanical Engineers Codes and Code Cases; Correction | |
| 83 FR 2669 - Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public Interest | |
| 83 FR 2542 - Group Registration of Photographs | |
| 83 FR 2607 - Removing Regulatory Barriers for Vehicles With Automated Driving Systems | |
| 83 FR 2621 - Notice of Meeting | |
| 83 FR 2576 - National Priorities List | |
| 83 FR 2549 - National Priorities List | |
| 83 FR 2554 - Closure of FCC Lockbox 979091 Used To File Fees, Tariffs, Petitions, and Applications for Services Related to the Wireline Competition Bureau | |
| 83 FR 2557 - Blue Alert EAS Event Code |
Forest Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Defense Acquisition Regulations System
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
National Nuclear Security Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Coast Guard
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
Indian Affairs Bureau
National Park Service
Ocean Energy Management Bureau
Drug Enforcement Administration
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Copyright Office, Library of Congress
Information Security Oversight Office
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund
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.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Correcting amendment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published a final rule in the
This correction is effective January 18, 2018.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2011-0088 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:
•
•
•
Cindy Bladey, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3280; email:
The NRC published a final rule in the
Under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b)), an agency may waive the normal notice and comment requirements if it finds, for good cause, that they are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. As authorized by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), the NRC finds good cause to waive notice and opportunity for comment on this amendment because the corrections will have no substantive impact and are of a minor and administrative nature dealing with an error in a reference to a table in a document being incorporated by reference and an error when referring to a specific edition of the ASME OM Code.
As discussed in the statement of considerations on page 56826 of the proposed rule (80 FR 56820; September 18, 2015) and on page 32942 of the final rule (82 FR 32934; July 18, 2017), the NRC intended to prohibit the use of a table and subarticle with an accelerated training process for ultrasonic examination nondestructive examination personnel. The rule language inadvertently prohibited the use of the entire appendix, and this amendment corrects the error by prohibiting the use of the table and subarticle only.
As discussed in the statement of considerations on page 56832 of the proposed rule (80 FR 56820; September 18, 2015) and on page 32950 of the final rule (82 FR 32934; July 18, 2017), the NRC intended that a specific requirement for check valve monitoring in 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(3)(iv) apply only to the 1998 Edition through the 2002 Addenda of the ASME OM Code. The final rule inadvertently referenced the 2012 Edition of the ASME OM Code in this requirement rather than the 2002 Addenda. This amendment corrects the error by replacing “2012 Edition” with “2002 Addenda” in the second sentence of the introductory text of 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(3)(iv).
This amendment does not require action by any person or entity regulated by the NRC. Also, the final rule does not change the substantive responsibilities of any person or entity regulated by the NRC. Furthermore, for the reasons stated above, the NRC finds, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), that good cause
Administrative practice and procedure, Antitrust, Classified information, Criminal penalties, Education, Fire prevention, Fire protection, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Penalties, Radiation protection, Reactor siting criteria, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Whistleblowing.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the NRC is adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR part 50:
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 11, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 108, 122, 147, 149, 161, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 189, 223, 234 (42 U.S.C. 2014, 2131, 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2138, 2152, 2167, 2169, 2201, 2231, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2235, 2236, 2237, 2239, 2273, 2282); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 202, 206, 211 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846, 5851); Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, sec. 306 (42 U.S.C. 10226); National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note; Sec. 109, Pub. L. 96-295, 94 Stat. 783.
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(xviii) * * *
(D)
(3) * * *
(iv)
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final special conditions; request for comment.
These special conditions are issued for non-rechargeable lithium battery installations on the Dassault Aviation (Dassault) Model Falcon 7X airplane. Non-rechargeable lithium batteries are a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
This action is effective on Dassault Aviation on January 18, 2018. Send your comments by March 5, 2018.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-1140 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Nazih Khaouly, Airplane and Flight Crew Interface Section, AIR-671, Transport Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2432; facsimile 425-227-1149.
The FAA anticipates that non-rechargeable lithium batteries will be installed in most makes and models of transport category airplanes. We intend to require special conditions for certification projects involving non-rechargeable lithium battery installations to address certain safety issues until we can revise the airworthiness requirements. Applying special conditions to these installations across the range of transport category airplanes will ensure regulatory consistency.
Typically, the FAA issues special conditions after receiving an application for type certificate approval of a novel or unusual design feature. However, the FAA has found that the presence of non-rechargeable lithium batteries in certification projects is not always immediately identifiable, since the battery itself may not be the focus of the project. Meanwhile, the inclusion of these batteries has become virtually ubiquitous on in-production transport category airplanes, which shows that there will be a need for these special conditions. Also, delaying the issuance of special conditions until after each design application is received could lead to costly certification delays. Therefore, the FAA finds it necessary to issue special conditions applicable to these battery installations on particular makes and models of aircraft.
On April 22, 2016, the FAA published special conditions no. 25-612-SC in the
Section 1205 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 requires the FAA to consider the extent to which Alaska is not served by transportation modes other than aviation and to establish appropriate regulatory distinctions when modifying airworthiness regulations that affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. In consideration of this requirement and the overall impact on safety, the FAA does not intend to require non-rechargeable lithium battery special conditions for design changes that only replace a 121.5 megahertz (MHz) emergency locator transmitter (ELT) with a 406 MHz ELT that meets Technical Standard Order C126b, or later revision, on transport airplanes operating only in Alaska. This will support our efforts of encouraging operators in Alaska to upgrade to a 406 MHz ELT. These ELTs provide significantly improved accuracy for lifesaving services to locate an accident site in Alaskan terrain. The FAA considers that the safety benefits from upgrading to a 406 MHz ELT for Alaskan operations will outweigh the battery fire risk.
The substance of these special conditions previously has been published in the
The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above. We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.
Dassault holds type certificate no. A59NM, which provides the certification basis for the Model Falcon 7X airplane. The Dassault Model Falcon 7X airplane is a twin engine, transport category airplane with a passenger seating capacity of 19 and a maximum takeoff weight of 70,000 to 73,000 pounds, depending on the specific design.
The FAA is issuing these special conditions for non-rechargeable lithium battery installations on the Dassault Model Falcon 7X airplane. The current battery requirements in title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 25 are inadequate for addressing an airplane with non-rechargeable lithium batteries.
Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.101, Dassault must show that the Model Falcon 7X airplane meets the applicable provisions of the regulations listed in type certificate no. A59NM or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA. In addition, the certification basis includes certain special conditions, exemptions, or later amended sections that are not relevant to these special conditions.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (
Special conditions are initially applicable to the airplane model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.
In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Dassault Model Falcon 7X airplane must comply with the fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.101.
The novel or unusual design feature is the installation of non-rechargeable lithium batteries.
For the purpose of these special conditions, we refer to a battery and battery system as a battery. A battery system consists of the battery and any protective, monitoring, and alerting circuitry or hardware inside or outside of the battery. It also includes vents (where necessary) and packaging.
The FAA derived the current regulations governing installation of batteries in transport category airplanes from Civil Air Regulations (CAR) 4b.625(d) as part of the recodification of CAR 4b that established 14 CFR part 25 in February 1965. This recodification basically reworded the CAR 4b battery requirements, which are currently in § 25.1353(b)(1) through (4). Non-rechargeable lithium batteries are novel and unusual with respect to the state of technology considered when these requirements were codified. These batteries introduce higher energy levels into airplane systems through new chemical compositions in various battery cell sizes and construction. Interconnection of these cells in battery packs introduces failure modes that require unique design considerations, such as provisions for thermal management.
Recent events involving rechargeable and non-rechargeable lithium batteries prompted the FAA to initiate a broad evaluation of these energy storage technologies. In January 2013, two independent events involving rechargeable lithium-ion batteries revealed unanticipated failure modes. A National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) letter to the FAA, dated May 22, 2014, which is available at
On July 12, 2013, an event involving a non-rechargeable lithium battery in an emergency locator transmitter installation demonstrated unanticipated failure modes. The United Kingdom's Air Accidents Investigation Branch Bulletin S5/2013 describes this event.
Some known uses of rechargeable and non-rechargeable lithium batteries on airplanes include:
• Flight deck and avionics systems such as displays, global positioning systems, cockpit voice recorders, flight data recorders, underwater locator beacons, navigation computers, integrated avionics computers, satellite network and communication systems, communication management units, and remote-monitor electronic line-replaceable units;
• Cabin safety, entertainment, and communications equipment, including emergency locator transmitters, life rafts, escape slides, seatbelt air bags, cabin management systems, Ethernet switches, routers and media servers, wireless systems, internet and in-flight entertainment systems, satellite televisions, remotes, and handsets;
• Systems in cargo areas including door controls, sensors, video surveillance equipment, and security systems.
Some known potential hazards and failure modes associated with non-rechargeable lithium batteries are:
•
•
•
Special condition no. 1 of these special conditions requires that each individual cell within a non-rechargeable lithium battery be designed to maintain safe temperatures and pressures. Special condition no. 2 addresses these same issues but for the entire battery. Special condition no. 2 requires the battery be designed to prevent propagation of a thermal event, such as self-sustained, uncontrollable increases in temperature or pressure from one cell to adjacent cells.
Special conditions nos. 1 and 2 are intended to ensure that the non-rechargeable lithium battery and its cells are designed to eliminate the potential for uncontrollable failures. However, a certain number of failures will occur due to various factors beyond the control of the battery designer. Therefore, other special conditions are intended to protect the airplane and its occupants if failure occurs.
Special conditions 3, 7, and 8 are self-explanatory.
Special condition no. 4 makes it clear that the flammable fluid fire protection requirements of § 25.863 apply to non-rechargeable lithium battery installations. Section 25.863 is applicable to areas of the airplane that could be exposed to flammable fluid leakage from airplane systems. Non-rechargeable lithium batteries contain an electrolyte that is a flammable fluid.
Special condition no. 5 requires that each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation not damage surrounding structure or adjacent systems, equipment, or electrical wiring from corrosive fluids or gases that may escape in such a way as to cause a major or more severe failure condition.
While special condition no. 5 addresses corrosive fluids and gases, special condition no. 6 addresses heat. Special condition no. 6 requires that each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation have provisions to prevent any hazardous effect on airplane structure or systems caused by the maximum amount of heat the battery installation can generate due to any failure of it or its individual cells. The means of meeting special conditions nos. 5 and 6 may be the same, but the requirements are independent and address different hazards.
These special conditions apply to all non-rechargeable lithium battery installations in lieu of § 25.1353(b)(1) through (4) at Amendment 25-123 or § 25.1353(c)(1) through (4) at earlier amendments. Those regulations remain in effect for other battery installations.
These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
These special conditions are applicable to the Dassault Model Falcon 7X airplane. Should Dassault apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.
These special conditions are only applicable to design changes applied for after the effective date.
These special conditions are not applicable to changes to previously certified non-rechargeable lithium battery installations where the only change is either cosmetic or to relocate the installation to improve the safety of
This action affects only certain a novel or unusual design feature on one model of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability.
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and record keeping requirements.
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for the Dassault Model Falcon 7X airplane.
In lieu of § 25.1353(b)(1) through (4) at Amendment 25-123 or § 25.1353(c)(1) through (4) at earlier amendments, each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation must:
1. Be designed to maintain safe cell temperatures and pressures under all foreseeable operating conditions to prevent fire and explosion.
2. Be designed to prevent the occurrence of self-sustaining, uncontrollable increases in temperature or pressure.
3. Not emit explosive or toxic gases, either in normal operation or as a result of its failure, that may accumulate in hazardous quantities within the airplane.
4. Meet the requirements of § 25.863.
5. Not damage surrounding structure or adjacent systems, equipment, or electrical wiring from corrosive fluids or gases that may escape in such a way as to cause a major or more severe failure condition.
6. Have provisions to prevent any hazardous effect on airplane structure or systems caused by the maximum amount of heat it can generate due to any failure of it or its individual cells.
7. Have a failure sensing and warning system to alert the flightcrew if its failure affects safe operation of the airplane.
8. Have a means for the flightcrew or maintenance personnel to determine the battery charge state if the battery's function is required for safe operation of the airplane.
A battery system consists of the battery and any protective, monitoring, and alerting circuitry or hardware inside or outside of the battery. It also includes vents (where necessary) and packaging. For the purpose of these special conditions, a “battery” and “battery system” are referred to as a battery.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final special conditions; request for comment.
These special conditions are issued for non-rechargeable lithium battery installations on the Dassault Aviation (Dassault) Model Falcon 900EX airplane. Non-rechargeable lithium batteries are a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
This action is effective on Dassault Aviation on January 18, 2018. Send your comments by March 5, 2018.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-1142 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Nazih Khaouly, Airplane and Flight Crew Interface Section, AIR-671, Transport Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2432; facsimile 425-227-1149.
The FAA anticipates that non-rechargeable lithium batteries will be installed in most makes and models of
Typically, the FAA issues special conditions after receiving an application for type certificate approval of a novel or unusual design feature. However, the FAA has found that the presence of non-rechargeable lithium batteries in certification projects is not always immediately identifiable, since the battery itself may not be the focus of the project. Meanwhile, the inclusion of these batteries has become virtually ubiquitous on in-production transport category airplanes, which shows that there will be a need for these special conditions. Also, delaying the issuance of special conditions until after each design application is received could lead to costly certification delays. Therefore, the FAA finds it necessary to issue special conditions applicable to these battery installations on particular makes and models of aircraft.
On April 22, 2016, the FAA published special conditions no. 25-612-SC in the
Section 1205 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 requires the FAA to consider the extent to which Alaska is not served by transportation modes other than aviation and to establish appropriate regulatory distinctions when modifying airworthiness regulations that affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. In consideration of this requirement and the overall impact on safety, the FAA does not intend to require non-rechargeable lithium battery special conditions for design changes that only replace a 121.5 megahertz (MHz) emergency locator transmitter (ELT) with a 406 MHz ELT that meets Technical Standard Order C126b, or later revision, on transport airplanes operating only in Alaska. This will support our efforts of encouraging operators in Alaska to upgrade to a 406 MHz ELT. These ELTs provide significantly improved accuracy for lifesaving services to locate an accident site in Alaskan terrain. The FAA considers that the safety benefits from upgrading to a 406 MHz ELT for Alaskan operations will outweigh the battery fire risk.
The substance of these special conditions previously has been published in the
The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above. We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.
Dassault holds type certificate no. A46EU, which provides the certification basis for the Model Falcon 900EX airplane. The Dassault Model Falcon 900EX airplane is a twin engine, transport category airplane with a passenger seating capacity of 19 and a maximum takeoff weight of 48,300 to 49,000 pounds, depending on the specific design.
The FAA is issuing these special conditions for non-rechargeable lithium battery installations on the Dassault Model Falcon 900EX airplane. The current battery requirements in title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 25 are inadequate for addressing an airplane with non-rechargeable lithium batteries.
Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.101, Dassault must show that the Model Falcon 900EX airplane meets the applicable provisions of the regulations listed in type certificate no. A46EU or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA. In addition, the certification basis includes certain special conditions, exemptions, or later amended sections that are not relevant to these special conditions.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (
Special conditions are initially applicable to the airplane model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.
In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Dassault Model Falcon 900EX airplane must comply with the fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.101.
The novel or unusual design feature is the installation of non-rechargeable lithium batteries.
For the purpose of these special conditions, we refer to a battery and battery system as a battery. A battery system consists of the battery and any protective, monitoring, and alerting circuitry or hardware inside or outside of the battery. It also includes vents (where necessary) and packaging.
The FAA derived the current regulations governing installation of batteries in transport category airplanes from Civil Air Regulations (CAR)
Recent events involving rechargeable and non-rechargeable lithium batteries prompted the FAA to initiate a broad evaluation of these energy storage technologies. In January 2013, two independent events involving rechargeable lithium-ion batteries revealed unanticipated failure modes. A National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) letter to the FAA, dated May 22, 2014, which is available at
On July 12, 2013, an event involving a non-rechargeable lithium battery in an emergency locator transmitter installation demonstrated unanticipated failure modes. The United Kingdom's Air Accidents Investigation Branch Bulletin S5/2013 describes this event.
Some known uses of rechargeable and non-rechargeable lithium batteries on airplanes include:
• Flight deck and avionics systems such as displays, global positioning systems, cockpit voice recorders, flight data recorders, underwater locator beacons, navigation computers, integrated avionics computers, satellite network and communication systems, communication management units, and remote-monitor electronic line-replaceable units;
• Cabin safety, entertainment, and communications equipment, including emergency locator transmitters, life rafts, escape slides, seatbelt air bags, cabin management systems, Ethernet switches, routers and media servers, wireless systems, internet and in-flight entertainment systems, satellite televisions, remotes, and handsets;
• Systems in cargo areas including door controls, sensors, video surveillance equipment, and security systems.
Some known potential hazards and failure modes associated with non-rechargeable lithium batteries are:
•
•
•
Special condition no. 1 of these special conditions requires that each individual cell within a non-rechargeable lithium battery be designed to maintain safe temperatures and pressures. Special condition no. 2 addresses these same issues but for the entire battery. Special condition no. 2 requires the battery be designed to prevent propagation of a thermal event, such as self-sustained, uncontrollable increases in temperature or pressure from one cell to adjacent cells.
Special conditions nos. 1 and 2 are intended to ensure that the non-rechargeable lithium battery and its cells are designed to eliminate the potential for uncontrollable failures. However, a certain number of failures will occur due to various factors beyond the control of the battery designer. Therefore, other special conditions are intended to protect the airplane and its occupants if failure occurs.
Special conditions 3, 7, and 8 are self-explanatory.
Special condition no. 4 makes it clear that the flammable fluid fire protection requirements of § 25.863 apply to non-rechargeable lithium battery installations. Section 25.863 is applicable to areas of the airplane that could be exposed to flammable fluid leakage from airplane systems. Non-rechargeable lithium batteries contain an electrolyte that is a flammable fluid.
Special condition no. 5 requires that each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation not damage surrounding structure or adjacent systems, equipment, or electrical wiring from corrosive fluids or gases that may escape in such a way as to cause a major or more severe failure condition.
While special condition no. 5 addresses corrosive fluids and gases, special condition no. 6 addresses heat. Special condition no. 6 requires that each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation have provisions to prevent any hazardous effect on airplane structure or systems caused by the maximum amount of heat the battery installation can generate due to any failure of it or its individual cells. The means of meeting special conditions nos. 5 and 6 may be the same, but the requirements are independent and address different hazards.
These special conditions apply to all non-rechargeable lithium battery installations in lieu of § 25.1353(b)(1) through (4) at Amendment 25-123 or § 25.1353(c)(1) through (4) at earlier amendments. Those regulations remain in effect for other battery installations.
These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
These special conditions are applicable to the Dassault Model Falcon 900EX airplane. Should Dassault apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.
These special conditions are only applicable to design changes applied for after the effective date.
These special conditions are not applicable to changes to previously certified non-rechargeable lithium battery installations where the only change is either cosmetic or to relocate the installation to improve the safety of the airplane and occupants. Previously certified non-rechargeable lithium battery installations, as used in this paragraph, are those installations approved for certification projects applied for on or before the effective date of these special conditions. A cosmetic change is a change in appearance only, and does not change any function or safety characteristic of the battery installation. These special conditions are also not applicable to unchanged, previously certified non-rechargeable lithium battery installations that are affected by a change in a manner that improves the safety of its installation. The FAA determined that these exclusions are in the public interest because the need to
This action affects only certain a novel or unusual design feature on one model of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability.
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and record keeping requirements.
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for the Dassault Model Falcon 900EX airplane.
In lieu of § 25.1353(b)(1) through (4) at Amendment 25-123 or § 25.1353(c)(1) through (4) at earlier amendments, each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation must:
1. Be designed to maintain safe cell temperatures and pressures under all foreseeable operating conditions to prevent fire and explosion.
2. Be designed to prevent the occurrence of self-sustaining, uncontrollable increases in temperature or pressure.
3. Not emit explosive or toxic gases, either in normal operation or as a result of its failure, that may accumulate in hazardous quantities within the airplane.
4. Meet the requirements of § 25.863.
5. Not damage surrounding structure or adjacent systems, equipment, or electrical wiring from corrosive fluids or gases that may escape in such a way as to cause a major or more severe failure condition.
6. Have provisions to prevent any hazardous effect on airplane structure or systems caused by the maximum amount of heat it can generate due to any failure of it or its individual cells.
7. Have a failure sensing and warning system to alert the flightcrew if its failure affects safe operation of the airplane.
8. Have a means for the flightcrew or maintenance personnel to determine the battery charge state if the battery's function is required for safe operation of the airplane.
A battery system consists of the battery and any protective, monitoring, and alerting circuitry or hardware inside or outside of the battery. It also includes vents (where necessary) and packaging. For the purpose of these special conditions, a “battery” and “battery system” are referred to as a battery.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final special conditions; request for comment.
These special conditions are issued for non-rechargeable lithium battery installations on the Dassault Aviation (Dassault) Model Falcon 2000EX airplane. Non-rechargeable lithium batteries are a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
This action is effective on Dassault Aviation on January 18, 2018. Send your comments by March 5, 2018.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-1143 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Nazih Khaouly, Airplane and Flight Crew Interface Section, AIR-671, Transport Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2432; facsimile 425-227-1149.
The FAA anticipates that non-rechargeable lithium batteries will be installed in most makes and models of transport category airplanes. We intend to require special conditions for certification projects involving non-rechargeable lithium battery installations to address certain safety issues until we can revise the airworthiness requirements. Applying special conditions to these installations across the range of transport category airplanes will ensure regulatory consistency.
Typically, the FAA issues special conditions after receiving an application for type certificate approval of a novel or unusual design feature. However, the FAA has found that the presence of non-rechargeable lithium batteries in certification projects is not always
On April 22, 2016, the FAA published special conditions no. 25-612-SC in the
Section 1205 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 requires the FAA to consider the extent to which Alaska is not served by transportation modes other than aviation and to establish appropriate regulatory distinctions when modifying airworthiness regulations that affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. In consideration of this requirement and the overall impact on safety, the FAA does not intend to require non-rechargeable lithium battery special conditions for design changes that only replace a 121.5 megahertz (MHz) emergency locator transmitter (ELT) with a 406 MHz ELT that meets Technical Standard Order C126b, or later revision, on transport airplanes operating only in Alaska. This will support our efforts of encouraging operators in Alaska to upgrade to a 406 MHz ELT. These ELTs provide significantly improved accuracy for lifesaving services to locate an accident site in Alaskan terrain. The FAA considers that the safety benefits from upgrading to a 406 MHz ELT for Alaskan operations will outweigh the battery fire risk.
The substance of these special conditions previously has been published in the
The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above. We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.
Dassault holds type certificate no. A50NM, which provides the certification basis for the Model Falcon 2000EX airplane. The Model Falcon 2000EX airplane is a twin engine, transport category airplane with a passenger seating capacity of 19 and a maximum takeoff weight of 40,700 to 42,800 pounds, depending on the specific design.
The FAA is issuing these special conditions for non-rechargeable lithium battery installations on the Dassault Model Falcon 2000EX airplane. The current battery requirements in title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 25 are inadequate for addressing an airplane with non-rechargeable lithium batteries.
Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.101, Dassault must show that the Model Falcon 2000EX airplane meets the applicable provisions of the regulations listed in type certificate no. A50NM or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA. In addition, the certification basis includes certain special conditions, exemptions, or later amended sections that are not relevant to these special conditions.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (
Special conditions are initially applicable to the airplane model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.
In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Dassault Model Falcon 2000EX airplane must comply with the fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.101.
The novel or unusual design feature is the installation of non-rechargeable lithium batteries.
For the purpose of these special conditions, we refer to a battery and battery system as a battery. A battery system consists of the battery and any protective, monitoring, and alerting circuitry or hardware inside or outside of the battery. It also includes vents (where necessary) and packaging.
The FAA derived the current regulations governing installation of batteries in transport category airplanes from Civil Air Regulations (CAR) 4b.625(d) as part of the recodification of CAR 4b that established 14 CFR part 25 in February 1965. This recodification basically reworded the CAR 4b battery requirements, which are currently in § 25.1353(b)(1) through (4). Non-rechargeable lithium batteries are novel and unusual with respect to the state of technology considered when these requirements were codified. These batteries introduce higher energy levels into airplane systems through new chemical compositions in various battery cell sizes and construction. Interconnection of these cells in battery packs introduces failure modes that require unique design considerations,
Recent events involving rechargeable and non-rechargeable lithium batteries prompted the FAA to initiate a broad evaluation of these energy storage technologies. In January 2013, two independent events involving rechargeable lithium-ion batteries revealed unanticipated failure modes. A National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) letter to the FAA, dated May 22, 2014, which is available at
On July 12, 2013, an event involving a non-rechargeable lithium battery in an emergency locator transmitter installation demonstrated unanticipated failure modes. The United Kingdom's Air Accidents Investigation Branch Bulletin S5/2013 describes this event.
Some known uses of rechargeable and non-rechargeable lithium batteries on airplanes include:
• Flight deck and avionics systems such as displays, global positioning systems, cockpit voice recorders, flight data recorders, underwater locator beacons, navigation computers, integrated avionics computers, satellite network and communication systems, communication management units, and remote-monitor electronic line-replaceable units;
• Cabin safety, entertainment, and communications equipment, including emergency locator transmitters, life rafts, escape slides, seatbelt air bags, cabin management systems, Ethernet switches, routers and media servers, wireless systems, internet and in-flight entertainment systems, satellite televisions, remotes, and handsets;
• Systems in cargo areas including door controls, sensors, video surveillance equipment, and security systems.
Some known potential hazards and failure modes associated with non-rechargeable lithium batteries are:
•
•
•
Special condition no. 1 of these special conditions requires that each individual cell within a non-rechargeable lithium battery be designed to maintain safe temperatures and pressures. Special condition no. 2 addresses these same issues but for the entire battery. Special condition no. 2 requires the battery be designed to prevent propagation of a thermal event, such as self-sustained, uncontrollable increases in temperature or pressure from one cell to adjacent cells.
Special conditions nos. 1 and 2 are intended to ensure that the non-rechargeable lithium battery and its cells are designed to eliminate the potential for uncontrollable failures. However, a certain number of failures will occur due to various factors beyond the control of the battery designer. Therefore, other special conditions are intended to protect the airplane and its occupants if failure occurs.
Special conditions 3, 7, and 8 are self-explanatory.
Special condition no. 4 makes it clear that the flammable fluid fire protection requirements of § 25.863 apply to non-rechargeable lithium battery installations. Section 25.863 is applicable to areas of the airplane that could be exposed to flammable fluid leakage from airplane systems. Non-rechargeable lithium batteries contain an electrolyte that is a flammable fluid.
Special condition no. 5 requires that each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation not damage surrounding structure or adjacent systems, equipment, or electrical wiring from corrosive fluids or gases that may escape in such a way as to cause a major or more severe failure condition.
While special condition no. 5 addresses corrosive fluids and gases, special condition no. 6 addresses heat. Special condition no. 6 requires that each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation have provisions to prevent any hazardous effect on airplane structure or systems caused by the maximum amount of heat the battery installation can generate due to any failure of it or its individual cells. The means of meeting special conditions nos. 5 and 6 may be the same, but the requirements are independent and address different hazards.
These special conditions apply to all non-rechargeable lithium battery installations in lieu of § 25.1353(b)(1) through (4) at Amendment 25-123 or § 25.1353(c)(1) through (4) at earlier amendments. Those regulations remain in effect for other battery installations.
These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
These special conditions are applicable to the Dassault Model Falcon 2000EX airplane. Should Dassault apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.
These special conditions are only applicable to design changes applied for after the effective date.
These special conditions are not applicable to changes to previously certified non-rechargeable lithium battery installations where the only change is either cosmetic or to relocate the installation to improve the safety of the airplane and occupants. Previously certified non-rechargeable lithium battery installations, as used in this paragraph, are those installations approved for certification projects applied for on or before the effective date of these special conditions. A cosmetic change is a change in appearance only, and does not change any function or safety characteristic of the battery installation. These special conditions are also not applicable to unchanged, previously certified non-rechargeable lithium battery installations that are affected by a change in a manner that improves the safety of its installation. The FAA determined that these exclusions are in the public interest because the need to meet all of the special conditions might otherwise deter these design changes that improve safety.
This action affects only certain a novel or unusual design feature on one model of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability.
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and record keeping requirements.
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for the Dassault Model Falcon 2000EX airplane.
In lieu of § 25.1353(b)(1) through (4) at Amendment 25-123 or § 25.1353(c)(1) through (4) at earlier amendments, each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation must:
1. Be designed to maintain safe cell temperatures and pressures under all foreseeable operating conditions to prevent fire and explosion.
2. Be designed to prevent the occurrence of self-sustaining, uncontrollable increases in temperature or pressure.
3. Not emit explosive or toxic gases, either in normal operation or as a result of its failure, that may accumulate in hazardous quantities within the airplane.
4. Meet the requirements of § 25.863.
5. Not damage surrounding structure or adjacent systems, equipment, or electrical wiring from corrosive fluids or gases that may escape in such a way as to cause a major or more severe failure condition.
6. Have provisions to prevent any hazardous effect on airplane structure or systems caused by the maximum amount of heat it can generate due to any failure of it or its individual cells.
7. Have a failure sensing and warning system to alert the flightcrew if its failure affects safe operation of the airplane.
8. Have a means for the flightcrew or maintenance personnel to determine the battery charge state if the battery's function is required for safe operation of the airplane.
A battery system consists of the battery and any protective, monitoring, and alerting circuitry or hardware inside or outside of the battery. It also includes vents (where necessary) and packaging. For the purpose of these special conditions, a “battery” and “battery system” are referred to as a battery.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Northeast Iowa Regional Airport, Charles City, IA. This action is required due to the decommissioning of the Charles City non-directional radio beacon (NDB), and the cancellation of the associated instrument approach procedures. Additionally, the name of the airport is being updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database. This action enhances the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport.
Effective 0901 UTC, March 29, 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.
Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Northeast Iowa Regional Airport, Charles City, IA, to support IFR operations at this airport.
The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the
This amendment to title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.4-mile radius (reduced from a 7-mile radius) of Northeast Iowa Regional Airport (formerly Charles City Municipal Airport), Charles City, IA, and updates the name of the airport to
Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to cancellation of the instrument approach procedures associated with the decommissioned Charles City NDB, and to bring the airspace in compliance with FAA Order 7400.2L, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations at this airport.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that 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 5-6.5.a. 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.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Final rule.
In accordance with the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, which further amended the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, this final rule adjusts for inflation the civil monetary penalty for violation of the notice-posting requirements in Title VII of the Civil Rights act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act.
This final rule is effective February 20, 2018.
Kathleen Oram, Acting Assistant Legal Counsel, (202) 663-4681, or Ashley M. Martin, General Attorney, (202) 663-4695, Office of Legal Counsel, 131 M St. NE, Washington, DC 20507. Requests for this notice in an alternative format should be made to the Office of Communications and Legislative Affairs at (202) 663-4191 (voice) or (202) 663-4494 (TTY), or to the Publications Information Center at 1-800-669-3362 (toll free).
Under section 711 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which is incorporated by reference in section 105 of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and section 207 of the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act (GINA), and 29 CFR 1601.30(a), every employer, employment agency, labor organization, and joint labor-management committee controlling an apprenticeship or other training program covered by Title VII, ADA, or GINA must post notices describing the pertinent provisions of Title VII, ADA, or GINA. Such notices must be posted in prominent and accessible places where notices to employees, applicants, and members are customarily maintained.
The EEOC first adjusted the civil monetary penalty for violations of the notice posting requirements in 1997 pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (FCPIA Act), 28 U.S.C. 2461 note, as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (DCIA), Public Law 104-134, Sec. 31001(s)(1), 110 Stat. 1373. A final rule was published in the
The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (2015 Act), Public Law 114-74, Sec. 701(b), 129 Stat. 599, further amended the FCPIA Act, to require each federal agency, not later than July 1, 2016, and not later than January 15 of every year thereafter, to issue regulations adjusting for inflation the maximum civil penalty that may be imposed pursuant to each agency's statutes. The EEOC's initial adjustment made pursuant to the 2015 Act was published in the
The adjustment set forth in this final rule was calculated by comparing the CPI-U for October 2017 with the CPI-U for October 2016, resulting in an inflation adjustment factor of 1.02041. The first step of the calculation is to multiply the inflation adjustment factor (1.02041) by the most recent civil penalty amount ($534) to calculate the inflation-adjusted penalty level ($544.89894). The second step is to round this inflation-adjusted penalty to the nearest dollar ($545). Accordingly, we are adjusting the maximum penalty per violation specified in 29 CFR 1601.30(a) from $534 to $545.
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) provides an exception to the notice and comment procedures where an agency finds good cause for dispensing with such procedures, on the basis that they are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. EEOC finds that under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) good cause exists for dispensing with the notice of proposed rulemaking and public comment procedures for this rule because this adjustment of the civil monetary penalty is required by the 2015 Act, the formula for calculating the adjustment to the penalty is prescribed by statute, and the Commission has no discretion in determining the amount of the published adjustment. Accordingly, we are issuing this revised regulation as a final rule without notice and comment.
In promulgating this final rule, EEOC has adhered to the regulatory philosophy and applicable principles set forth in Executive Order 13563. Pursuant to Executive Order 12866, the EEOC has coordinated with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, the EEOC and OMB have determined that this final rule will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or communities. The great majority of employers and entities covered by these regulations comply with the posting requirement, and, as a result, the aggregate economic impact of these revised regulations will be minimal, affecting only those limited few who fail to post required notices in violation of the regulation and statue. The rule only increases the penalty by $11 for each separate offense, nowhere near the $100 million figure that would amount to a significant regulatory action.
The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) (PRA) applies to rulemakings in which an agency creates a new paperwork burden on regulated entities or modifies an existing burden. This final rule contains no new information collection requirements, and therefore, will create no new paperwork burdens or modifications to existing burdens that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under the PRA.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) only requires a regulatory flexibility analysis when notice and comment is required by the Administrative Procedure Act or some other statute. As stated above, notice and comment is not required for this rule. For that reason, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act do not apply.
This final rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
The Congressional Review Act (CRA) requires that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EEOC will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to the effective date of the rule. Under the CRA, a major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the
Administrative practice and procedure.
For the Commission.
Accordingly, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission amends 29 CFR part 1601 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 2000e to 2000e-17; 42 U.S.C. 12111 to 12117; 42 U.S.C. 2000ff to 2000ff-11.
(b) Section 711(b) of Title VII and the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act, as amended, make failure to comply with this section punishable by a fine of not more than $545 for each separate offense.
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, Interior.
Final rule.
This final rule adjusts the level of the maximum civil monetary penalty contained in the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) regulations pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance. The civil penalty inflation adjustment, using a 1.02041 multiplier, accounts for one year of inflation spanning October 2016 to October 2017.
This rule is effective on January 18, 2018.
Jennifer Mehaffey, Safety and Enforcement Division, Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, (202) 208-3955 or by email:
The OCSLA, at 43 U.S.C. 1350(b)(1), directs the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to adjust the OCSLA maximum civil penalty amount at least once every three years to reflect any increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) to account for inflation. On November 2, 2015, the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (Sec. 701 of Pub. L. 114-74) (FCPIA of 2015) became law. The FCPIA of 2015 required Federal agencies to adjust the level of civil monetary penalties with an initial “catch-up” adjustment through rulemaking, if warranted, and then to make subsequent annual adjustments for inflation. Agencies were required to publish the first annual inflation adjustments in the
BSEE last updated civil penalty amounts in BSEE regulations through a final rule (RIN 1014-AA34; 82 FR 9136), published and effective on February 3, 2017. Consistent with OMB guidance, BSEE's final rule (FR) implemented the adjustments required by the FCPIA of 2015 through October 2016.
The OMB Memorandum M-18-03 (Implementation of the 2018 annual adjustment pursuant to the FCPIA of 2015; [
BSEE is promulgating this 2018 inflation adjustment for civil penalties as a final rule pursuant to the provisions of the FCPIA of 2015 and OMB guidance. A proposed rule is not required because the FCPIA of 2015 states that agencies shall adjust civil monetary penalties “notwithstanding Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act.” (FCPIA of 2015 at section 4(b)(2)). Accordingly, Congress expressly exempted the annual inflation adjustments implemented pursuant to the FCPIA of 2015 from the pre-promulgation notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), allowing them to be published as a final rule. This interpretation of the statute is confirmed by OMB Memorandum M-18-03. (OMB Memorandum M-18-03 at 4, “This means that the public procedure the APA generally requires—notice, an opportunity for comment, and a delay in effective date—is not required for agencies to issue regulations implementing the annual adjustment.”).
Under the FCPIA of 2015 and the guidance provided in OMB Memorandum M-18-03, BSEE has identified the applicable civil monetary penalty and calculated the necessary inflation adjustment. The previous OCSLA civil penalty inflation adjustment accounted for inflation through October 2016. The required annual civil penalty inflation adjustment promulgated through this rule accounts for inflation through October 2017.
Annual inflation adjustments are based on the percentage change between the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the October preceding the date of the adjustment and the prior year's October CPI-U. Consistent with the guidance in OMB Memorandum M-18-03, BSEE divided the October 2017 CPI-U by the October 2016 CPI-U to calculate the multiplying factor. In this case, October 2017 CPI-U (246.663)/October 2016 CPI-U (241.729) = 1.02041. OMB Memorandum M-18-03 confirms that this is the proper multiplier. (OMB Memorandum M-18-03 at 1 and n.4.).
For 2018, OCSLA and the FCPIA of 2015 require that BSEE adjust the OCSLA maximum civil penalty amount. To accomplish this, BSEE multiplied the existing OCSLA maximum civil penalty amount ($42,704) by the multiplying factor ($42,704 × 1.02041 = $43,575.59). The FCPIA of 2015 requires that the resulting amount be rounded to the nearest $1.00 at the end of the calculation process. Accordingly, the adjusted OCSLA maximum civil penalty is $43,576.
The adjusted penalty levels take effect immediately upon publication of this rule. Pursuant to the FCPIA of 2015, the increase in the OCSLA maximum civil penalty amount applies to civil penalties assessed after the date the increase takes effect, even when the associated violation(s) predates such increase. Consistent with the provisions of OCSLA and the FCPIA of 2015, this rule adjusts the following maximum civil monetary penalty per day per violation:
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 provides that the OMB Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs will review all significant rules. The OMB Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has determined that this rule is not significant. (
E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the Nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. E.O. 13563 directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 further emphasizes that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements, to the extent permitted by statute.
E.O. 13771 of January 30, 2017, directs Federal agencies to reduce the regulatory burden on regulated entities and control regulatory costs. E.O. 13771, however, applies only to significant regulatory actions, as defined in Section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. OIRA has determined that agency regulations exclusively implementing the annual adjustment are not significant regulatory actions under E.O. 12866, provided they are consistent with OMB Memorandum M-18-03 (
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for all rules unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only to rules for which an agency is required to first publish a proposed rule. (
This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:
(1) Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more;
(2) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; and
(3) Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.
This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, a statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531
This rule does not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have takings implications under E.O. 12630. Therefore, a takings implication assessment is not required.
Under the criteria in section 1 of E.O. 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. Therefore, a federalism summary impact statement is not required.
This rule complies with the requirements of E.O. 12988. Specifically, this rule:
(1) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation; and
(2) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.
The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Indian tribes through a commitment to consultation with Indian tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and tribal sovereignty. We have evaluated this rule under the Department of the Interior's consultation policy, under Departmental Manual Part 512 Chapters 4 and 5, and under the criteria in E.O. 13175. We have determined that it has no substantial direct effects on Federally-recognized Indian tribes or Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) Corporations, and that consultation under the Department of the Interior's tribal and ANCSA consultation policies is not required.
This rule does not contain information collection requirements and a submission to the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) is not required because, as a regulation of an administrative nature, this rule is covered by a categorical exclusion (
This rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in E.O. 13211. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
Administrative practice and procedure, Continental shelf, Continental Shelf—mineral resources, Continental Shelf—rights-of-way, Environmental impact statements, Environmental protection, Government contracts, Investigations, Oil and gas exploration, Penalties, Pipelines, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur.
For the reasons given in the preamble, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement amends title 30, chapter II, subchapter B, part 250 Code of Federal Regulations as follows.
30 U.S.C. 1751, 31 U.S.C. 9701, 33 U.S.C. 1321(j)(1)(C), 43 U.S.C. 1334.
The maximum civil penalty is $43,576 per day per violation.
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Interior.
Final rule.
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management is issuing this final rule to adjust the offshore facility limit of liability for damages under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) to reflect the increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) since 2013. This rule increases the OPA offshore facility limit of liability for damages from $133.65 million to $137.6595 million.
This rule is effective on February 20, 2018.
Questions regarding the inflation adjustment methodology or amount should be directed to Mr. Martin Heinze, Economics Division, BOEM, at
The OPA established a comprehensive regime for addressing the consequences of oil spills, ranging from spill response to compensation for damages to injured parties. Under Title I of the OPA, the responsible parties for any vessel or facility, including any offshore facility that discharges or poses a substantial threat of discharge of oil into or upon navigable waters, adjoining shorelines, or the exclusive economic zone, are liable for the removal costs and damages that result from such discharge or threat of discharge, as specified in 33 U.S.C. 2702(a) and (b). Under 33 U.S.C. 2704(a), however, the total liability of each responsible party is limited, subject to certain exceptions specified in 33 U.S.C. 2704(c). In 1990, the OPA provided that responsible parties for an offshore facility incident were liable for “the total of all removal costs plus $75,000,000.” (33 U.S.C. 2704(a)(3)).
To prevent the real value of the OPA limits of liability from declining over time as a result of inflation, and shifting the financial risk of oil spill incidents to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF), the OPA requires that the President adjust the limits of liability “not less than every three years,” by regulation, to reflect significant increases in the CPI. (33 U.S.C. 2704(d)(4)). This mandate, in place since 1990, preserves the deterrent effect and “polluter pays” principle embodied in OPA.
BOEM last adjusted for inflation the OPA offshore facility limit of liability for damages on December 12, 2014 (79 FR 73832). That 2014 rule updated the offshore facility limit of liability based on the Consumer Price Index All Urban Consumer (CPI-U) using the 2013 annual average CPI-U. The Bureau of Labor Statisitcs (BLS) has published the 2016 annual average CPI-U, which BOEM is using to calculate this three-year inflation adjustment for the offshore facility limit of liability.
BOEM is promulgating this rule pursuant to the provisions of Title I of OPA, Executive Order (E.O.) 12777, as amended, and BOEM regulations at 30 CFR part 553, subpart G—Limit of Liability for Offshore Facilities. A proposed rule is unnecessary, and BOEM thus has good cause for issuing this final rule under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), because the adjustment in the limit of liability is mandated by statute, the methodology for determining the amount is defined in BOEM's regulations, and those regulations at §§ 553.703(b)(4) and 553.704 provide that inflation adjustments to the offshore facilities limit of liability will be implemented through final rulemaking. The legislative and regulatory history for OPA limit of liability inflation adjustments can be found in the rulemaking preamble for the last inflation adjustment at 79 FR 73832.
The methodology for calculating the offshore facilities limit of liability inflation adjustment is provided in § 553.703.
Section 553.703(b)(2) requires that, not later than every three years from the year the limit of liability was last adjusted for inflation, BOEM will evaluate whether the cumulative percent change in the annual CPI since that year has reached a significance threshold of three percent or greater. BOEM's regulations specify Annual CPI-U as the appropriate mechanism by which to measure CPI. The limit of liability was last adjusted using the 2013 Annual CPI-U and BOEM has determined that the cumulative percent change in the Annual CPI-U since 2013
The formula for calculating a cumulative percent change in the Annual CPI-U provided in § 553.703(a) is as follows: The percent change in the Annual CPI-U = [(Annual CPI-U for Current Period − Annual CPI-U for Previous Period) ÷ Annual CPI-U for Previous Period] × 100. Using the BLS Annual CPI-U index numbers for 2013 and 2016, the calculation is: (240.007−232.957) ÷ 232.957 = 0.03026. Multiplying × 100 yields a cumulative percent change of 3.026 percent. Section 553.703(a) requires the cumulative percent change value to be rounded to one decimal place, resulting in a value of 3.0 percent.
Under § 553.703(c), BOEM calculates the adjustment to the offshore facilities limit of liability for inflation using the following formula: New limit of liability = Previous limit of liability + (Previous limit of liability × the decimal equivalent of the percent change in the Annual CPI-U), rounded to the closest $100. The calculation is: $133.65 million + ($133.65 million × 0.03) = $137.6595 million.
Therefore, BOEM is revising the regulations at § 553.702 to increase the limit of liability under OPA for a responsible party for any offshore facility, including any offshore pipeline, to the total of all removal costs plus $137.6595 million for damages with respect to each incident.
Further information regarding the CPI and the methodology used by the BLS to develop the CPI is available at:
BOEM's regulations, at § 553.704, provide for a 90-day delay in the effective date of the adjustment to the limit of liability. Section 553.704 also provides that BOEM may, as part of a rule amending § 553.702, specify a different amount of time between the publication of the rule in the
E.O. 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not significant.
This rule is an update to the offshore facility limit of liability under the OPA. It is neither a new regulation, nor does it increase the regulatory burden on regulated entities. This final rule simply maintains the value of the limit of liability set by the OPA in 1990 by updating the limit of liability for three years of inflation as required by the OPA at 33 U.S.C. 2704(d)(4).
E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to reduce uncertainty and to promote predictability and the use of the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. E.O. 13563 directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. The OPA statutory mandate does not give BOEM the discretion to reduce burdens or maintain freedom of choice.
E.O. 13771 of January 30, 2017, directs Federal agencies to reduce the regulatory burden on regulated entities and control regulatory costs. The E.O., however, applies only to significant regulatory actions, as defined in Section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. This rulemaking does not meet the definition for a significant regulatory action; thus, E.O. 13771 does not apply to this rulemaking.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for all rules unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only to rules for which an agency is required to first publish a proposed rule (see 5 U.S.C. 603(a) and 604(a)). Thus, the RFA does not apply to this rulemaking.
This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.
Implementation of this rule will not:
(a) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more;
(b) cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or
(c) result in significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.
This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. This rule does not have a significant or unique effect on state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531
This rule does not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have takings implications under E.O. 12630. Therefore, a takings implication assessment is not required.
Under the criteria in section 1 of E.O. 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. Therefore, a federalism summary impact statement is not required.
This rule complies with the requirements of E.O. 12988. Specifically, this rule:
(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation; and
(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.
E.O. 13175 provides that tribal consultation is not necessary for regulations required by statute. Because this rule simply implements a statutory mandate, tribal consultation is not required by this Executive Order.
The Department of the Interior continually strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Indian tribes through a
BOEM has evaluated this rule under the consultation policy of the Department of the Interior in Chapters 4 and 5 of Series 512 of the Departmental Manual and has determined that this rule has no substantial direct effects on any Tribe or ANCSA Corporation, as defined in 512 DM 4.3 to include, among others, Federally-recognized Alaska Native tribes. On the basis of this evaluation, BOEM has determined that consultation is not necessary to comply with any DOI policy.
This rule does not contain information collection requirements, and a submission to the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
A detailed environmental analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) is not required if the rule is covered by a categorical exclusion (
This rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in E.O. 13211. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
Administrative practice and procedure, Continental shelf, Financial responsibility, Liability, Limit of liability, Oil and gas exploration, Oil pollution, Oil spill, Outer Continental Shelf, Penalties, Pipelines, Rights-of-way, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds, Treasury securities.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, BOEM amends 30 CFR part 553 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 2704, 2716; E.O. 12777, as amended.
Except as provided in 33 U.S.C. 2704(c), the limit of liability under OPA for a responsible party for any offshore facility, including any offshore pipeline, is the total of all removal costs plus $137.6595 million for damages with respect to each incident.
U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress.
Final rule.
The U.S. Copyright Office is modernizing its practices to increase the efficiency of the group registration option for photographs. This final rule modifies the procedure for registering groups of published photographs (GRPPH), and establishes a similar procedure for registering groups of unpublished photographs (GRUPH). Applicants will be required to use a new online application specifically designed for each option, instead of using a paper application, and will be allowed to include up to 750 photographs in each claim. The “unpublished collection” option (which allows an unlimited number of photographs to be registered with one application), and the “pilot program” (which allows an unlimited number of published photographs to be registered with the application designed for one work) will be eliminated. The corresponding “pilot program” for photographic databases will remain in effect for the time being. The final rule modernizes the deposit requirements by requiring applicants to submit their photographs in a digital format when using GRPPH, GRUPH, or the pilot program for photographic databases, along with a separate document containing a list of the titles and file names for each photograph. The final rule revises the eligibility requirements for GRPPH and GRUPH by providing that all the photographs must be created by the same “author” (a term that includes an employer or other person for whom a work is made for hire), and clarifying that they do not need to be created by the same photographer or published within the same country. It also confirms that a group registration issued under GRPHH or GRUPH covers each photograph in the group, each photograph is registered as a separate work, and the group as a whole is not considered a compilation or a collective work.
Effective February 20, 2018.
Robert J. Kasunic, Associate Register of Copyrights and Director of Registration Policy and Practice; Sarang Vijay Damle, General Counsel and Associate Register of Copyrights; Erik Bertin, Deputy Director of Registration Policy and Practice by telephone at 202-707-8040 or by email at
The Copyright Act gives the Register of Copyrights (the “Register”) the discretion to allow groups of related works to be registered with one application and one filing fee.
On December 1, 2016, the Copyright Office (the “Office”) published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) setting forth proposed amendments to the current regulation governing the group registration option for published
The NPRM described six major proposals. First, the proposed rule would require applicants to use a new online application specifically designed for registering a group of published photographs or a group of unpublished photographs, in lieu of using a paper application. Second, it would eliminate the “pilot program” that allows applicants to register an unlimited number of published photographs with the online application designed for registering one work.
The Office received comments from several individuals, the Copyright Alliance,
Nearly all of the commenters objected to the proposed limit on the number of photographs that may be included in each claim. Some commenters said it would be difficult to determine if a particular photograph should be registered as a published or unpublished work. Some expressed concern that all of the photographs would have to be created by the same photographer and published in the same nation. Others expressed concern about the obligation to submit digital deposits. Finally, one commenter suggested that photographers should be entitled to seek the same legal remedies, regardless of whether they register their works using GRPPH, GRUPH, or the pilot program for photographic databases.
Having reviewed and carefully considered the comments, the Office now issues a final rule that closely follows the proposed rule, with some alterations based on these comments, which are discussed in more detail below.
When this final rule goes into effect, applicants will be required to use the online applications designated for GRPPH and GRUPH. If an applicant attempts to use a paper application, the Office will refuse to register the claim. Applicants will be required to submit a digital copy of each photograph,
The Copyright Alliance supported this proposal, and predicted that online filing would “facilitate economy and efficiency.” Copyright Alliance
The CVA acknowledged that photographers who use traditional film often “reproduce or scan” their images and “deliver their work via electronic means.” CVA Comment at 6. The CVA also acknowledged that there are fee-based services available for photographers who need help completing the online application and submitting a digital deposit. CVA Comment at 6. However, the CVA and the Copyright Alliance expressed concern that some of these creators may have “vast archives” of photographs fixed in “traditional print media,” and they encouraged the Office to maintain the paper application for two-years to give these creators time to “catalog, archive, and register their works.” Copyright Alliance Comment at 2; CVA Comment at 7.
The Office recently issued a final rule for group registration of contributions to periodicals that addressed similar concerns.
In addition, the Office is developing several new resources to ease the transition to the online filing requirement. The Office will prepare an online tutorial that explains how to use the new applications, and “help text” within the applications themselves that will provide answers to frequently asked questions. The Office will update the sections of the
The NPRM proposed to limit the number of works that may be included in each submission to no more than 750 photographs. This would represent a change in policy. Currently applicants may submit an unlimited number of photographs if they register their works as an unpublished collection, or if they use the pilot program for published photographs. By contrast, if they use a paper application submitted on Form VA and Form GR/PPh/CON, they may include no more than 750 photographs in each claim.
The Copyright Alliance, the CVA, and three individuals objected to this proposal. They commented that the limit would be burdensome, because many photographers take thousands of photographs in a single day.
After carefully reviewing the comments and weighing the issues involved, the Office has decided to adopt the 750 limit proposed in the NPRM. As mentioned above, the Office imposes the same limit when applicants use Form VA and Form GR/PPh/CON. That requirement has been in place since 2005. 70 FR 15587, 15588 (Mar. 28, 2005). Since the Office introduced the pilot program for published photographs in 2012, the Office has monitored the cost of examining claims submitted through the electronic registration system. Based on this experience, the Office has concluded that 750 is a reasonable limit for GRPPH and GRUPH given its current staffing levels, the current filing fee for these group registration options, and the technical capabilities of the current system.
When the system is functioning properly, it takes approximately 15 to 30 minutes to examine a claim involving 750 photographs or fewer. By contrast, a claim involving more than 750 photographs typically requires an hour or more to complete. Applicants often fail to provide publication dates, they fail to list the dates in chronological order, or the dates provided in the application do not match the dates given in the deposit. If the applicant submits each photograph as an individual file, instead of uploading them in a .zip file, the examiner must click separate links to open each photograph. If any of the files are corrupt, the examiner must write to the applicant to request a new submission. The increasing work associated with these claims has had an adverse effect on the timeframe for examination of other types of works within the Visual Arts Division.
There also may be problems once the claim has been approved. The title field in the Office's public database will not accept more than 999 characters, but there is no corresponding limit in the registration application. When applicants submit more than 750 photographs, the information in the title files often exceeds these character limits. When this occurs, the Office must review each record one by one to identify the registration that was rejected by the system. Then the
Moreover, when applicants upload thousands of photos to the electronic registration system, it strains the system as a whole. This has an adverse effect on other applicants, because it delays the receipt of their submissions and it prevents the Office from issuing an email acknowledging the receipt of those claims. Many applicants then contact the Office's help desk to confirm that their submission was received, which places additional strains on the Office's limited resources.
Registering 750 photographs with the same application and the same filing fee represents a significant value and provides significant legal benefits. An applicant who submits the maximum number of photographs effectively would pay $0.07 to register each work under the current fee structure. As discussed below, the Office will examine each photograph in the group, and if the claim is approved, the registration covers each photograph and each photograph is registered as a separate work. Thus, if the photographs are subsequently infringed, the copyright owner should be entitled to seek a separate award of statutory damages for each individual photograph.
The Visual Arts Division estimates that 75% to 80% of the applicants who register their works using the pilot program include fewer than 750 photographs in each claim. Thus, the final rule will not have an adverse effect on the vast majority of applicants. The Office recognizes that some applicants routinely include more than 750 works in each claim, and going forward, these applicants will need to file multiple applications instead of submitting all of their photographs with the same application. But it is important to recognize that the final rule does not impose any limit on the number of applications that may be submitted at a given time.
The CVA surveyed 1,744 photographers and asked them to identify the average number of photographs that they take in a single day and over the course of a single month. The vast majority of the respondents—70%—reported that they take fewer than 750 photos on an average day, while another 17% reported that they take between 751 and 1,500 photos on an average day. This presumably represents the average rate for a daily photo shoot, but it seems unlikely that the average photographer would create this many images on every day of the month. The CVA's survey supports this assumption. The results indicate that during an average month nearly half of the respondents—47%—would be able to register all the photos with four applications or fewer, and during a slow month, the majority of the respondents—61%—would be able to register all of their photos with one submission.
The CVA encouraged the Office to expand the scope of the group registration option by developing a tiered filing fee based on the number of photographs included within each claim, or a sliding-scale subscription model that would let photographers register an unlimited number of photographs with an annual, semi-annual, or quarterly filing fee. CVA Comment at 17. The Copyright Alliance and another individual expressed similar views. Copyright Alliance Comment at 3; Brian Powell Comment.
The Office welcomes these suggestions. But unfortunately, the current registration system is not capable of supporting this type of fee structure.
The Office, however, is beginning preparations for the initial development of its next generation registration system,
Under the rule proposed in the NPRM, applicants would be able to register a group of unpublished photographs or a group of published photographs, but they would not be able to combine published and unpublished photographs in the same claim.
The CVA commented that it is difficult to separate published and unpublished photographs, in part, because photographers do not know if or when their images are published after they have been sent to a particular client. CVA Comment at 29. The Copyright Alliance expressed similar concerns. Copyright Alliance Comment at 3.
At the same time, however, the CVA and the Copyright Alliance acknowledged that the Copyright Act requires applicants to separately identify published and unpublished works for purposes of registration, and that this requirement cannot be changed without amending the law. CVA Comment at 29, 59; Copyright Alliance Comment at 3. Moreover, this distinction is firmly embedded in the current electronic registration system and the Office's internal processes. For example, when the Office issues a certificate of registration, the prefix assigned to the certificate begins with the letters VA if the work is published, and it begins with the letters VAu if the work is unpublished. If an applicant attempted to combine published and unpublished works in the same claim, the resulting registration number would be misleading. The Office may revisit this issue when it develops the business requirements for its new registration system, but for the time being, it is not feasible to ignore these distinctions within the context of the current system.
The CVA also commented that the photographers who participated in its survey would prefer to register all of the photographs that they create for a particular job, project, or client with the same application, regardless of whether those photographs are published or unpublished. CVA Comment at 31, 48-49. The final rule provides that flexibility. When registering a group of photographs under GRPPH or GRUPH, applicants will be asked to provide a title for the group as a whole. If a photographer wants to register the works he or she created for a particular client, the group title provides a convenient means for adding that information to the record. If a photographer needs to file separate applications for his or her published and unpublished photographs, the applicant may assign the same title to each application followed by the phrase “Group 1 of 3,” “Group 2 of 3,” and so on.
The CVA acknowledged that photographers should be able to determine if their photographs are published or unpublished if they are given proper guidance. CVA Comment at 31. The CVA and the Copyright Alliance also acknowledged that the
The NPRM proposed that all the photographs must be taken by the same photographer. If the photographs were created as works made for hire, the NPRM proposed that, in order to be eligible for group registration, all the photographs in the group must have been taken by the same employee, and the applicant must have identified both the employer and the employee in the application. To register photographs taken by different photographers, applicants would be required to submit a separate application for each individual.
The CVA commented that commercial studios often use multiple photographers and assistants during each photo shoot, and that a shoot involving a particular job or client may occur on different dates. Given the way these studios operate, the CVA said it would be “impractical” to segregate their photographs into separate groups, and it would be “time consuming and expensive” to prepare a separate application for each photographer.
Section 408 of the Copyright Act authorizes the Register to “require or permit . . . a single registration for a group of related works.” 17 U.S.C. 408(c)(1). The statute indicates that the Register has “general authority” to determine whether “particular classes” of works are sufficiently related to warrant group registration. 17 U.S.C. 408(c)(1), (2). After considering the comments, the Office has determined that this requirement may be met if the photographs were created by the same “author” (a term that includes an employer or other person for whom a work is made for hire), if the works are owned by the same claimant, and in the case of published photographs, if the works were published in the same calendar year.
The final rule does not represent a change in policy for most photographers. When an individual creates a photograph, that individual is considered the “author” of the work, and thus, the “author” and the “photographer” are the same person. But it does represent a change in policy for works made for hire. When a photograph is created as a work made for hire, the employer or commissioning party is considered the author and owner of the work, rather than the photographer who actually created the image. Thus, if the photographs were created as works made for hire, the applicant may name the employer or commissioning party as the author/claimant, instead of dividing the photographs into separate groups and submitting a separate application for each photographer.
For similar reasons, work-made-for-hire authors do not need to identify their employees in the application. However, the Office developed the new application before it decided to modify this requirement; as a result, the application contains a space where applicants may provide employee information. If the applicant checks the work made for hire box—but fails to complete the employee space—the application will not be accepted by the electronic registration system. The Office intends to remove this space in a future update to the system. In the meantime, work made for hire authors who are unwilling or unable to identify their employees may complete this portion of the application by stating that the individual photographer(s) are “not named in the application.”
When registering a group of published photographs, applicants should identify the author's country of citizenship or domicile, as well as the country where the photographs were published for the first time. The Office will use this information to determine if the photographs are eligible for registration under U.S. copyright law. 17 U.S.C. 104(b)(1)-(2); 409(2), (8).
The NPRM further proposed that all the photographs within each group should be published in the same country. 81 FR at 86650. This proposal was based on the current limitations of the electronic registration system. To identify the nation of publication in the current system, applicants must select from a list of countries appearing in a drop down menu, but the system will not allow applicants to select two or more countries from this list.
The CVA objected that photographers would need to prepare separate applications if their works are published in multiple countries. The CVA also noted that it may be difficult to determine where a photograph was published for the first time, particularly if the work was published online. CVA Comment at 32-33.
The Office did not include the single-country requirement in the final rule. In most cases, the Office should be able to determine if the photographs are eligible for copyright protection based on the author's citizenship or domicile. If the applicant is unable to establish eligibility based on this information, the Office may ask the applicant to confirm that the photographs were published in a country that has entered into a copyright treaty with the United States.
The Copyright Alliance and the CVA agreed that photographers should be entitled to claim a separate award of statutory damages if they register their works under the GRPPH or GRUPH option.
The Copyright Alliance and CVA also asked the Office to create a new group registration option for other types of visual art works, such as illustrations, video clips, and textile designs. Alternatively, they asked the Office to create another pilot program that would allow visual artists to register groups of related works with the online application that is designed for registering one work. Copyright Alliance Comment at 2, 4; CVA Comment at 5, 8-9, 27, 46-47, 49, 51-52, 56, 60. The Office recognizes a need for establishing new and updated practices for examining and registering visual art works.
The CVA also offered some suggestions for improving the current system. It encouraged the Office to improve the user interface, and allow applicants to populate each field with information stored in a spreadsheet or other database instead of entering it by hand. CVA Comment at 8. In addition, the CVA encouraged the Office to collaborate with third parties to develop apps and APIs that would help photographers register works directly from their cameras and photo editing programs. CVA Comment at 6, 36. The Office welcomes these suggestions. As mentioned above, the Office is in the early stages of developing the business requirements for its next generation registration system, and it will be seeking further comment on these issues in the future.
Finally, the CVA suggested that a registration for an unpublished work would be more effective if copyright owners could claim statutory damages and attorney's fees for any infringements occurring within three months before the effective date of registration (similar to the rule that applies to published works under section 412(2) of the Copyright Act). CVA Comment at 48. The CVA also suggested that the Office could create a “deferred examination” procedure, whereby the Office could issue a “provisional” registration after examining a sampling of the photographs in each group (similar to a provisional patent or intent to use trademark registration). If the photographer wanted to enforce the copyright in a particular photograph, he or she could ask the Office to conduct a “full” examination of that photograph for an additional fee. CVA Comment at 57-58.
The Office does not express any views on these suggestions, but simply notes that this rulemaking is not the proper forum in which to address them. The registration requirements CVA identified in its comments are part of the Copyright Act and the Office cannot expand or create exceptions to them as part of this rulemaking.
Copyright.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the U.S. Copyright Office amends 37 CFR parts 201 and 202 as follows:
17 U.S.C. 702.
The revision and addition read as follows:
(c) * * *
17 U.S.C. 408(f), 702.
The additions read as follows:
(h)
(1) All the works in the group must be photographs.
(2) The group must include no more than 750 photographs, and the application must specify the total number of photographs that are included in the group.
(3) All the photographs must be created by the same author.
(4) The copyright claimant for all the photographs must be the same person or organization.
(5) The photographs may be registered as works made for hire if all the photographs are identified in the application as such.
(6) All the photographs must be unpublished.
(7) The applicant must provide a title for the group as a whole
(8) The applicant must complete and submit the online application designated for a group of unpublished photographs. (The Office will not register a group of unpublished photographs as an unpublished collection under § 202.3(b)(4)(i)(B).) The application may be submitted by any of the parties listed in § 202.3(c)(1).
(9) The applicant must submit one copy of each photograph in one of the following formats: JPEG, GIF, or TIFF. The file name for a particular photograph may consist of letters, numbers, and spaces, but the file name should not contain any other form of punctuation. The photographs may be uploaded to the electronic registration system together with the required numbered list, preferably in a .zip file containing all the photographs. The file size for each uploaded file must not exceed 500 megabytes; the photographs may be compressed to comply with this requirement. Alternatively, the photographs and the required numbered list may be saved on a physical storage device, such as a flash drive, CD-R, or DVD-R, and delivered to the Copyright Office together with the required shipping slip generated by the electronic registration system.
(10) The applicant must submit a sequentially numbered list containing a title and file name for each photograph in the group (matching the corresponding file names for each photograph specified in paragraph (h)(9) of this section). The title and file name for a particular photograph may be the same. The numbered list must be contained in an electronic file in Excel format (.xls), Portable Document Format (PDF), or other electronic format approved by the Office, and the file name for the list must contain the title of the group and the case number assigned to the application by the electronic registration system (
(11) In an exceptional case, the Copyright Office may waive the online filing requirement set forth in paragraph (h)(8) of this section or may grant special relief from the deposit requirement under § 202.20(d), subject to such conditions as the Associate Register of Copyrights and Director of the Office of Registration Policy and Practice may impose on the applicant.
(i)
(1) All the works in the group must be photographs.
(2) The group must include no more than 750 photographs, and the application must specify the total number of photographs that are included in the group.
(3) All the photographs must be created by the same author.
(4) The copyright claimant for all the photographs must be the same person or organization.
(5) The photographs may be registered as works made for hire if all the photographs are identified in the application as such.
(6) All the photographs must be published within the same calendar year, and the applicant must specify the earliest and latest date that the photographs were published during the year.
(7) The applicant must provide a title for the group as a whole.
(8) The applicant must complete and submit the online application designated for a group of published photographs. The application may be submitted by any of the parties listed in § 202.3(c)(1).
(9) The applicant must submit one copy of each photograph in one of the following formats: JPEG, GIF, or TIFF. The file name for a particular photograph may consist of letters, numbers, and spaces, but the file name should not contain any other form of punctuation. The photographs may be uploaded to the electronic registration system together with the required numbered list, preferably in a .zip file containing all the photographs. The file size for each uploaded file must not exceed 500 megabytes; the photographs may be compressed to comply with this requirement. Alternatively, the photographs and the required numbered list may be saved on a physical storage device, such as a flash drive, CD-R, or DVD-R, and delivered to the Copyright Office together with the required shipping slip generated by the electronic registration system.
(10) The applicant must submit a sequentially numbered list containing the title, file name, and month and year of publication for each photograph in the group (matching the corresponding file names for each photograph specified in paragraph (i)(9) of this section). The title and file name for a particular photograph may be the same. The numbered list must be contained in an electronic file in Excel format (.xls), Portable Document Format (PDF), or other electronic format approved by the Office, and the file name for the list must contain the title of the group and the case number assigned to the application by the electronic registration system (
(11) In an exceptional case, the Copyright Office may waive the online filing requirement set forth in paragraph (i)(8) of this section or may grant special relief from the deposit requirement under § 202.20(d), subject to such conditions as the Associate Register of Copyrights and Director of the Office of Registration Policy and Practice may impose on the applicant.
The revision reads as follows:
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(vii) * * *
(D) * * *
(
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (“CERCLA” or “the Act”), as amended, requires that the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (“NCP”) include a list of national priorities among the known releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants throughout the United States. The National Priorities List (“NPL”) constitutes this list. The NPL is intended primarily to guide the Environmental Protection Agency (“the EPA” or “the agency”) in determining which sites warrant further investigation. These further investigations will allow the EPA to assess the nature and extent of public health and environmental risks associated with the site and to determine what CERCLA-financed remedial action(s), if any, may be appropriate. This rule adds four sites to the General Superfund section of the NPL.
The document is effective on February 20, 2018.
Contact information for the EPA Headquarters:
• Docket Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; CERCLA Docket Office, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, William Jefferson Clinton Building West, Room 3334, Washington, DC 20004, 202-566-0276.
The contact information for the regional dockets is as follows:
• Holly Inglis, Region 1 (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT), U.S. EPA, Superfund Records and Information Center, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 02109-3912; 617-918-1413.
• Ildefonso Acosta, Region 2 (NJ, NY, PR, VI), U.S. EPA, 290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866; 212-637-4344.
• Lorie Baker (ASRC), Region 3 (DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV), U.S. EPA, Library, 1650 Arch Street, Mailcode 3HS12, Philadelphia, PA 19103; 215-814-3355.
• Cathy Amoroso, Region 4 (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN), U.S. EPA, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Mailcode 9T25, Atlanta, GA 30303; 404-562-8637.
• Todd Quesada, Region 5 (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI), U.S. EPA Superfund Division Librarian/SFD Records Manager SRC-7J, Metcalfe Federal Building, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604; 312-886-4465.
• Brenda Cook, Region 6 (AR, LA, NM, OK, TX), U.S. EPA, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Mailcode 6SFTS, Dallas, TX 75202-2733; 214-665-7436.
• Kumud Pyakuryal, Region 7 (IA, KS, MO, NE), U.S. EPA, 11201 Renner Blvd., Mailcode SUPRSTAR, Lenexa, KS 66219; 913-551-7956.
• Victor Ketellapper, Region 8 (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY), U.S. EPA, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Mailcode 8EPR-B, Denver, CO 80202-1129; 303-312-6578.
• Sharon Murray, Region 9 (AZ, CA, HI, NV, AS, GU, MP), U.S. EPA, 75 Hawthorne Street, Mailcode SFD 6-1, San Francisco, CA 94105; 415-947-4250.
• Ken Marcy, Region 10 (AK, ID, OR, WA), U.S. EPA, 1200 6th Avenue, Mailcode ECL-112, Seattle, WA 98101; 206-463-1349.
Terry Jeng, phone: (703) 603-8852, email:
In 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675 (“CERCLA” or “the Act”), in response to the dangers of uncontrolled releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, and releases or substantial threats of releases into the environment of any pollutant or contaminant that may present an imminent or substantial danger to the public health or welfare. CERCLA was amended on October 17, 1986, by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (“SARA”), Public Law 99-499, 100 Stat. 1613
To implement CERCLA, the EPA promulgated the revised National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (“NCP”), 40 CFR part 300, on July 16, 1982 (47 FR 31180), pursuant to CERCLA section 105 and Executive Order 12316 (46 FR 42237, August 20, 1981). The NCP sets guidelines and procedures for responding to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, or releases or substantial threats of releases into the environment of any pollutant or contaminant that may present an imminent or substantial danger to the public health or welfare. The EPA has revised the NCP on several occasions. The most recent comprehensive revision was on March 8, 1990 (55 FR 8666).
As required under section 105(a)(8)(A) of CERCLA, the NCP also includes “criteria for determining priorities among releases or threatened releases throughout the United States for the purpose of taking remedial action and, to the extent practicable, taking into account the potential urgency of such action, for the purpose of taking removal action.” “Removal” actions are defined broadly and include a wide range of actions taken to study, clean up, prevent or otherwise address releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants (42 U.S.C. 9601(23)).
The NPL is a list of national priorities among the known or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants throughout the United States. The list, which is appendix B of the NCP (40 CFR part 300), was required under section 105(a)(8)(B) of CERCLA, as amended. Section 105(a)(8)(B) defines the NPL as a list of “releases” and the highest priority “facilities” and requires that the NPL be revised at least annually. The NPL is intended primarily to guide the EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation to assess the nature and extent of public health and environmental risks associated with a release of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants. The NPL is of only limited significance, however, as it does not assign liability to any party or to the owner of any specific property. Also, placing a site on the NPL does not mean that any remedial or removal action necessarily need be taken.
For purposes of listing, the NPL includes two sections, one of sites that are generally evaluated and cleaned up by the EPA (the “General Superfund section”) and one of sites that are owned or operated by other federal agencies (the “Federal Facilities section”). With respect to sites in the Federal Facilities section, these sites are generally being addressed by other federal agencies. Under Executive Order 12580 (52 FR 2923, January 29, 1987) and CERCLA section 120, each federal agency is responsible for carrying out most response actions at facilities under its own jurisdiction, custody or control, although the EPA is responsible for preparing a Hazard Ranking System (“HRS”) score and determining whether the facility is placed on the NPL.
There are three mechanisms for placing sites on the NPL for possible remedial action (see 40 CFR 300.425(c) of the NCP): (1) A site may be included on the NPL if it scores sufficiently high on the HRS, which the EPA promulgated as appendix A of the NCP (40 CFR part 300). The HRS serves as a screening tool to evaluate the relative potential of uncontrolled hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants to pose a threat to human health or the environment. On December 14, 1990 (55 FR 51532), the EPA promulgated revisions to the HRS partly in response to CERCLA section 105(c), added by SARA. The revised HRS evaluates four pathways: ground water, surface water, soil exposure and air. As a matter of agency policy, those sites that score 28.50 or greater on the HRS are eligible for the NPL. (2) Each state may designate a single site as its top priority to be listed on the NPL, without any HRS score. This provision of CERCLA requires that, to the extent practicable, the NPL include one facility designated by each state as the greatest danger to public health, welfare or the environment among known facilities in the state. This mechanism for listing is set out in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(2). (3) The third mechanism for listing, included in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(3), allows certain sites to be listed without any HRS score, if all of the following conditions are met:
• The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) of the U.S. Public Health Service has issued a health advisory that recommends dissociation of individuals from the release.
• The EPA determines that the release poses a significant threat to public health.
• The EPA anticipates that it will be more cost-effective to use its remedial authority than to use its removal authority to respond to the release.
The EPA promulgated an original NPL of 406 sites on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 40658) and generally has updated it at least annually.
A site may undergo remedial action financed by the Trust Fund established under CERCLA (commonly referred to as the “Superfund”) only after it is placed on the NPL, as provided in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(b)(1). (“Remedial actions” are those “consistent with a permanent remedy, taken instead of or in addition to removal actions” (40 CFR 300.5). However, under 40 CFR 300.425(b)(2), placing a site on the NPL “does not imply that monies will be expended.” The EPA may pursue other appropriate authorities to respond to the releases, including enforcement action under CERCLA and other laws.
The NPL does not describe releases in precise geographical terms; it would be neither feasible nor consistent with the limited purpose of the NPL (to identify releases that are priorities for further evaluation), for it to do so. Indeed, the precise nature and extent of the site are typically not known at the time of listing.
Although a CERCLA “facility” is broadly defined to include any area where a hazardous substance has “come
When a site is listed, the approach generally used to describe the relevant release(s) is to delineate a geographical area (usually the area within an installation or plant boundaries) and identify the site by reference to that area. However, the NPL site is not necessarily coextensive with the boundaries of the installation or plant, and the boundaries of the installation or plant are not necessarily the “boundaries” of the site. Rather, the site consists of all contaminated areas within the area used to identify the site, as well as any other location where that contamination has come to be located, or from where that contamination came.
In other words, while geographic terms are often used to designate the site (
EPA regulations provide that the remedial investigation (“RI”) “is a process undertaken . . . to determine the nature and extent of the problem presented by the release” as more information is developed on site contamination, and which is generally performed in an interactive fashion with the feasibility study (“FS”) (40 CFR 300.5). During the RI/FS process, the release may be found to be larger or smaller than was originally thought, as more is learned about the source(s) and the migration of the contamination. However, the HRS inquiry focuses on an evaluation of the threat posed and therefore the boundaries of the release need not be exactly defined. Moreover, it generally is impossible to discover the full extent of where the contamination “has come to be located” before all necessary studies and remedial work are completed at a site. Indeed, the known boundaries of the contamination can be expected to change over time. Thus, in most cases, it may be impossible to describe the boundaries of a release with absolute certainty.
Further, as noted previously, NPL listing does not assign liability to any party or to the owner of any specific property. Thus, if a party does not believe it is liable for releases on discrete parcels of property, it can submit supporting information to the agency at any time after it receives notice it is a potentially responsible party.
For these reasons, the NPL need not be amended as further research reveals more information about the location of the contamination or release.
The EPA may delete sites from the NPL where no further response is appropriate under Superfund, as explained in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(e). This section also provides that the EPA shall consult with states on proposed deletions and shall consider whether any of the following criteria have been met:
(i) Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required;
(ii) All appropriate Superfund-financed response has been implemented and no further response action is required; or
(iii) The remedial investigation has shown the release poses no significant threat to public health or the environment, and taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.
In November 1995, the EPA initiated a policy to delete portions of NPL sites where cleanup is complete (60 FR 55465, November 1, 1995). Total site cleanup may take many years, while portions of the site may have been cleaned up and made available for productive use.
The EPA also has developed an NPL construction completion list (“CCL”) to simplify its system of categorizing sites and to better communicate the successful completion of cleanup activities (58 FR 12142, March 2, 1993). Inclusion of a site on the CCL has no legal significance.
Sites qualify for the CCL when: (1) Any necessary physical construction is complete, whether or not final cleanup levels or other requirements have been achieved; (2) the EPA has determined that the response action should be limited to measures that do not involve construction (
The Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use measure represents important Superfund accomplishments and the measure reflects the high priority the EPA places on considering anticipated future land use as part of the remedy selection process. See Guidance for Implementing the Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse Measure, May 24, 2006, OSWER 9365.0-36. This measure applies to final and deleted sites where construction is complete, all cleanup goals have been achieved, and all institutional or other controls are in place. The EPA has been successful on many occasions in carrying out remedial actions that ensure protectiveness of human health and the environment for current and future land uses, in a manner that allows contaminated properties to be restored to environmental and economic vitality. For further information, please go to
In order to maintain close coordination with states and tribes in the NPL listing decision process, the EPA's policy is to determine the position of the states and tribes regarding sites that the EPA is considering for listing. This consultation process is outlined in two memoranda that can be found at the following website:
The EPA has improved the transparency of the process by which state and tribal input is solicited. The EPA is using the Web and where appropriate more structured state and tribal correspondence that (1) explains the concerns at the site and the EPA's rationale for proceeding; (2) requests an
A model letter and correspondence between the EPA and states and tribes where applicable, is available on the EPA's website at
Yes, documents relating to the evaluation and scoring of the sites in this final rule are contained in dockets located both at the EPA headquarters and in the EPA regional offices. An electronic version of the public docket is available through
The headquarters docket for this rule contains the HRS score sheets, the documentation record describing the information used to compute the score and a list of documents referenced in the documentation record for each site.
The EPA regional dockets contain all the information in the headquarters docket, plus the actual reference documents containing the data principally relied upon by the EPA in calculating or evaluating the HRS score. These reference documents are available only in the regional dockets.
You may view the documents, by appointment only, after the publication of this rule. The hours of operation for the headquarters docket are from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays. Please contact the regional dockets for hours. For addresses for the headquarters and regional dockets, see
You may obtain a current list of NPL sites via the internet at
This final rule adds the following four sites to the General Superfund section of the NPL. These sites are being added to the NPL based on HRS score.
The EPA is adding four sites to the NPL in this final rule. All four sites were proposed for NPL addition on August 3, 2017 (82 FR 36106). The sites are: Newark South Ground Water Plume in Newark, DE; American Creosote DeRidder in DeRidder, LA; Mississippi Phosphates Corporation in Pascagoula, MS; and, Eagle Industries in Midwest City, OK.
The EPA received no comments on the American Creosote DeRidder site. One comment was submitted to the Eagle Industries site docket, but that comment was unrelated to the site.
Two comments were received in support of the Newark South Ground Water Plume site. One resident that lives in Newark supported the EPA's efforts to clean up the site. The other comment was a resolution passed by the Newark City Council in support of NPL listing. The Newark South Ground Water Plume docket also received one comment that was unrelated to the proposed NPL listing.
The EPA received nine comments in support of the Mississippi Phosphates Corporation site. Seven of those comments were submitted from local citizens. Two comments that were submitted by local environmental groups expressed support for the addition of the site to the NPL and requested responses from the EPA on questions that did not pertain to the proposed NPL addition. The EPA will be communicating with those groups directly to answer their questions.
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA. This rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require approval of the OMB.
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This rule listing sites on the NPL does not impose any obligations on any group, including small entities. This rule also does not establish standards or requirements that any small entity must meet, and imposes no direct costs on any small entity. Whether an entity, small or otherwise, is liable for response costs for a release of hazardous substances depends on whether that entity is liable under CERCLA 107(a). Any such liability exists regardless of whether the site is listed on the NPL through this rulemaking.
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector. Listing a site on the NPL does not itself impose any costs. Listing does not mean that the EPA necessarily will undertake remedial action. Nor does listing require any action by a private party, state, local or tribal governments or determine liability for response costs. Costs that arise out of site responses result from future site-specific decisions regarding what actions to take, not directly from the act of placing a site on the NPL.
This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. Listing a site on the NPL does not impose any costs on a tribe or require a tribe to take remedial action. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because this action itself is procedural in nature (adds sites to a list) and does not, in and of itself, provide protection from environmental health and safety risks. Separate future regulatory actions are required for mitigation of environmental health and safety risks.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. As discussed in Section I.C. of the preamble to this action, the NPL is a list of national priorities. The NPL is intended primarily to guide the EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation to assess the nature and extent of public health and environmental risks associated with a release of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants. The NPL is of only limited significance as it does not assign liability to any party. Also, placing a site on the NPL does not mean that any remedial or removal action necessarily need be taken.
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Provisions of the Congressional Review Act (CRA) or section 305 of CERCLA may alter the effective date of this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 801(b)(1), a rule shall not take effect, or continue in effect, if Congress enacts (and the President signs) a joint resolution of disapproval, described under section 802. Another statutory provision that may affect this rule is CERCLA section 305, which provides for a legislative veto of regulations promulgated under CERCLA. Although
If action by Congress under either the CRA or CERCLA section 305 calls the effective date of this regulation into question, the EPA will publish a document of clarification in the
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations, Natural resources, Oil pollution, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply.
40 CFR part 300 is amended as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 13626, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p.351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) adopted an Order that closes Lockbox 979091 and modifies the relevant rule provisions of filing and making fee payments in lieu of closing the lockbox.
Effective on February 20, 2018.
Roland Helvajian, Office of Managing Director at (202) 418-0444.
This is a summary of the Commission's Order, FCC 17-159, MD Docket No. 17-357, adopted on December 1, 2017 and released on December 18, 2017. The full text of this document is available for public inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554, or by downloading the text from the Commission's website at
1. Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, requires a regulatory flexibility analysis in notice and comment rulemaking proceedings.
2. This document does not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198,
3. The Commission will not send a copy of the Order pursuant to the Congressional Review Act,
4. In the Order, we reduce expenditures by the Commission and modernize procedures by amending section 1.1105 of our rules, 47 CFR 1.1105, which sets forth the application fee for petitions filed with the FCC's Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB), to reflect the closure of the post office (P.O.) Box
5. Section 1.1105 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1105, has provided a schedule of processing fees for applications, tariffs, and petitions processed by the WCB. The rule had also directed filers, who do not utilize the Commission's on-line filing and fee payment systems, to send manual filings and payments to P.O. Box 979091 at U.S. Bank in St. Louis, Missouri.
6. The Commission has reduced its use of P.O. Boxes for the collection of fees and encouraged the use of
7. As part of this effort, we are now closing P.O. Box 979091 and modifying the relevant rule provisions that require payment of fees and/or processing of filings via the closed P.O. Box. Our action here to close this lockbox and require electronic payments for any WCB-related fees, as well as encouraging the electronic filing of WCB-related petitions and applications, has implications for existing Commission regulations other than section 1.1105. Thus, we also revise sections 0.401, 1.49, 1.51, 1.52, 1.742, 1.1111, 1.1112, 1.1113, 1.1119, 51.329(c)(2), 61.13, 61.14, 61.17(d), and 61.20 of the Commission's rules. These additional rules are modified to eliminate references to P.O. Box 979091, encourage electronic filing of WCB related applications when practicable, and clarify where other filing rules only apply to paper filings to avoid confusion. For instance, sections 61.13, 61.14, 61.17(d) and 61.20(b) of our rules are revised to require carriers to utilize the electronic filing process for all tariff publications and related documents whenever practicable, and directs manual filers to the web page of the FCC's Office of the Secretary for procedures for submitting hard copies. The rule changes are contained in the Appendix of the Order. We make these changes without notice and comment because they are rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice exempt from the general notice-and-comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act,
8.
9.
Organization and functions (Government agencies).
Administrative practice and procedure, Communications common carriers, and Federal buildings and facilities.
Communications common carriers.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 0, 1, 51, and 61 as follows:
Section 5, 48 Stat. 1068, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 155, 225, unless otherwise noted.
The revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) Electronic filings, where required, recommended, or permitted, must be transmitted as specified by the Commission or relevant Bureau or Office.
(b) Applications or filings requiring the fees set forth at part 1, subpart G of the rules must be delivered through the appropriate electronic filing system with the correct fee and completed Fee Form attached to the application or filing, unless otherwise directed by the Commission. In the case of any conflict between this rule subpart and other rules establishing filing locations for submissions subject to a fee, this subpart shall govern.
Applicants seeking a waiver or deferral of fees must submit their application or filing in accordance with the addresses set forth below. Applicants claiming a statutory exemption from the fees should file their applications in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section.
(1) Applications and filings submitted by mail shall be submitted following the procedures set forth by the Commission in the appropriate fee rules.
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau applications that require frequency coordination by certified coordinators must be submitted to the appropriate certified frequency coordinator before filing with the Commission. After coordination, the applications are filed with the Commission
47 U.S.C. 34-39, 151, 154(i), 154(j), 155, 157, 160, 201, 225, 227, 303, 309, 332, 1403, 1404, 1451, 1452, and 1455.
(a) All pleadings and documents filed in paper form in any Commission proceeding shall be typewritten or prepared by mechanical processing methods, and shall be filed electronically or on paper with dimensions of A4 (21 cm. x 29.7 cm.) or on 8
(a) In hearing proceedings, unless filed electronically or otherwise specified by Commission rules, an original and one copy shall be filed, along with-an additional copy for each additional presiding officer at the hearing, if more than one. If filed electronically, additional courtesy copies shall be emailed as directed by the Commission.
* * * If filed electronically, a signature will be considered any symbol executed or adopted by the party with the intent that such symbol be a signature, including symbols formed by computer-generated electronic impulses. * * *
All applications which do not require a fee shall be filed electronically through the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System if practicable. Applications which must be filed in hard copy format should be submitted according to the procedures set forth on the web page of the FCC's Office of the Secretary,
Remit payment for these services electronically using the Commission's electronic filing and payment system, and, where practicable, applications and other substantive filings, in accordance with the procedures set forth on the Commission's website,
(d) Applications returned to applicants for additional information or corrections will not require an additional fee when resubmitted, unless the additional information results in an increase of the original fee amount. Those applications not requiring an additional fee should be resubmitted electronically or directly to the Bureau/Office requesting the additional information, as requested. The original fee will be forfeited if the additional information or corrections are not resubmitted by the prescribed deadline. A forfeited application fee will not be refunded. If an additional fee is required, the original fee will be returned and the application must be resubmitted with a new remittance in the amount of the required fee. Applicants should attach a copy of the Commission's request for additional or corrected information to their resubmission.
(g) The Commission will furnish a stamped receipt of an application filed by mail or in person only upon request that complies with the following instructions. In order to obtain a stamped receipt for an application (or other filing), the application package must include a copy of the first page of the application, clearly marked “copy”, submitted expressly for the purpose of serving as a receipt of the filing. The copy should be the top document in the package. If hand delivered, the copy will be date-stamped immediately and provided to the bearer of the submission. For submissions by mail, the receipt copy will be provided through return mail if the filer has attached to the receipt copy a stamped self-addressed envelope of sufficient size to contain the date stamped copy of the application. No remittance receipt copies will be furnished. Stamped receipts of electronically-filed applications will not be provided.
(a) * * *
(1) Tariff filings shall be filed with the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. On the same day, the filer should submit a copy of the cover letter, the FCC Form 159, and the appropriate fee in accordance with the procedures established in § 1.1105.
(2) * * * Electronic payments must include the reference number contained on the bill sent by the Commission.
(4) Applicants claiming an exemption from a fee requirement for an application or other filing under 47 U.S.C. 158(d)(1) or § 1.1116 of this subpart shall file their applications in the appropriate location as set forth in the rules for the service for which they are applying, except that request for waiver accompanied by a tentative fee payment should be filed as set forth in §§ 1.1102 through 1.1109.
(c) * * *
(1) Petitions and applications for review submitted with a fee must be submitted electronically or to the Commission's lock box bank at the address for the appropriate service as set forth in §§ 1.1102 through 1.1107.
(2) If no fee payment is submitted, the request should be filed electronically through the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System or with the Commission's Secretary.
47 U.S.C. 151-55, 201-05, 207-09, 218, 220, 225-27, 251-54, 256, 271, 303(r), 332, 1302.
(c) * * *
(2) The incumbent LEC's public notice and any associated certifications shall be filed through the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), using the “Submit a Non-Docketed Filing” module. All subsequent filings responsive to a notice may be filed using the Commission's ECFS under the docket number set forth in the Commission's public notice for the proceeding. If necessary, subsequent filings responsive to a notice also may be filed by sending one paper copy of the filing to “Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554” and one paper copy of the filing to “Federal Communications Commission, Wireline Competition Bureau, Competition Policy Division, Washington, DC 20554.” For notices filed using the Commission's ECFS, the date on which the filing is received by that system will be considered the official filing date. For notices filed via paper copy, the date on which the filing is received by the Secretary or the FCC Mailroom is considered the official filing date. All subsequent filings responsive to a notice shall refer to the ECFS docket number assigned to the notice.
Secs. 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201-205 and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201-205 and 403, unless otherwise noted.
(a) All issuing carriers that file tariffs are required to file tariff publications electronically, if practicable.
(b) All tariff publications shall be filed in a manner that is compatible and consistent with the technical requirements of the Electronic Tariff Filing System.
(c) Tariff publications which must be filed in hard copy format should be submitted according to the procedures set forth on the web page of the FCC's Office of the Secretary,
(a) Publications filed electronically must be captioned to “Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554.” The Electronic Tariff Filing System will accept filings 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The official filing date of a publication received by the Electronic Tariff Filing System will be determined by the date and time the transmission ends. If the transmission ends after the close of a business day, as that term is defined in § 1.4(e)(2) of this chapter, the filing will be date and time stamped as of the opening of the next business day.
(b) Carriers are strongly encouraged to submit publications electronically if practicable. Carriers need only transmit one set of files to the Commission. No other copies to any other party are required. Publications which must be filed in hard copy format should be submitted according to the procedures set forth on the web page of the FCC's Office of the Secretary,
(d) In addition, for special permission applications requiring fees as set forth in part 1, subpart G of this chapter, carriers shall submit the appropriate fee and associated payment form electronically through the process set forth in § 1.1105 of this chapter and, if practicable, the application and associated documents electronically in accordance with the procedures set forth on the Commission's website,
(b) In addition, all tariff publications requiring fees as set forth in part 1, subpart G of this chapter, shall be submitted electronically if practicable in accordance with § 1.1105 of this chapter along with the electronic submission of the payment online form. Petitions which must be filed in hard copy format should be submitted according to the procedures set forth on the web page of the FCC's Office of the Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) amends its regulations governing the Emergency Alert System (EAS) and Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA) to add a new event code, B-L-U, to allow alert originators to issue an alert whenever a law enforcement officer is injured or killed, missing in connection with his or her official duties, or there is an imminent and credible threat to cause death or serious injury to law enforcement officers.
This rule is effective January 18, 2018. Delivery of Blue Alerts over EAS will be implemented January 18, 2019. Delivery of Blue Alerts over WEA will be implemented July 18, 2019. This docket will remain open for comments until March 19, 2018.
Gregory Cooke, Deputy Division Chief, Policy and Licensing Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, at (202) 418-2351, or by email at
This is a summary of the Commission's
1. The
2. The EAS is a national public warning system through which broadcasters, cable systems, and other service providers (EAS Participants) deliver alerts to the public to warn them of impending emergencies and dangers to life and property. Although the primary purpose of the EAS is to equip the President with the ability to provide immediate information to the public during periods of national emergency, the EAS is also used by the National Weather Service (NWS) and state and local governments to distribute voluntary alerts such as weather-related and child abduction (AMBER) alerts. EAS uses three-character event codes to identify the various elements, so that each can deliver accurate, secure, and geographically-targeted messages to the public, in text crawls and in the audio portion of EAS alerts (
3. In 2015, Congress enacted the Blue Alert Act to “encourage, enhance, and integrate Blue Alert plans throughout the United States,” thus facilitating the dissemination of information in a consistent manner nationwide when a law enforcement officer is seriously injured, killed or missing in the line of duty. The Blue Alert Act directs the Attorney General to establish a national Blue Alert communications network within DOJ to issue Blue Alerts, using plans that would be adopted in coordination with “States, units of local government, law enforcement agencies, and other appropriate entities.” In September 2016, the Attorney General assigned the COPS Office within DOJ to be the National Blue Alert Coordinator.
4. The COPS Office filed two reports with Congress to demonstrate how it was implementing the Blue Alert Act's mandate. In its
5. The COPS Office established voluntary guidelines for the issuance of Blue Alerts based on the criteria contained in the Blue Alert Act (
6. On June 22, 2017, the FCC released the
7.
8. The
9. The
10. The Commission believes that Blue Alerts delivered via the broadcast EAS continues to be an effective mechanism for the delivery of Blue Alerts. Concerns about the relative value of IPAWS-based, as opposed to daisy chain-based, EAS alerts are not unique to Blue Alerts. For example, AMBER Alerts are subject to the same technical limitations, potentially providing the public with an alert from the daisy chain that lacks the descriptive information about the victim that an IPAWS-based alert would provide. The
11. Nonetheless, the
12.
13. The conclusion in the
14. Further, the Commission is persuaded by the COPS Office that an EAS event code solely dedicated to Blue Alerts would “facilitate and streamline the adoption of new Blue Alert plans throughout the nation and would help to integrate existing plans into a coordinated national framework.” The recommendation by the COPS Office is supported by its extensive outreach to U.S. States and territories. According to the COPS Office, twenty-eight states operate Blue Alert systems, and twenty-eight states and territories do not. In its
15. The
16. The
17. Similarly, the
18.
19. NYC suggests that Blue Alerts use the Imminent Threat Alert classification only as a temporary measure until such time that a dedicated WEA message classification for Blue Alerts can be developed and deployed. NYC is concerned that the existing pre-scripted text for Imminent Threat Alert is “overly vague,” lacks capabilities for “alert originators entering free form text” or “Blue Alert-specific pre-scripted text,” and “can lead to public confusion and/or panic.” Although NYC's concerns are somewhat mitigated by the evidence in the record that alert originators can use message “templates” that could be used for different Blue Alert scenarios, the Commission believes the issue merits further study. The Commission sought comment in the
20.
21. The
22. Although NYC states that six months is sufficient time for EAS equipment manufacturers to release the necessary software upgrades for a dedicated Blue Alert event code, other commenters suggest more time is warranted for implementation of Blue Alerts for both EAS and WEA. NCTA states that the Commission should work with EAS manufacturers to determine the adequacy of the time allocated for software upgrades to equipment. EAS equipment manufacturers Monroe and Sage Alerting Systems (Sage) state that 12 months is sufficient to allow for the new event code to be deployed within a scheduled in-version equipment software update, resulting in no incremental cost to EAS Participants, rather than as a scheduled major version upgrade that would have to be separately purchased. Broadcaster Adrienne Abbott (Abbott) states that EAS stakeholders have additional needs that must be met to ensure the successful delivery of Blue Alerts (
23. The
24.
25.
26.
27. The establishment of a dedicated Blue Alert code will also provide the benefit of generating assistance from the public and cost savings for emergency responders. According to NYC, threats and/or violent crimes, including those covered by Blue Alerts, have an economic impact on jurisdictions that should be counted among the benefits of Blue Alerts. Blue Alerts can provide an immediate warning to the public in an area where an extremely dangerous suspect is thought to be. As the Commission noted in the
28. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to
29. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),
30. This document does not contain proposed information collection(s) subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. Therefore, it also does not contain any new or modified information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198,
31. The Commission will send a copy of this
32.
33.
34.
35.
Radio, Television.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 11 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 151, 154 (i) and (o), 303(r), 544(g) and 606.
The addition reads as follows:
(e) The following Event (EEE) codes are presently authorized:
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; announcement of effective date.
In this document, the Commission announces that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved, for a period of three years, the information collection associated with the Commission's discontinuance rules. This document is consistent with the
The amendments to 47 CFR 63.71(a) introductory text, (b), (g), and (i) published at 81 FR 62632, September 12, 2016, are effective on January 18, 2018.
Michele Levy Berlove, Attorney Advisor, Wireline Competition Bureau, at (202) 418-1477, or by email at
This document announces that, on January 5, 2018, OMB approved, for a period of three years, the information collection requirements relating to certain of the discontinuance rules contained in the Commission's
The OMB Control Number is 3060-0149. The Commission publishes this document as an announcement of the effective date of the rules. If you have any comments on the burden estimates listed below, or how the Commission can improve the collections and reduce any burdens caused thereby, please contact Nicole Ongele, Federal Communications Commission, Room A-C620, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554. Please include the OMB Control Number, 3060-0149, in your correspondence. The Commission will also accept your comments via email at
To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received final OMB approval on January 5, 2018, for the information collection requirements contained in the modifications to the Commission's rules in 47 CFR part 63. Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number.
No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number is 3060-0149.
The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.
The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; inseason adjustment; correction.
NMFS is correcting a temporary rule that published on December 20, 2017, adjusting the 2018 total allowable catch (TAC) amounts for the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) pollock, Atka mackerel, and Pacific cod fisheries. One table in the document contained an error.
Effective January 18, 2018, until the effective date of the final 2018 and 2019 harvest specifications for BSAI groundfish, unless otherwise modified or superseded through publication of a notification in the
Steve Whitney, 907-586-7228.
NMFS published an inseason adjustment of the 2018 TAC amounts for the BSAI pollock, Atka mackerel, and Pacific cod fisheries (82 FR 60329, December 20, 2017). A table providing information about the 2018 allocations of pollock TACs and community development quota (CDQ) directed fishing allowances (DFA) contained an incorrect amount in the column titled “2018 allocations” and the second row in the Bering Sea subarea titled “CDQ DFA.” This value was specified as 164,434 metric tons (mt), instead of the correct value of 136,434 mt.
NMFS anticipates that this correction will not affect the fishing operations of the CDQ vessels that are subject to these DFAs. This is because of the seasonal allocations for the Bering Sea subarea CDQ DFAs are correctly specified.
In FR Doc. 2017-27428, published on December 20, 2017 (82 FR 60329), the following correction is made to Table 5:
On page 60330, in Table 5, column 2 is corrected to incorporate the correct amount for the Bering Sea subarea CDQ pollock DFA.
Table 5 is corrected and reprinted in its entirety to read as follows:
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This correcting amendment makes changes to correct the amount of Bering Sea subarea CDQ pollock DFA in Table 5, as described above, and does not change operating practices in the fisheries. If this correction is delayed to allow for notice and comment, it would result in confusion for participants in the fisheries. Therefore, in order to avoid any negative consequences that could result from this error, the AA finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This correcting amendment makes only a minor change to correct the amount of Bering Sea subarea CDQ pollock DFA in Table 5, and does not change operating practices in the fisheries. This correction would also avoid any confusion for participants in the fisheries. For these reasons, the AA finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Request for information (“RFI”).
The U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) is initiating a data collection process through this request for information to consider whether to amend DOE's test procedures for microwave ovens. To inform interested parties and to facilitate this process, DOE has gathered data, identifying several issues associated with the currently applicable test procedures on which DOE is interested in receiving comment. The issues outlined in this document mainly concern the measurement of active mode, standby mode, and off mode energy use, and an integrated annual energy use metric for microwave ovens; and any additional topics that may inform DOE's decisions in a future test procedure rulemaking, including methods to reduce regulatory burden while ensuring the procedures' accuracy. DOE welcomes written comments from the public on any subject within the scope of this document (including topics not raised in this RFI).
Written comments and information are requested and will be accepted on or before February 20, 2018.
Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
1.
2.
3.
4.
No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be accepted. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this process, see section III of this document.
The docket web page can be found at
Dr. Stephanie Johnson, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-1943. Email:
Ms. Celia Sher, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-6122. Email:
For further information on how to submit a comment or review other public comments and the docket, contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
Microwave ovens are included in the list of “covered products” for which DOE is authorized to establish and amend energy conservation standards and test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(10)) DOE's test procedures for microwave ovens are prescribed at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) part 430, subpart B, appendix I (“Appendix I”). The following sections discuss DOE's authority to establish and amend test procedures for microwave ovens, as well as relevant background information regarding DOE's consideration of test procedures for this product.
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (“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 specifically include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6295), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered products established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d))
The Federal testing requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of covered products must use as the basis for: (1) Certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)), and (2) making representations about the efficiency of those consumer products (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)). Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the products comply with relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s))
Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for covered products. EPCA requires that any test procedures prescribed or amended under this section be reasonably designed to produce test results which measure energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual operating cost of a covered product during a representative average use cycle or period of use and not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))
In addition, if DOE determines that a test procedure amendment is warranted, it must publish proposed test procedures and offer the public an opportunity to present oral and written comments on them. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(2))
EPCA also requires that, at least once every 7 years, DOE evaluate test procedures for each type of covered product, including microwave ovens, to determine whether amended test procedures would more accurately or fully comply with the requirements for the test procedures to not be unduly burdensome to conduct and be reasonably designed to produce test results that reflect energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs during a representative average use cycle or period of use. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A)) If the Secretary determines, on his own behalf or in response to a petition by any interested person, that a test procedure should be prescribed or amended, the Secretary shall promptly publish in the
In addition, EPCA requires that DOE amend its test procedures for all covered products to integrate measures of standby mode and off mode energy consumption into the overall energy efficiency, energy consumption, or other energy descriptor, unless the current test procedure already incorporates the standby mode and off mode energy consumption, or if such integration is technically infeasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)) If an integrated test procedure is technically infeasible, DOE must prescribe separate standby mode and off mode energy use test procedures for the covered product, if a separate test is technically feasible. (
DOE's current test procedures for microwave ovens are codified at Appendix I. For reasons discussed in the following sections, the current test procedures for microwave ovens address standby mode and off mode energy use only.
DOE originally established test procedures for microwave ovens in an October 3, 1997 final rule that addressed active mode energy use only. 62 FR 51976. Those procedures were based on the International Electrotechnical Commission (“IEC”) Standard 705-Second Edition 1998 and Amendment 2-1993, “Methods for Measuring the Performance of Microwave Ovens for Households and Similar Purposes” (“IEC Standard 705”). On July 22, 2010, DOE published in the
On October 24, 2011, DOE published an RFI to initiate a test procedure rulemaking to develop active mode testing methodologies for microwave ovens (the “October 2011 RFI”). 76 FR 65631. DOE specifically sought information, data, and comments regarding representative and repeatable methods for measuring the energy use of microwave ovens in active mode, in particular for the microwave-only and convection-microwave cooking (
To inform its consideration of a test procedure for the microwave oven active mode, DOE conducted testing to evaluate potential methods for measuring the active mode energy use for these products, including the microwave-only, convection-only, and convection-microwave cooking modes. On June 5, 2012, DOE published a notice of data availability (“NODA”) to present test results and analytical approaches that DOE was considering for potential amendments to the microwave oven test procedures and to request additional comment and information on these results (the “June 2012 NODA”). 77 FR 33106. In the June 2012 NODA, DOE presented test results from microwave-only, convection-only, and convection-microwave cooking mode testing using water loads, food simulation mixtures, and real food loads. DOE also presented test results
On February 4, 2013, DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NOPR”) in which it proposed adding provisions to the microwave oven test procedures to measure active mode energy use for microwave ovens, including microwave-only ovens and convection microwave ovens (the “February 2013 NOPR”). 78 FR 7940. For measuring the energy use in microwave-only cooking mode, DOE proposed test methods based on the November 2011 draft version of IEC Standard 60705. DOE also proposed provisions for measuring the energy use of convection microwave ovens in convection-only cooking mode based on the test procedures for conventional ovens in Appendix I. DOE further proposed to calculate the energy use of convection-microwave cooking mode for convection microwave ovens by apportioning the microwave-only mode and convection-only mode energy consumption measurements based on typical consumer use. 78 FR 7940, 7942.
The IEC issued an update of IEC Standard 60705 on June 30, 2014. To date, DOE has not issued a final rule to re-establish test procedures for measuring the active mode of microwave ovens.
On March 9, 2011, DOE published an interim final rule (the “March 2011 Interim Final Rule”) amending the test procedures for microwave ovens. 76 FR 12825. The March 2011 Interim Final Rule incorporated by reference into the microwave oven test procedures IEC Standard 62301, “Household electrical appliances-Measurement of standby power,” First Edition 2005-06 (“IEC Standard 62301 (First Edition)”) regarding test conditions and testing procedures for measuring the average standby mode and average off mode power consumption. 76 FR 12825, 12828. As authorized by EPCA, DOE also incorporated into the microwave oven test procedure definitions of “active mode,” “standby mode,” and “off mode” based on the definitions provided in the finalized draft version of IEC Standard 62301 Edition 2.0 2011-01 (“IEC Standard 62301 (Second Edition)”). 76 FR 12825, 12836. In addition, DOE adopted language to clarify the application of IEC Standard 62301 (First Edition) to measuring standby mode and off mode power. Specifically, DOE defined the test duration for cases in which the measured power is not stable and varies in a cyclic manner, because the standby mode power consumption of microwave oven displays can vary depending on the time-of-day displayed on the clock. 76 FR 12825, 12828.
The amendments adopted in the March 2011 Interim Final Rule became effective on April 8, 2011. However, DOE noted that in order to ensure that the amended test procedures adequately address the EPCA requirement to consider the most recent version of IEC Standard 62301, and recognizing that the IEC issued IEC Standard 62301 (Second Edition) in January of 2011, DOE issued the microwave oven test procedure as an interim final rule and offered an additional 180-day comment period to consider whether any changes should be made to the interim final rule in light of publication of IEC Standard 62301 (Second Edition). DOE stated that it would consider these comments and, to the extent necessary, publish a final rulemaking incorporating any changes. 76 FR 12825, 12830-12831. In response to the March 2011 Interim Final Rule, the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (“AHAM”) commented that, among other things, DOE should incorporate by reference IEC Standard 62301 (Second Edition), stating that such incorporation would provide for optimal international harmonization, give clarity and consistency to the regulated community, and decrease test burden. (AHAM, No. 31 at pp. 3-4
Based in part on public comment, DOE further analyzed IEC Standard 62301 (Second Edition). DOE subsequently published a final rule on January 18, 2013 (the “January 2013 Final Rule”), amending the test procedures for microwave ovens to reference certain provisions of IEC Standard 62301 (Second Edition), along with clarifying language, for the measurement of standby mode and off mode energy use. 78 FR 4015. In the narrow case of microwave ovens with power consumption that varies as a function of the time displayed, DOE maintained the existing use of IEC Standard 62301 (First Edition) for measuring standby mode power to minimize manufacturer burden. 78 FR 4015, 4021. DOE also determined that microwave ovens combined with other appliance functionality are covered under the definition of “microwave oven” at 10 CFR 430.2, but due to a lack of data and information, did not adopt provisions to measure the standby mode and off mode energy use of the microwave oven component of a combined cooking product.
In the following sections, DOE has identified a variety of issues on which it seeks input to aid in the development of the technical and economic analyses regarding whether amended test procedures for microwave ovens may be warranted. Specifically, DOE is requesting comment on any opportunities to streamline and simplify testing requirements for microwave ovens.
Additionally, DOE welcomes comments on other issues relevant to the conduct of this process that may not specifically be identified in this document. In particular, DOE notes that under Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” Executive Branch agencies such as DOE are directed to manage the costs associated with the imposition of expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations. See 82 FR 9339 (Feb. 3, 2017). Pursuant to that Executive Order, DOE encourages the public to provide input on measures DOE could take to lower the cost of its regulations applicable to microwave ovens consistent with the requirements of EPCA.
This RFI covers those products that meet the definition for “microwave oven,” as codified at 10 CFR 430.2. Specifically, as codified, “microwave oven” means a category of cooking products which is a household cooking appliance consisting of a compartment designed to cook or heat food by means of microwave energy, including microwave ovens with or without thermal elements designed for surface browning of food and convection microwave ovens. This includes any microwave oven(s) component of a
As discussed in section I.B of this document, DOE's current test procedures for microwave ovens are codified at Appendix I and address standby mode and off mode energy use only.
DOE is requesting information and data to update its understanding of consumer use of microwave ovens. DOE is also requesting comment on whether any more recent developments since the February 2013 NOPR would allow for DOE to develop active mode test procedures for microwave ovens, including microwave-only ovens and convection microwave ovens. As stated in the Rulemaking History section of this document, in the February 2013 NOPR, DOE proposed active mode test procedures for microwave-only ovens and convection microwave ovens, and requested comment from interested parties on the proposed amendments. To date, DOE has not issued a final rule establishing test procedures for active mode. In this document, DOE discusses the current status of IEC Standard 60705 and requests information to help it determine whether it should consider test procedures that measure the active mode energy use for microwave ovens. Additionally, DOE has identified potential testing issues related to newly-available product features that DOE did not consider at the time of the January 2013 Final Rule, that may relate to standby mode and off mode energy use. DOE is requesting comment on appropriate test procedures to account for these features. DOE is also seeking comment on the technical feasibility of establishing an integrated metric that combines active mode, standby mode, and off mode energy use.
Each of these issues is discussed in greater detail in the subsections that follow. DOE is also requesting information on any other issues that may need to be addressed in a test procedure rulemaking for microwave ovens.
As part of the February 2013 NOPR, DOE presented results from a consumer usage survey conducted by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories (“LBNL”) to evaluate the consumer usage habits for microwave ovens.
In the February 2013 NOPR, DOE also noted that Whirlpool Corporation (“Whirlpool”) provided data from an informal poll of their employees that suggested that for convection microwave oven owners, 90 percent of the total number of cooking cycles in the field is in the microwave-only cooking mode, and the remaining 10 percent of cooking cycles is a mix of convection-microwave cooking mode and convection-only cooking mode, which is in relative agreement with the consumer usage data collected by LBNL. 78 FR 7940, 7944.
In the February 2013 NOPR, DOE also presented estimates for the annual energy use for each operating mode for microwave-only and convection microwave ovens based on its testing and available consumer usage data. 78 FR 7940, 7950.
As discussed in section I.B.1 of this document, in the July 2010 Repeal Final Rule, DOE repealed the active mode test provisions originally established in Appendix I because they did not produce representative and repeatable measurements of microwave oven energy use in active mode. 75 FR 42579. DOE proposed in the February 2013 NOPR to add provisions to the microwave oven test procedures in Appendix I for measuring energy use in microwave-only cooking mode in a repeatable and representative manner, based on the November 2011 draft version of IEC Standard 60705. 78 FR 7940. AHAM commented on the February 2013 NOPR that it “supports harmonization with IEC Standard 60705. But DOE should not base the U.S. test procedure on a draft of that standard. Instead, DOE should wait to harmonize with the final IEC Standard 60705.” (AHAM, No. 18 at p. 4
DOE notes that the water-heating test method specified in IEC Standard 60705-Edition 4.1 is the same as the November 2011 draft version of IEC Standard 60705. The test method in IEC Standard 60705-Edition 4.1 involves measuring the energy consumption required to heat water loads of 275 grams (“g”), 350 g, and 1000 g, in 600 milliliter (“ml”), 900 ml, and 2000 ml borosilicate glass test containers, respectively, by 45-50 degrees Celsius (“°C”) and 50-55 °C. The test method also requires that the difference in the final measured water temperature between these two tests must be at least 2 °C. The results from these two different temperature-rise tests at each load size are then used to linearly interpolate the energy consumption required to heat the load by 50 °C. The cooking cycle energy consumption for each water load size is then weighted based on consumer usage to calculate a weighted-average per-cycle cooking energy consumption. The weighting factors specified in IEC Standard 60705-Edition 4.1 are: 275 g = 3/11; 350 g = 6/11; 1000 g = 2/11.
In the February 2013 NOPR, DOE presented results from testing to evaluate the repeatability of an August 2010 draft version of the IEC Standard 60705 water-heating test method for measuring the cooking cycle energy consumption.
DOE also noted in the February 2013 NOPR that the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization (“CENELEC”) conducted a round-robin testing program to evaluate the repeatability and reproducibility of the draft version of IEC Standard 60705. 78 FR 7940, 7945. A total of five manufacturer test labs and five independent test labs in Europe conducted testing on each of four microwave oven models. For the
While IEC Standard 60705-Edition 4.1 was not finalized at the time of the February 2013 NOPR, DOE received comments stating that the water-heating test method in IEC Standard 60705 is based on extensive testing and considered both repeatable and reproducible, and more specifically with regard to the CENELEC data, that issues related to the test procedures are not unique to United States as microwave ovens do not vary significantly across countries. (AHAM, No. 18 at pp. 2-3; AHAM, No. 27 at p. 4;
DOE also notes that the Informative Annex F in IEC Standard 60705-Edition 4.1 includes a test method for measuring the fan-only mode energy consumption of the microwave oven during the cooling down period for a period of 15 minutes after the completion of a cooking cycle that achieves a water-load temperature-rise of 50 °C. In the February 2013 NOPR, DOE noted that for all of the products in its test sample, which included countertop and over-the-range microwave-only and convection microwave ovens, none contained a fan that operated at the end of the microwave-only cooking cycle. DOE noted that when the door was closed after the load was removed at the end of the cooking cycle, the microwave ovens reverted to standby mode. However, DOE recognized that there may be microwave ovens on the market or future microwave ovens that could potentially operate in fan-only mode at the end of the microwave-only cooking cycle. As a result, DOE proposed in the February 2013 NOPR to include provisions for measuring the fan-only mode cooling down energy consumption only for microwave ovens equipped with a fan that operates automatically at the completion of the cooking cycle to cool down the microwave oven. 78 FR 7940, 7945-7946. AHAM opposed including a requirement to measure fan-only mode during the cooling down period for the following reasons: (1) If DOE pursues an active mode test procedure it should harmonize with IEC Standard 60705, which includes fan-only mode measurement only in an informative annex and not as a mandatory measurement; (2) the fan-only mode test procedure is not repeatable and reproducible; and (3) the energy consumed by the fan is miniscule, especially compared to the active mode cooking cycle energy use. (AHAM, No. 27 at pp. 6-7)
In the February 2013 NOPR, DOE proposed test methods for measuring the active mode energy consumption of convection microwave ovens. DOE proposed to measure the energy consumption of the microwave-only cooking mode for convection microwave ovens using the test procedures described in section II.B.2.a of this document. DOE also proposed to measure the energy consumption of the convection-only cooking mode based on the aluminum test block test method specified at the time of the February 2013 NOPR in the DOE conventional oven test procedures in Appendix I. Finally, DOE proposed to calculate the energy consumption of the convection-microwave cooking cycle by apportioning the microwave-only mode and convection-only mode energy consumption measurements based on typical consumer use. 78 FR 7940, 7947.
AHAM and Whirlpool stated that DOE should not develop test procedures for convection microwave ovens because: (1) They represent only 4 percent of microwave oven shipments, (2) the potential for energy savings is trivial compared to the added test burden, and (3) there are currently no international test standards for measuring the convection function of the microwave oven. (AHAM, No. 18 at p. 3; AHAM, No. 27 at p. 3; Whirlpool, No. 15 at pp. 4-6)
In the February 2013 NOPR, DOE initially determined that testing using actual or simulated food loads does not produce repeatable or reproducible results. DOE also understood that using thermocouples during a convection-microwave cooking cycle would not be appropriate due to safety concerns. As a result, DOE did not propose test methods using actual or simulated food loads, or thermocouples, for measuring the energy consumption of convection microwave ovens. 78 FR 7940, 7949. In lieu of testing using actual or simulated food loads, DOE presented test results showing that the proposed aluminum block test method for testing in convection-only cooking mode produced repeatable results. 78 FR 7940, 7948.
DOE proposed to add the calculated convection-only cooking cycle energy consumption and the measured fan-only mode energy consumption to calculate the total convection-only mode energy consumption. 78 FR 7940, 7949. DOE further proposed to apply a field use factor to the calculation of the convection-only mode energy consumption to account for the typical consumer use of this cooking mode. Id.
AHAM commented that with regard to the proposed aluminum block test method that: (1) It would be impossible to get a consistent thermocouple reading because the aluminum test block would be rotating on the turntable, and (2) the proposed aluminum test block test load was not representative of actual consumer food loads in a convection microwave oven. (AHAM, No. 27 at pp. 8-10) AHAM also stated, for the same reasons discussed in section II.B.2.a of this document, that it opposed a fan-only mode energy use measurement. (AHAM, No. 27 at p. 9) AHAM
As discussed in the February 2013 NOPR, for over-the-range microwave ovens, products equipped with a fan designed to vent air out of the microwave oven cooking cavity both during the cooking cycle and during the fan-only mode cooling down period offer two installation configurations: (1) Such that the vent fan exhausts air from the cooking cavity to the outdoors and (2) such that the vent fan recirculates air from the cooking cavity back into the room (“recirculation configuration”).
AHAM commented in response to the February 2013 NOPR that, to its knowledge, for safety reasons manufacturers do not recommend that anyone other than trained service technicians disassemble a microwave oven. AHAM stated that DOE should require that over-the-range microwave ovens be installed in the as-shipped configuration in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. AHAM added that its members stated that this would not add test burden to them as their laboratories are already capable of testing in both configurations. In addition, AHAM stated that it does not expect that the configuration will affect the measured energy, and thus, different installation configurations should provide consistent measurements across products. (AHAM, No. 27 at p. 5)
The current standby mode and off mode test procedures for microwave ovens in Appendix I specify that the microwave oven must be set up in accordance with section 5.2 “Preparation of product” of IEC 62301 (Second Edition). This provision requires preparing and setting up the microwave oven in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions, and if no manufacturer instructions are available, using the factory or “default” settings, or where there are no indications for such settings, testing the microwave oven as supplied. For the microwave oven standby mode and off mode power measurement, if a microwave oven drops from a higher power state to a lower power state, section 3.1.3.1 in Appendix I requires allowing sufficient time for the microwave oven to reach the lower power state before measuring power consumption.
DOE notes that most manufacturer instructions provide procedures for setting the clock display as part of the initial setup of the product. DOE is also aware that some microwave ovens available on the market may provide the user with the option to turn the clock display on or off. DOE notes that in both of these cases, based on the provisions in the test procedures, if the manufacturer's instructions for the initial setup of the product include instructions to set the clock display, then the microwave oven would be tested with the clock display powered on, as described above.
DOE is aware that some microwave ovens available on the market automatically power down the display after a period of user inactivity, which reduces the standby power consumption of the product. As discussed previously, Appendix I requires testing such products after the display powers down and reaches a stable state. However, DOE recognizes that some manufacturer instructions provide instructions, not in the initial setup section, for disabling this feature so that the clock/display remains on at all times; others do not provide instructions for disabling this feature.
DOE is aware of a manufacturer that currently offers one over-the-range microwave oven model that uses Bluetooth® technology to connect certain control functions to a corresponding Bluetooth-equipped conventional range. The Bluetooth connection allows the microwave oven to synchronize its clock time to that of the range, and to coordinate the operation of the microwave ovens vent fan and/or cooking top surface lights with the functional state of the range. For example, with this feature enabled, the vent fan or cooking top surface lights on the microwave oven can be programmed to automatically turn on whenever the cooking top component of the conventional range is in use. The products' controls may consume different amounts of energy depending on whether the Bluetooth function is enabled or disabled.
DOE understands that certain consumer cooking products include internet connections to allow for additional control functions. In these cases, the product controls may consume different amounts of energy depending on whether the internet connection is enabled or disabled, and if enabled, whether it is connected to a network. DOE is not aware of any microwave ovens currently on the market that include this feature.
The current DOE energy conservation standards for microwave ovens are based on standby power consumption, in watts. 10 CFR 430.32(j)(3). EPCA requires that, if DOE develops active mode test procedures for microwave ovens, it must also incorporate active mode, standby mode, and off mode energy use into a single energy use metric, unless it is technically infeasible to do so. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A))
In addition to the issues identified earlier in this document, DOE welcomes comment on any other aspect of the existing test procedures for microwave ovens not already addressed in this document. DOE particularly seeks information that would improve the repeatability, and reproducibility, as well as the ability of the test procedures to provide results that are representative of actual use. DOE also requests information that would help DOE create a procedure that would limit manufacturer test burden through streamlining or simplifying testing requirements. Comments regarding the repeatability and reproducibility are also welcome.
DOE also requests feedback on any potential amendments to the existing test procedure(s) that could be considered to address impacts on manufacturers, including small businesses. Regarding the Federal test method, DOE seeks comment on the degree to which the DOE test procedure should consider and be harmonized with the most recent relevant industry standards for microwave ovens and whether there are any changes to the Federal test method that would provide additional benefits to the public. DOE also requests comment on the benefits and burdens of adopting any industry/voluntary consensus-based or other appropriate test procedure, without modification. As discussed in sections II.B.2.a and II.B.3 of this document, DOE is aware of the IEC test procedure, IEC Standard 60705, which includes tests for measuring energy use in microwave-only cooking mode for microwave ovens, and IEC Standard 62301, which includes tests for measuring the power consumption in standby mode and off mode. IEC Standard 60705 also includes an informative annex, which specifies a test method for measuring the fan-only mode energy consumption of microwave ovens during a cooling down period after the completion of a cooking cycle.
Additionally, DOE requests comment on whether the existing test procedures limit a manufacturer's ability to provide additional features to consumers on microwave ovens. DOE particularly seeks information on how the test procedures could be amended to reduce the cost of new or additional features and make it more likely that such features are included on microwave ovens.
DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by February 20, 2018, comments and information on matters addressed in this notice and on other matters relevant to DOE's consideration of amended test procedures for microwave ovens. These comments and information will aid in the development of a test procedure NOPR for microwave ovens if DOE determines that amended test procedures may be appropriate for these products.
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
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).
DOE considers public participation to be a very important part of the process for developing test procedures and energy conservation standards. DOE actively encourages the participation and interaction of the public during the comment period in each stage of this process. Interactions with and between members of the public provide a balanced discussion of the issues and assist DOE in the process. Anyone who wishes to be added to the DOE mailing list to receive future notices and information about this process, the subject of this notice, or any other questions with regards to the Federal test procedures for microwaves should contact Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or via email at
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Merced Regional/MacReady Field (formerly Merced Municipal/MacReady Field), Merced, CA, to accommodate airspace redesign due to the decommissioning of the El Nido VHF Omnidirectional Range/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME) as the FAA transitions from ground-based to satellite-based navigation. Also, this action would remove Class E airspace upward from 1,200 feet above the surface and would update the airport name to match the FAA's aeronautical database. An editorial change would also be made to the Class E surface area airspace legal description replacing “Airport/Facility Directory” with the term “Chart Supplement”. These actions are necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport.
Comments must be received on or before March 5, 2018.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: 1(800) 647-5527, or (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2017-1092; Airspace Docket No. 17-AWP-27, at the beginning of your
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.
Tom Clark, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203-4511.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend Class E airspace at Merced Regional/MacReady Field, Merced, CA, to accommodate airspace redesign in support of IFR operations at the airport.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers (Docket No. FAA-2017-1092; Airspace Docket No. 17-AWP-27) and be submitted in triplicate to DOT Docket Operations (see
Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2017-1092; Airspace Docket No. 17-AWP-27.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA proposes to amend Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by revising Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Merced Regional/MacReady Field, Merced, CA, to within a 6.6-mile radius of the airport (from a 6.1-mile radius), and removing the segment extending southeast of the airport (2.6 miles southeast of the El Nido VOR/DME) due to the decommissioning of the navigation aid.
Also, the FAA proposes to remove the Class E airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface because it is wholly contained within the Sacramento en route airspace area and duplication is not needed.
Additionally, the airport name would be updated from Merced Municipal/MacReady Field to Merced Regional/MacReady Field) in the associated Class E airspace areas, and an editorial change would be made to the Class E surface area airspace legal description replacing “Airport/Facility Directory” with the term “Chart Supplement”.
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6002, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017 and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
Within a 4.3-mile radius of Merced Regional/MacReady Field. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile radius of Merced Regional/MacReady Field.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA” or “the Act”), as amended, requires that the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (“NCP”) include a list of national priorities among the known releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants throughout the United States. The National Priorities List (“NPL”) constitutes this list. The NPL is intended primarily to guide the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA” or “the agency”) in determining which sites warrant further investigation. These further investigations will allow the EPA to assess the nature and extent of public health and environmental risks associated with the site and to determine what CERCLA-financed remedial action(s), if any, may be appropriate. This rule proposes to add ten sites to the General Superfund section of the NPL.
Comments regarding any of these proposed listings must be submitted (postmarked) on or before March 19, 2018.
Identify the appropriate docket number from the table below.
Docket Identification Numbers by Site:
Submit your comments, identified by the appropriate docket number, at
To send a comment via the United States Postal Service, use the following address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Superfund Docket Center,
Use the Docket Center address below if you are using express mail, commercial delivery, hand delivery or courier. Delivery verification signatures will be available only during regular business hours: EPA Superfund Docket Center, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004.
For additional docket addresses and further details on their contents, see section II, “Public Review/Public Comment,” of the Supplementary Information portion of this preamble.
Terry Jeng, phone: (703) 603-8852, email:
In 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675 (“CERCLA” or “the Act”), in response to the dangers of uncontrolled releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, and releases or substantial threats of releases into the environment of any pollutant or contaminant that may present an imminent or substantial danger to the public health or welfare. CERCLA was amended on October 17, 1986, by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (“SARA”), Public Law 99-499, 100 Stat. 1613
To implement CERCLA, the EPA promulgated the revised National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (“NCP”), 40 CFR part 300, on July 16, 1982 (47 FR 31180), pursuant to CERCLA section 105 and Executive Order 12316 (46 FR 42237, August 20, 1981). The NCP sets guidelines and procedures for responding to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances or releases or substantial threats of releases into the environment of any pollutant or contaminant that may present an imminent or substantial danger to the public health or welfare. The EPA has revised the NCP on several occasions. The most recent comprehensive revision was on March 8, 1990 (55 FR 8666).
As required under section 105(a)(8)(A) of CERCLA, the NCP also includes “criteria for determining priorities among releases or threatened releases throughout the United States for the purpose of taking remedial action and, to the extent practicable taking into account the potential urgency of such action, for the purpose of taking removal action.” “Removal” actions are defined broadly and include a wide range of actions taken to study, clean up, prevent or otherwise address releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants (42 U.S.C. 9601(23)).
The NPL is a list of national priorities among the known or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants throughout the United States. The list, which is appendix B of the NCP (40 CFR part 300), was required under section 105(a)(8)(B) of CERCLA, as amended. Section 105(a)(8)(B) defines the NPL as a list of “releases” and the highest priority “facilities” and requires that the NPL be revised at least annually. The NPL is intended primarily to guide the EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation to assess the nature and extent of public health and environmental risks associated with a release of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants. The NPL is only of limited significance, however, as it does not assign liability to any party or to the owner of any specific property. Also, placing a site on the NPL does not mean that any remedial or removal action necessarily need be taken.
For purposes of listing, the NPL includes two sections, one of sites that are generally evaluated and cleaned up by the EPA (the “General Superfund section”), and one of sites that are owned or operated by other federal agencies (the “Federal Facilities section”). With respect to sites in the Federal Facilities section, these sites are generally being addressed by other federal agencies. Under Executive Order 12580 (52 FR 2923, January 29, 1987) and CERCLA section 120, each federal agency is responsible for carrying out most response actions at facilities under its own jurisdiction, custody or control, although the EPA is responsible for preparing a Hazard Ranking System (“HRS”) score and determining whether the facility is placed on the NPL.
There are three mechanisms for placing sites on the NPL for possible remedial action (see 40 CFR 300.425(c) of the NCP): (1) A site may be included on the NPL if it scores sufficiently high on the HRS, which the EPA promulgated as appendix A of the NCP
• The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) of the U.S. Public Health Service has issued a health advisory that recommends dissociation of individuals from the release.
• The EPA determines that the release poses a significant threat to public health.
• The EPA anticipates that it will be more cost-effective to use its remedial authority than to use its removal authority to respond to the release.
A site may undergo remedial action financed by the Trust Fund established under CERCLA (commonly referred to as the “Superfund”) only after it is placed on the NPL, as provided in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(b)(1). (“Remedial actions” are those “consistent with permanent remedy, taken instead of or in addition to removal actions. * * * ” 42 U.S.C. 9601(24).) However, under 40 CFR 300.425(b)(2) placing a site on the NPL “does not imply that monies will be expended.” The EPA may pursue other appropriate authorities to respond to the releases, including enforcement action under CERCLA and other laws.
The NPL does not describe releases in precise geographical terms; it would be neither feasible nor consistent with the limited purpose of the NPL (to identify releases that are priorities for further evaluation), for it to do so. Indeed, the precise nature and extent of the site are typically not known at the time of listing.
Although a CERCLA “facility” is broadly defined to include any area where a hazardous substance has “come to be located” (CERCLA section 101(9)), the listing process itself is not intended to define or reflect the boundaries of such facilities or releases. Of course, HRS data (if the HRS is used to list a site) upon which the NPL placement was based will, to some extent, describe the release(s) at issue. That is, the NPL site would include all releases evaluated as part of that HRS analysis.
When a site is listed, the approach generally used to describe the relevant release(s) is to delineate a geographical area (usually the area within an installation or plant boundaries) and identify the site by reference to that area. However, the NPL site is not necessarily coextensive with the boundaries of the installation or plant, and the boundaries of the installation or plant are not necessarily the “boundaries” of the site. Rather, the site consists of all contaminated areas within the area used to identify the site, as well as any other location where that contamination has come to be located, or from where that contamination came.
In other words, while geographic terms are often used to designate the site (
The EPA regulations provide that the remedial investigation (“RI”) “is a process undertaken . . . to determine the nature and extent of the problem presented by the release” as more information is developed on site contamination, and which is generally performed in an interactive fashion with the feasibility Study (“FS”) (40 CFR 300.5). During the RI/FS process, the release may be found to be larger or smaller than was originally thought, as more is learned about the source(s) and the migration of the contamination. However, the HRS inquiry focuses on an evaluation of the threat posed and therefore the boundaries of the release need not be exactly defined. Moreover, it generally is impossible to discover the full extent of where the contamination “has come to be located” before all necessary studies and remedial work are completed at a site. Indeed, the known boundaries of the contamination can be expected to change over time. Thus, in most cases, it may be impossible to describe the boundaries of a release with absolute certainty.
Further, as noted previously, NPL listing does not assign liability to any party or to the owner of any specific property. Thus, if a party does not believe it is liable for releases on discrete parcels of property, it can submit supporting information to the agency at any time after it receives notice it is a potentially responsible party.
For these reasons, the NPL need not be amended as further research reveals more information about the location of the contamination or release.
The EPA may delete sites from the NPL where no further response is appropriate under Superfund, as explained in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(e). This section also provides that the EPA shall consult with states on proposed deletions and shall consider whether any of the following criteria have been met:
(i) Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required;
(ii) All appropriate Superfund-financed response has been implemented and no further response action is required; or
(iii) The remedial investigation has shown the release poses no significant threat to public health or the environment, and taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.
In November 1995, the EPA initiated a policy to delete portions of NPL sites where cleanup is complete (60 FR 55465, November 1, 1995). Total site cleanup may take many years, while portions of the site may have been cleaned up and made available for productive use.
The EPA also has developed an NPL construction completion list (“CCL”) to simplify its system of categorizing sites and to better communicate the successful completion of cleanup activities (58 FR 12142, March 2, 1993). Inclusion of a site on the CCL has no legal significance.
Sites qualify for the CCL when: (1) Any necessary physical construction is complete, whether or not final cleanup levels or other requirements have been achieved; (2) the EPA has determined that the response action should be limited to measures that do not involve construction (
The Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use measure (formerly called Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse) represents important Superfund accomplishments and the measure reflects the high priority the EPA places on considering anticipated future land use as part of the remedy selection process. See Guidance for Implementing the Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse Measure, May 24, 2006, OSWER 9365.0-36. This measure applies to final and deleted sites where construction is complete, all cleanup goals have been achieved, and all institutional or other controls are in place. The EPA has been successful on many occasions in carrying out remedial actions that ensure protectiveness of human health and the environment for current and future land uses, in a manner that allows contaminated properties to be restored to environmental and economic vitality. For further information, please go to
In order to maintain close coordination with states and tribes in the NPL listing decision process, the EPA's policy is to determine the position of the states and tribes regarding sites that the EPA is considering for listing. This consultation process is outlined in two memoranda that can be found at the following website:
The EPA is improving the transparency of the process by which state and tribal input is solicited. The EPA is using the Web and where appropriate more structured state and tribal correspondence that (1) explains the concerns at the site and the EPA's rationale for proceeding; (2) requests an explanation of how the state intends to address the site if placement on the NPL is not favored; and (3) emphasizes the transparent nature of the process by informing states that information on their responses will be publicly available.
A model letter and correspondence from this point forward between the EPA and states and tribes where applicable, is available on the EPA's website at
Yes, documents that form the basis for the EPA's evaluation and scoring of the sites in this proposed rule are contained in public dockets located both at the EPA Headquarters in Washington, DC, and in the regional offices. These documents are also available by electronic access at
You may view the documents, by appointment only, in the Headquarters or the regional dockets after the publication of this proposed rule. The hours of operation for the Headquarters docket are from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday excluding federal holidays. Please contact the regional dockets for hours.
The following is the contact information for the EPA Headquarters Docket: Docket Coordinator, Headquarters, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, CERCLA Docket Office, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, William Jefferson Clinton Building West, Room 3334, Washington, DC 20004; 202/566-0276. (Please note this is a visiting address only. Mail comments to the EPA Headquarters as detailed at the beginning of this preamble.)
The contact information for the regional dockets is as follows:
• Holly Inglis, Region 1 (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT), U.S. EPA, Superfund Records and Information Center, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 02109-3912; 617/918-1413.
• Ildefonso Acosta, Region 2 (NJ, NY, PR, VI), U.S. EPA, 290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866; 212/637-4344.
• Lorie Baker (ASRC), Region 3 (DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV), U.S. EPA, Library, 1650 Arch Street, Mailcode 3HS12, Philadelphia, PA 19103; 215/814-3355.
• Cathy Amoroso, Region 4 (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN), U.S. EPA, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Mailcode 9T25, Atlanta, GA 30303; 404/562-8637.
• Todd Quesada, Region 5 (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI), U.S. EPA Superfund Division Librarian/SFD Records Manager SRC-7J, Metcalfe Federal Building, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604; 312/886-4465.
• Brenda Cook, Region 6 (AR, LA, NM, OK, TX), U.S. EPA, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Mailcode 6SFTS, Dallas, TX 75202-2733; 214/665-7436.
• Kumud Pyakuryal, Region 7 (IA, KS, MO, NE), U.S. EPA, 11201 Renner Blvd., Mailcode SUPRSTAR, Lenexa, KS 66219; 913/551-7956.
• Victor Ketellapper, Region 8 (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY), U.S. EPA, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Mailcode 8EPR-B, Denver, CO 80202-1129; 303/312-6578.
• Sharon Murray, Region 9 (AZ, CA, HI, NV, AS, GU, MP), U.S. EPA, 75 Hawthorne Street, Mailcode SFD 6-1, San Francisco, CA 94105; 415/947-4250.
• Ken Marcy, Region 10 (AK, ID, OR, WA), U.S. EPA, 1200 6th Avenue, Mailcode ECL-112, Seattle, WA 98101; 206/463-1349.
You may also request copies from the EPA Headquarters or the regional dockets. An informal request, rather than a formal written request under the Freedom of Information Act, should be the ordinary procedure for obtaining copies of any of these documents. Please note that due to the difficulty of reproducing oversized maps, oversized maps may be viewed only in-person; since the EPA dockets are not equipped to both copy and mail out such maps or scan them and send them out electronically.
You may use the docket at
The Headquarters docket for this proposed rule contains the following for the sites proposed in this rule: HRS score sheets; documentation records describing the information used to compute the score; information for any sites affected by particular statutory requirements or the EPA listing policies; and a list of documents referenced in the documentation record.
The regional dockets for this proposed rule contain all of the information in the Headquarters docket plus the actual reference documents containing the data principally relied upon and cited by the EPA in calculating or evaluating the HRS score for the sites. These reference documents are available only in the regional dockets.
Comments must be submitted to the EPA Headquarters as detailed at the beginning of this preamble in the
The EPA considers all comments received during the comment period. Significant comments are typically addressed in a support document that the EPA will publish concurrently with the
Comments that include complex or voluminous reports, or materials prepared for purposes other than HRS scoring, should point out the specific information that the EPA should consider and how it affects individual HRS factor values or other listing criteria (
Generally, the EPA will not respond to late comments. The EPA can guarantee only that it will consider those comments postmarked by the close of the formal comment period. The EPA has a policy of generally not delaying a final listing decision solely to accommodate consideration of late comments.
During the comment period, comments are placed in the Headquarters docket and are available to the public on an “as received” basis. A complete set of comments will be available for viewing in the regional dockets approximately one week after the formal comment period closes.
All public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper form, will be made available for public viewing in the electronic public docket at
In certain instances, interested parties have written to the EPA concerning sites that were not at that time proposed to the NPL. If those sites are later proposed to the NPL, parties should review their earlier concerns and, if still appropriate, resubmit those concerns for consideration during the formal comment period. Site-specific correspondence received prior to the period of formal proposal and comment will not generally be included in the docket.
In this proposed rule, the EPA is proposing to add ten sites to the NPL, all to the General Superfund section. All of the sites in this proposed rulemaking are being proposed based on HRS scores of 28.50 or above.
The sites are presented in the table below.
General Superfund section:
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
This action is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA. This rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require approval of the OMB.
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This rule listing sites on the NPL does not impose any obligations on any group, including small entities. This rule also does not establish standards or requirements that any small entity must meet, and imposes no direct costs on any small entity. Whether an entity, small or otherwise, is liable for response costs for a release of hazardous substances depends on whether that entity is liable under CERCLA 107(a). Any such liability exists regardless of whether the site is listed on the NPL through this rulemaking.
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector. Listing a site on the NPL does not itself impose any costs. Listing does not mean that the EPA necessarily will undertake remedial action. Nor does listing require any action by a private party, state, local or tribal governments or determine liability for response costs. Costs that arise out of site responses result from future site-specific decisions regarding what actions to take, not directly from the act of placing a site on the NPL.
This rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. Listing a site on the NPL does not impose any costs on a tribe or require a tribe to take remedial action. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because this action itself is procedural in nature (adds sites to a list) and does not, in and of itself, provide protection from environmental health and safety risks. Separate future regulatory actions are required for mitigation of environmental health and safety risks.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. As discussed in Section I.C. of the preamble to this action, the NPL is a list of national priorities. The NPL is intended primarily to guide the EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation to assess the nature and extent of public health and environmental risks associated with a release of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants. The NPL is of only limited significance as it does not assign liability to any party. Also, placing a site on the NPL does not mean that any remedial or removal action necessarily need be taken.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations, Natural resources, Oil pollution, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply.
33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 13626, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p.351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
In accordance with the Great Lakes Pilotage Act of 1960, the Coast Guard proposes new base pilotage rates and surcharges for the 2018 shipping season. Additionally, the Coast Guard is proposing several changes to the Great Lakes pilotage ratemaking methodology. These additional proposed changes include creating clear delineation between the Coast Guard's annual rate adjustments and the Coast Guard's requirement to conduct a full ratemaking every five years; the adoption of a revised compensation benchmark; reorganization of the text regarding the staffing model for calculating the number of pilots needed; and certain editorial changes.
Comments and related material must be submitted to the online docket via
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2017-0903 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
For information about this document, call or
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
We are not planning to hold a public meeting but will consider doing so if public comments indicate a meeting would be helpful. We would issue a separate
Pursuant to the Great Lakes Pilotage Act of 1960 (“the Act”),
In this NPRM, we are proposing to make modifications to the ratemaking methodology and proposing new pilotage rates for 2018 based on the new proposed methodology. The proposed modifications to the ratemaking methodology consist of a new compensation benchmark, organizational changes, and clarifications. We are proposing a new compensation benchmark to comply with a recent court decision holding that the Coast Guard had not adequately justified the previous benchmark, established in the 2016 rulemaking, which set compensation at the level of Canadian wages plus ten percent.
As part of our annual review, we are proposing in this NPRM new rates for the 2018 shipping season. Based on the ratemaking model discussed in this NPRM, we are proposing the rates shown in Table 1.
This proposed rule is not economically significant under E.O. 12866. This proposed rule would impact 49 U.S. Great Lakes pilots, 3 pilot associations, and the owners and operators of an average of 215 oceangoing vessels that transit the Great Lakes annually. The estimated overall annual regulatory economic impact of this rate change is a net increase of $1,162,401 in payments made by shippers from the 2017 shipping season. Because we must review, and, if necessary, adjust rates each year, we analyze these as single year costs and do not annualize them over 10 years. This rule does not affect the Coast Guard's budget or increase Federal spending. Section IX of this preamble discusses the regulatory impact analyses of this proposed rule.
The legal basis of this rulemaking is the Great Lakes Pilotage Act of 1960 (“the Act”), which requires U.S. vessels operating “on register” and foreign merchant vessels to use U.S. or Canadian registered pilots while transiting the U.S. waters of the St. Lawrence Seaway and the Great Lakes system.
Pursuant to the Great Lakes Pilotage Act, the Coast Guard, in conjunction with the Canadian Great Lakes Pilotage Authority, regulates shipping practices and pilotage rates on the Great Lakes. Under Coast Guard regulations, all U.S. vessels sailing on register and all non-Canadian, foreign merchant vessels (often referred to as “salties”), are required to engage U.S. or Canadian pilots during their transit through regulated waters. United States and Canadian “lakers,” which account for most commercial shipping on the Great Lakes, are not subject to the Act.
The U.S. waters of the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence Seaway are divided into three pilotage districts. Pilotage in each district is provided by an association certified by the Coast Guard Director of the Great Lakes Pilotage Office (“the Director”) to operate a pilotage pool. The Saint Lawrence Seaway Pilotage Association provides pilotage services in District One, which includes all U.S. waters of the St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario. The Lakes Pilotage Association provides pilotage services in District Two, which includes all U.S. waters of Lake Erie, the Detroit River, Lake St. Clair, and the St. Clair River. Finally, the Western Great Lakes Pilotage Association provides pilotage services in District Three, which includes all U.S. waters of the St. Mary's River; Sault Ste. Marie Locks; and Lakes Huron, Michigan, and Superior.
Each pilotage district is further divided into “designated” and “undesignated” areas. Designated areas are classified as such by Presidential Proclamation
Each pilot association is an independent business and is the sole provider of pilotage services in the district in which it operates. Each pilot associations is responsible for funding its own operating expenses, maintaining infrastructure, acquiring and implementing technological advances, training personnel/partners and pilot compensation. We developed a 10-step ratemaking methodology to derive a pilotage rate that covers these expenses based on the estimated amount of traffic. In short, the methodology is designed to measure how much revenue each pilotage association will need to cover expenses and provide competitive compensation to working pilots. The Coast Guard then divides that amount by the historical average traffic transiting through the district. We recognize that in years where traffic is above average, pilot associations will take in more revenue than projected, while in years where traffic is below average, they will take in less. We believe that over the long term, however, this system ensures that infrastructure will be maintained and that pilots will receive adequate compensation and work a reasonable number of hours with adequate rest between assignments to ensure retention of highly-trained personnel.
Over the past 2 years, the Coast Guard has made major adjustments to the Great Lakes pilotage ratemaking methodology. In 2016, we made significant changes to the methodology, moving to an hourly billing rate for pilotage services and changing the compensation benchmark to a more transparent model. In 2017, we added additional steps to the ratemaking methodology, including new steps that will accurately account for the additional revenue produced by the application of weighting factors (discussed in detail in Steps 7 through 9 of this preamble). The current methodology, which was finalized in the August 31, 2017
As stated above, the ratemaking methodology, currently outlined in 46 CFR 404.101 through 404.110, consists of 10 steps that are designed to account for the revenues needed and total traffic expected in each district. The result is an hourly rate (determined separately for each of the areas administered by the Coast Guard).
In Step 1, “Recognize previous operating expenses,” (§ 404.101) we review audited operating expenses from each of the three pilotage associations. This number forms the baseline amount that each association is budgeted. Because of the time delay between when the association submits raw numbers and the Coast Guard receives audited numbers, this number is 3 years behind the projected year of expenses. So in calculating the 2018 rates in this proposal, we are beginning with the audited expenses from calendar year 2015.
While each pilotage association operates in an entire district, we further break down the costs by area. Thus, with regard to operating expenses, we allocate certain operating expenses to undesignated areas, and certain expenses to designated areas. In some cases (
In Step 2, “Project operating expenses, adjusting for inflation or deflation,” (§ 404.102) we develop the 2018 projected operating expenses. To do this, we apply inflation adjustors for 3 years to the operating expense baseline received in Step 1. The inflation factors used are from the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Consumer Price Index for the Midwest Region, or if not available, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) median economic projections for Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) inflation. This step produces the total operating expenses for each area and district.
In Step 3, “Determine number of pilots needed,” (§ 404.103) we calculate how many pilots are needed for each district. To do this, we employ a “staffing model,” described in § 404.103(a) through (c), to estimate how many pilots would be needed to handle shipping during the beginning and close of the season. This number is helpful in providing guidance to the Director of the Coast Guard Great Lakes Pilotage Office in approving an appropriate number of credentials for pilots.
For the purpose of the ratemaking calculation, we determine the number of working pilots provided by the pilotage associations (see § 404.103(d)) which is what we use to determine how many pilots need to be compensated via the pilotage fees collected.
In Step 4, “Determine target pilot compensation benchmark,” (§ 404.104) we determine the revenue needed for pilot compensation in each area and district. This step contains two processes. In the first process, we calculate the total compensation for each pilot using a “compensation benchmark.” Next, we multiply the individual pilot compensation by the number of working pilots for each area and district (from Step 3), producing a figure for total pilot compensation. Because pilots are paid by the associations, but the costs of pilotage is divided up by area for accounting purposes, we assign a certain number of pilots for the designated areas and a certain number of pilots for the undesignated areas for purposes of determining the revenues needed for each area. To make the determination of how many pilots to assign, we use the staffing model designed to determine
In Step 5, “Project working capital fund,” (§ 404.105) we calculate a return on investment by adding the total operating expenses (derived in Step 2) and the total pilot compensation (derived in Step 4), and multiply that figure by the preceding year's average annual rate of return for new issues of high-grade corporate securities. This figure constitutes the “working capital fund” for each area and district.
In Step 6, “Project needed revenue,” (§ 404.106) we simply add up the totals produced by the preceding steps. For each area and district, we add the projected operating expense (from Step 2), the total pilot compensation (from Step 4), and the working capital fund contribution (from Step 5). The total figure, calculated separately for each area and district, is the “revenue needed.”
In Step 7, “Initially calculate base rates,” (§ 404.107) we calculate an hourly pilotage rate to cover the revenue needed calculated in step 6. This step consists of first calculating the 10-year traffic average for each area. Next, we divide the revenue needed in each area (calculated in Step 6) by the 10-year traffic average to produce an initial base rate.
An additional element, the “weighting factor,” is required under § 401.400. Pursuant to that section, ships pay a multiple of the “base rate” as calculated in Step 7 by a number ranging from 1.0 (for the smallest ships, or “Class I” vessels) to 1.45 (for the largest ships, or “Class IV” vessels). As this significantly increases the revenue collected, we need to account for the added revenue produced by the weighting factors to ensure that shippers are not overpaying for pilotage services.
In Step 8, “Calculate average weighting factors by area,” (§ 404.108) we calculate how much extra revenue, as a percentage of total revenue, has historically been produced by the weighting factors in each area. We do this by using a historical average of applied weighting factors for each year since 2014 (the first year the current weighting factors were applied).
In Step 9, “Calculate revised base rates,” (§ 404.109) we modify the base rates by accounting for the extra revenue generated by the weighting factors. We do this by simply dividing the initial pilotage rate for each area (from Step 7) by the corresponding average weighting factor (from Step 8), to produce a revised rate.
In Step 10, “Review and finalize rates,” (§ 404.110) often referred to informally as “director's discretion,” we review the revised base rates (from Step 9) to ensure that they meet the goals set forth in the Act and 46 CFR 404.1(a), which include promoting efficient, safe, and reliable pilotage service on the Great Lakes; generating sufficient revenue for each pilotage association to reimburse necessary and reasonable operating expenses; compensating pilots fairly, who are trained and rested; and providing appropriate profit for improvements. Because it is our goal to be as transparent as possible in our ratemaking procedure, we use this step sparingly to adjust rates.
Finally, after the base rates are set, § 401.401 permits the Coast Guard to apply surcharges. Currently, we use surcharges to pay for the training of new pilots, rather than incorporating training costs into the overall “revenue needed” that is used in the calculation of the base rates. In recent years, we have allocated $150,000 per applicant pilot to be collected via surcharges. This amount is calculated as a percentage of total revenue for each district, and that percentage is applied to each bill. When the total amount of the surcharge has been collected, the pilot associations are prohibited from collecting further surcharges. Thus, in years where traffic is heavier than expected, shippers early in the season could pay more than shippers employing pilots later in the season, after the surcharge cap has been met.
For 2018, we are proposing a number of changes to the ratemaking methodology. These changes are both revisions to the rate-setting process, as well as organizational changes that will simplify and streamline rate-setting procedures in future years. While we realize that yearly adjustments of the ratemaking methodology can lead to unpredictability, we believe that modest modifications to the ratemaking methodology in order to improve accuracy, simplify its steps, and make it more transparent complies with our statutory requirement to consider public interest and the costs of providing pilotage services. These proposed changes are intended to provide rate stability and predictability beneficial to the U.S. Great Lakes pilot associations, shippers, cruise ships, and voluntary employment of U.S. registered pilots.
One change we are proposing in this NPRM is to add regulatory text to § 404.104 that would automatically adjust the pilot compensation figure for inflation annually. Under the current regulations, while pilot compensation is determined in Step 4 annually, there is no specific provision that it will change with inflation. This issue is often raised in comments. For example, in the 2016 Great Lakes pilotage rate adjustment final rule,
Based on these considerations, we propose to add regulatory text to § 404.104 to make the adjustment for inflation automatic. This would serve a variety of interests. First, it would improve consistency in our ratemaking procedures. While the operating expenses are automatically adjusted for inflation, compensation is not. This proposed change would treat the two types of expenses equally. Additionally, because the revenue for the working capital fund is based in part on compensation (see the discussion in the Background section of this Preamble), automatically adjusting pilot compensation for inflation would have a similar effect on contributions to the working capital fund.
Automatically adjusting pilot compensation for inflation would improve transparency and efficiency in our ratemaking procedures. Also, replacing the current process with an automatic and predictable inflationary adjustment would increase predictability. As previously stated, we believe this predictability benefits the
To implement this increase, we propose adding regulatory text to § 404.104 stating that the Director will adjust the previous year's individual target pilot compensation level by BLS CPI for the Midwest Region, or if that is unavailable, the FOMC median economic projections for PCE inflation
Another change that we propose in this NPRM is to relocate the “staffing model” regulatory text, currently located in § 404.103(a) through (c). We are not proposing to adjust or modify the regulatory text, but simply move it to § 401.220(a), “Registration of pilots,” rather than keep it as part of the ratemaking methodology text. For the reasons below, we believe that this change will both improve the clarity of the regulations and improve the regulatory process. The staffing model informs the Coast Guard's administration of the Great Lakes Pilotage program, but is distinct from the ratemaking methodology. Specifically, the staffing model provides guidance to the Director on implementing the requirement currently in § 401.220(a), which requires the Director to determine the number of pilots needed to assure adequate and efficient pilotage service in the United States waters of the Great Lakes and to provide for equitable participation of United States Registered Pilots with Canadian Registered Pilots.
The current way in which § 404.103, entitled “Ratemaking Step 3: Determine number of pilots needed,” is written produces two distinct sets of numbers. In § 404.103(a) through (c), we employ a “staffing model” to determine the number of pilots needed in each district to provide safe and reliable pilotage services in periods of high seasonal demand. This staffing model produces a number of pilots for each district that we believe is needed to minimize delays and allow for some instances of double pilotage (that is, where two pilots are employed on a vessel simultaneously because of particularly hazardous conditions). In the 2017 final rule, the staffing model produced a figure of 54 total pilots on the Great Lakes: 17 for District One, 15 for District Two, and 22 for District Three.
The Director of the Great Lakes Pilotage Office is required in § 404.103(d) to project the number of pilots expected to be working in the current year based on the numbers provided by the pilotage associations, as well as the number of applications for pilot positions.
Finally, we note that the movement of the staffing model to § 401.220(a) would have an organizational impact on future pilotage rate regulatory actions. In the past, we included detailed, and sometimes repetitive, calculations of the staffing model in our annual ratemaking publication. However, if we move the staffing model text to part 401, and do not make any changes to the inputs or staffing methodology, we would not include a full analysis of the staffing model in each regulatory document. Instead, we propose to simply certify that the number of pilots working under Step 3 of the ratemaking process was less than or equal to the number of pilots authorized by the regulations in § 401.220. However, in circumstances where the staffing model produced a changed result in the number of pilots needed to ensure safe and reliable pilotage, we would include an analysis of the number of pilots recommended by the staffing model in the proposed rule. In this year's ratemaking, we note that the staffing model analysis remains unchanged from 2017, and for that reason is not repeated here.
For the reasons stated above, we propose moving the current staffing model text, located in § 404.103(a) through (c) to § 401.220(a), where it will be renumbered as § 401.220(a)(1) through (a)(3). The existing text would not be changed in any way other than being relocated, and we are not proposing any changes to the staffing model in this ratemaking.
Additionally, we are proposing a change to the remaining text of § 404.103. Specifically, we propose to remove the words “during the first year of the period for which base rates are being established” from § 404.103(d). This phrase, carried over from previous
Finally, we are proposing to change the name of the section. The section, currently titled, “Determine number of pilots needed,” is misleading, as the number of pilots needed to ensure safe and reliable pilotage is determined by the Director in § 401.220(a). Thus, we propose to change the section heading to “Estimate number of working pilots,” to more accurately reflect what we are doing in this step of the ratemaking process. In a related matter, we are also proposing a change to § 404.104 to explicitly establish the relationship between the staffing model and the annual ratemaking. While in the past, the number of pilots has been below the number derived from the staffing model, there is no regulatory text indicating that this is a limiting factor. To eliminate this ambiguity, we propose to add text to § 404.104, “Ratemaking step 4: Determine target pilot compensation,” that would limit the total number of working pilots for ratemaking purposes to the maximum number allowed by the staffing model. This does not prohibit pilotage associations from hiring more pilots than the staffing model suggests are needed to handle peak traffic (if, for example, pilots wanted to work fewer hours for less pay, and the Director approved), but it would limit pilotage rates by preventing those extra pilots from being considered in the ratemaking calculations.
In this NPRM, we are proposing an organizational change to the regulations in part 404 to better delineate the full ratemaking procedure from the interim ratemaking procedure. Pursuant to the Act, we are required to establish new pilotage rates by March 1 of each year.
We note that the existing regulatory text in part 404 already contains a provision that considers the difference between a full ratemaking and an interim ratemaking. Existing § 404.100, “Ratemaking and annual reviews in general,” states that once every 5 years, the Director establishes base pilotage rates by a full ratemaking pursuant to §§ 404.101 through 404.110, and that in “interim years,” the Director may adjust rates according to one of several methods (either automatic adjustments, annual adjustments for inflation, or a new full ratemaking).
The only substantive difference between a full and interim ratemaking concerns Step 4 of the ratemaking procedure, “Determine target pilot compensation.” This step of the ratemaking analysis, in which the total compensation for pilots is determined, comprises the majority of the revenue total needed to operate Great Lakes pilotage. In past ratemaking actions, we received numerous comments and substantial amounts of data when considering the “benchmark” for pilot compensation. Even in years where we did not propose adjusting the compensation benchmark, we received substantial data about ways in which it could be adjusted. However, we do not believe that it is in the interest of Great Lakes shipping to calculate a new benchmark compensation level every year. Such a system could lead to substantial volatility regarding compensation. This, in turn, could lead to the pilot recruitment and retention problems that affected the Great Lakes region prior to the ratemaking methodology changes introduced in the past few years.
For these reasons, we are proposing regulatory language in part 404 to clarify that the benchmark pilot compensation would only be reconsidered during “full ratemaking” years, which occur at least once every 5 years. Conversely, during “interim years,” we would not consider changes to the benchmark pilot compensation. Instead, during those years, we would adjust the target compensation according to Bureau of Labor Statistics' Consumer Price Index for the Midwest Region, or if that is not available, the FOMC median economic projections for PCE inflation, allowing compensation to stay in line with inflation. We believe that this system would simplify ratemaking procedures in interim years and better effect the statutory mandate in section 9303(f) of the Act. In this NPRM, we have proposed regulatory changes to § 404.100(b) and (c), as well as in § 404.104(a) and (b), that would enact these changes to the methodology.
We propose several minor editorial changes in this NPRM. In section 404.107, we propose renaming Step 7, currently titled, “Initially calculate base rates” to “Calculate initial base rates” for style purposes and to make an accompanying edit to the text by changing the words “initially calculates base rates” to “calculates initial base rates” in the text of that section. We also propose to adjust the reference to the staffing model in Step 7 to account for its relocation in text (proposed section 401.220(a)).
In this NPRM, the Coast Guard is proposing a new compensation benchmark for pilots on the Great Lakes. It is doing so to comply with a court decision holding that the Coast Guard's existing compensation benchmark, which based on the salaries of Canadian Great Lakes pilot salaries plus a 10% increase, was arbitrary and capricious. We are following the court's decision and are moving to implement a new benchmark in this proposed rule.
When the Coast Guard adopted the existing compensation benchmark in the 2016 annual adjustment, we recognized that the number was based on somewhat uncertain data, and have undertaken a comprehensive, multi-year analysis of pilot compensation practices to develop a more appropriate benchmark.
Therefore, the Coast Guard is proposing a new compensation benchmark based, in part, on the previous model of compensation that was used by the Coast Guard prior to the new ratemaking methodology introduced in the 2016 annual ratemaking.
The data we are using, provided in a letter from the AMOU from October 4, 2013,
Despite the fact that the aggregated data in the 2013 AMOU letter is not broken down into specific costs, we believe that the data points provided are generally accurate. Prior to 2014, the Coast Guard received confidential copies of the AMOU contracts with detailed breakdowns of compensation components including wages, medical costs, defined contribution and defined benefit pension costs. The latest contract we have covered the 2011 through the 2015 shipping seasons, which is one reason we believe that basing our interim benchmark on the 2015 season is a reasonable measure, as we have the underlying contract for that season. Using the estimated out-year figures set forth in the 2011 contract, and applying the detailed compensation methodology used in the 2012 Great Lakes Pilotage annual ratemaking final rule,
In the notice of proposed rulemaking for the 2014 Great Lakes pilotage annual rate adjustment, we described how we use the daily aggregate rates to develop a total pilot compensation figure. The annual rates included the “daily wage rate, vacation pay, pension plan contributions, and medical plan contributions.”
After publication of the 2014 Final Rule, the Coast Guard was sued by the three American pilotage associations, in part, because the AMOU aggregate data it had used to calculate the 2014 compensation figures did not include a seasonal bonus component. In that case, the Coast Guard relied on previous aggregate data figures provided by the AMOU in 2012, instead of using the figures provided by the AMOU in its October 4, 2013 public comment, where the AMOU stated that the previous figures were inaccurate. While the court found that the use of the old figures was arbitrary, the use of AMOU aggregate data generally was not disputed.
To apply the 2015 aggregate data figures to the current ratemaking methodology, we need only use the figures for designated waters. Prior to the 2016 ratemaking, the Coast Guard calculated separate compensation figures for designated and undesignated waters—compensating pilots assigned to designated waters an equivalent rate to masters, while compensating pilots assigned to undesignated waters the equivalent rate of AMOU mates, who are paid considerably less. However, in 2016, the Coast Guard ended the practice of calculating separate compensation figures for pilots on the Great Lakes. In the 2016 Great Lakes pilotage NPRM, we stated that “we see no reasonable basis for discriminating between the target compensation of pilots on the basis of the distinction between designated or undesignated waters. In any waters and in any district, pilots need the same skills, and therefore we propose a single individual target compensation figure across all three districts.”
Because of these factors, we believe we can develop an interim benchmark compensation level based on the 2015 AMOU aggregate data for wages in designated waters that has been publically provided. Based on our calculations, the new benchmark compensation figure would be $319,617 per pilot. The numbers are derived as follows:
In the first step of calculating the interim compensation benchmark, shown as Table 3 below, we multiply the daily aggregate rates for Agreement A and Agreement B by 270, the estimated number of days in the shipping season, to derive a seasonal average compensation figure.
Next, as stated above, we apportion the compensation provided by each agreement according to the percentage of tonnage represented by companies under each agreement. As shown in Table 4 below, approximately 70% of cargo was carried under the Agreement A contract, while approximately 30% of cargo was carried under the Agreement B contract.
Third, we develop an average of compensation based on the total compensation under the two contracts, weighting each contract by its percentage of total tonnage. Based on this calculation, we have developed a figure of $305,066 (rounded) for total compensation in 2015.
Finally, we adjust that figure for inflation. As we propose to do in our overall ratemaking methodology, we use the BLS Consumer Price Index for the Midwest region to inflate to 2016, and FOMC median economic projections for PCE inflation to inflate the total compensation to 2017 and 2018. Based on three years of inflation adjustments, we arrive at the proposed 2018 target compensation figure, which is $319,617 annually.
In this NPRM,
The 2018 ratemaking is an “annual review,” rather than a full ratemaking. Thus, for this purpose, we propose using the annual review methodology in § 404.104.
Step 1 in our ratemaking methodology requires that we review and recognize the previous year's operating expenses (§ 404.101). To do this, we begin by reviewing the independent accountant's financial reports for each association's 2015 expenses and revenues.
Having ascertained the recognized 2015 operating expenses in Step 1, the next step is to estimate the current year's operating expenses by adjusting those expenses for inflation over the 3-year period. We calculated inflation using the Bureau of Labor Statistics' data from the Consumer Price Index for the Midwest Region of the United States
In accordance with the proposed text in § 404.103, we estimated the number of working pilots in each district. Based on input from the Saint Lawrence Seaway Pilots Association, we estimate that there will be 17 working pilots in 2018 in District One. Based on input from the Lakes Pilots Association, we estimate there will be 14 working pilots in 2018 in District Two. Based on input from the Western Great Lakes Pilots Association, we estimate there will be 18 working pilots in 2018 in District Three.
Furthermore, based on the staffing model employed to develop the total number of pilots needed, we assign a certain number of pilots to designated waters, and a certain number to undesignated waters. These numbers are
In this step,
Next, we certify that the number of pilots estimated for 2018 is less than or equal to the number permitted under the staffing model in § 401.220(a). The staffing model suggests that the number of pilots needed is 17 pilots for District One, 15 pilots for District Two, and 22 pilots for District Three,
Thus, in accordance with proposed § 404.104(c), we use the revised target individual compensation level to derive the total pilot compensation by multiplying the individual target compensation by the estimated number of working pilots for each district, as shown in Table 14.
Next, we calculate the working capital fund revenues needed for each area. First, we add the figures for projected operating expenses and total pilot compensation for each area. Next, we find the preceding year's average annual rate of return for new issues of high grade corporate securities. Using Moody's data, that number is 3.67 percent.
We add up all the expenses accrued to derive the total revenue needed for each area. These expenses include the projected operating expenses (from Step 2), the total pilot compensation (from Step 4), and the working capital fund contribution (from Step 5). The calculations are shown in Table 20.
Having determined the revenue needed for each area in the previous six steps, we divide that number by the expected number of hours of traffic to develop an hourly rate. Step 7 is a two-part process. In the first part, we calculate the 10-year average of traffic in each district. Because we are calculating separate figures for designated and undesignated waters, there are two parts for each calculation. The calculations are shown in Tables 23 through 25.
Next, we derive the initial hourly rate by dividing the revenue needed by the average number of hours for each area. This produces an initial rate needed to produce the revenue needed for each area, assuming the amount of traffic is as expected. The calculations for each area are set forth in Tables 26 through 28.
In this step, we calculate the average weighting factor for each designated and undesignated area. We collect the weighting factors, set forth in 46 CFR 401.400, for each vessel trip. Using this database, we calculate the average weighting factor for each area using the data from each vessel transit from 2014 onward, as shown in Tables 29 through 34.
In this step, we revise the base rates so that once the impact of the weighting factors are considered, the total cost of pilotage will be equal to the revenue needed. To do this, we divide the initial base rates, calculated in Step 7, by the average weighting factors calculated in Step 8, as shown in Table 35.
In this step, the Director reviews the rates set forth by the staffing model and ensures that they meet the goal of ensuring safe, efficient, and reliable pilotage. Because, as detailed in the discussion sections of this NPRM, the proposed rates incorporate appropriate compensation for enough pilots to handle heavy traffic periods, would cover operating expenses and infrastructure costs, and have taken average traffic and weighting factors into consideration, we believe that they do meet the goal of ensuring safe, efficient, and reliable pilotage. Thus, we are not proposing any alterations to the rates in this step. The final rates are shown in Table 36, and we propose to modify the text in § 401.405(a) to reflect them.
Because there are several applicant pilots in 2018, we are proposing to levy surcharges to cover the costs needed for training expenses. Consistent with previous years, we are proposing to assign a cost of $150,000 per applicant pilot. To develop the surcharge, we multiply the number of applicant pilots by the average cost per pilot to develop a total amount of training costs needed, and then impose that amount as a surcharge to all areas in the respective district, consisting of a percentage of revenue needed. In this year, there are two applicant pilots for District One, one applicant pilot for District Two, and four applicant pilots for District Three. The calculations to develop the surcharges are shown in Table 37. We note that while the percentages are rounded for simplicity, such rounding does not impact the revenue generated, as surcharges can no longer be collected once the surcharge total has been attained.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes or Executive orders.
Executive Orders 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” 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 (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. 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 proposed rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. Because this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action, this proposed 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). A regulatory analysis (RA) follows.
The purpose of this rulemaking is to propose new base pilotage rates and surcharges for training. This proposed rule also makes changes to the ratemaking methodology and revises the compensation benchmark. The last full ratemaking was concluded in 2017.
Table 38 summarizes the regulatory changes that are expected to have no costs, and any qualitative benefits associated with them. The table also includes proposed changes that affect portions of the methodology for calculating the proposed base pilotage rates. While these proposed changes affect the calculation of the rate, the costs of these changes are captured in the changes to the total revenue as a result of the proposed rate change (summarized in Table 39).
Table 39 summarizes the affected population, costs, and benefits of the rate changes that are expected to have costs associated with them.
The Coast Guard is required to review and adjust pilotage rates on the Great Lakes annually. See sections IV and V of this preamble for detailed discussions of the legal basis and purpose for this rulemaking and for background information on Great Lakes pilotage ratemaking. Based on our annual review for this proposed rulemaking, we propose adjusting the pilotage rates for the 2018 shipping season to generate sufficient revenues for each district to reimburse its necessary and reasonable operating expenses, fairly compensate trained and rested pilots, and provide an appropriate working capital fund to use for improvements. The rate changes in this proposed rule would, if codified, lead to an increase in the cost per unit of service to shippers in all three districts, and result in an estimated annual cost increase to shippers.
In addition to the increase in payments that would be incurred by shippers in all three districts from the previous year as a result of the proposed rate changes, we propose authorizing a temporary surcharge to allow the pilotage associations to recover training expenses that would be incurred in 2018. For 2018, we anticipate that there will be two applicant pilots in District One, one applicant pilot in District Two, and four applicant pilots in District Three. With a training cost of $150,000 per pilot, we estimate that Districts One, Two, and Three will incur $300,000, $150,000, and $600,000 in training expenses, respectively. These temporary surcharges would generate a combined $1,050,000 in revenue for the pilotage associations. Therefore, after accounting for the implementation of the temporary surcharges across all three districts, the total payments that would be made by shippers during the 2018 shipping season are estimated at approximately $1,162,401 more than the total payments that were estimated in 2017 (Table 40).
A detailed discussion of our economic impact analysis follows.
The shippers affected by these rate changes are those owners and operators of domestic vessels operating “on register” (employed in foreign trade) and owners and operators of non-Canadian foreign vessels on routes within the Great Lakes system. These owners and operators must have pilots or pilotage service as required by 46 U.S.C. 9302. There is no minimum tonnage limit or exemption for these vessels. The statute applies only to commercial vessels and not to recreational vessels. United States-flagged vessels not operating on register and Canadian “lakers,” which account for most commercial shipping on the Great Lakes, are not required by 46 U.S.C. 9302 to have pilots. However, these U.S.- and Canadian-flagged lakers may voluntarily choose to engage a Great Lakes registered pilot. Vessels that are U.S.-flagged may opt to have a pilot for varying reasons, such as unfamiliarity with designated waters and ports, or for insurance purposes.
We used billing information from the years 2014 through 2016 from the Great Lakes Pilotage Management System (GLPMS) to estimate the average annual number of vessels affected by the rate adjustment. The GLPMS tracks data related to managing and coordinating the dispatch of pilots on the Great Lakes, and billing in accordance with the services. We found that a total of 387 vessels used pilotage services during the years 2014 through 2016. That is, these vessels had a pilot dispatched to the vessel, and billing information was recorded in the GLPMS. The number of invoices per vessel ranged from a minimum of 1 invoice per year to a maximum of 108 invoices per year. Of these vessels, 367 were foreign-flagged vessels and 20 were U.S.-flagged. As previously stated, U.S.-flagged vessels not operating on register are not required to have a registered pilot per 46 U.S.C. 9302, but they can voluntarily choose to have one.
Vessel traffic is affected by numerous factors and varies from year to year. Therefore, rather than the total number of vessels over the time period, an average of the unique vessels using pilotage services from the years 2014 through 2016 is the best representation of vessels estimated to be affected by the rate proposed in this NPRM. From the years 2014 through 2016, an average of 215 vessels used pilotage services annually.
The rate changes resulting from the new methodology would generate costs to industry in the form of higher payments for shippers. We estimate the effect of the rate changes on shippers by comparing the total projected revenues needed to cover costs in 2017 with the total projected revenues to cover costs in 2018, including any temporary surcharges we have authorized. We set pilotage rates so that pilot associations receive enough revenue to cover their necessary and reasonable expenses. Shippers pay these rates when they
The impacts of the proposed rate changes on shippers are estimated from the District pilotage projected revenues (shown in Tables 20 through 22 of this preamble) and the proposed surcharges described in section VIII of this preamble. We estimate that for the 2018 shipping season, the projected revenue needed for all three districts is $22,438,782. Temporary surcharges on traffic in Districts One, Two, and Three would be applied for the duration of the 2018 season in order for the pilotage associations to recover training expenses incurred for applicant pilots. We estimate that the pilotage associations would require an additional $300,000, $150,000, and $600,000 in revenue for applicant training expenses in Districts One, Two, and Three, respectively. This would be an additional cost to shippers of $1,050,000 during the 2018 shipping season. Adding the projected revenue of $22,438,782 to the proposed surcharges, we estimate the pilotage associations' total projected revenue needed for 2018 would be $23,488,782. To estimate the additional cost to shippers from this proposed rule, we compare the 2018 total projected revenues to the 2017 projected revenues. Because we review and prescribe rates for the Great Lakes Pilotage annually, the effects are estimated as a single year cost rather than annualized over a 10-year period. In the 2017 rulemaking,
The resulting difference between the projected revenue in 2017 and the projected revenue in 2018 is the proposed annual change in payments from shippers to pilots as a result of the rate change that would be imposed by this rule. The effect of the proposed rate change to shippers varies by area and district. The rate changes, after taking into account the increase in pilotage rates and the addition of temporary surcharges, would lead to affected shippers operating in District One and District Three experiencing an increase in payments of $600,225 and $591,062, respectively, over the previous year, and a decrease in payments of $28,886 in District 2. The overall adjustment in payments would be an increase in payments by shippers of approximately $1,162,401 across all three districts (a 5 percent increase over 2017). Again, because we review and set rates for Great Lakes Pilotage annually, the impacts are estimated as single year costs rather than annualized over a 10-year period.
Table 41 shows the difference in revenue by component from 2017 to 2018.
To estimate the impact of U.S. pilotage costs on foreign-flagged vessels that would be affected by the rate adjustment, we looked at the pilotage costs as a percentage of a vessel's costs for an entire voyage. The portion of the trip on the Great Lakes using a pilot is only a portion of the whole trip. The affected vessels are often traveling from a foreign port, and the days without a pilot on the total trip often exceed the days a pilot is needed.
To estimate this impact, we used the 2017 study titled, “Analysis of Great Lakes Pilotage Costs on Great Lakes Shipping and the Potential Impact of Increases in U.S. Pilotage Charges.”
The study developed a voyage cost model that is based on a vessel's daily costs. The daily costs included: Capital repayment costs; fuel costs; operating costs (such as crew, supplies, and insurance); port costs; speed of the vessel; stevedoring rates; and tolls. The daily operating costs were translated into total voyage costs using mileage between the ports for a number of voyage scenarios. In the study, the total voyage costs were then compared to the U.S. pilotage costs. The study found that, using the 2016 rates, the U.S. pilotage charges represent 10 percent of the total voyage costs for a vessel carrying grain, and between 8 percent and 9 percent of the total voyage costs for a vessel carrying steel.
From 2016 to 2017, the total revenues needed increased by 17 percent. From 2017 to 2018, the proposed total revenues needed would increase by 5 percent. From 2016 to 2018, the total revenues needed would increase by 23 percent. While the change in total voyage cost would vary by the trip, vessel class, and whether the vessel is carrying steel or grain, we used these percentages as an average increase to estimate the change in the impact. When we increased the pilotage charges by 17 percent from 2016, we found the U.S. pilotage costs represented an average of 11.3 percent of the total voyage costs. We then increased the base 2016 rates by 23 percent. With this proposed rule's rates for 2018, pilotage costs are estimated to account for 11.8 percent of the total voyage costs, or a 0.5 percent increase over the percentage that U.S. pilotage costs represented of the total voyage in 2017.
It is important to note that this analysis is based on a number of assumptions. The purpose of the study was to look at the impact of the U.S. pilotage rates. The study did not include an analysis of the GLPA rates. It was assumed that a U.S. pilot is assigned to all portions of a voyage where he or she could be assigned. In reality, the assignment of a United States or Canadian pilot is based on the order in which a vessel enters the system, as outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding between the GLPA and the Coast Guard.
This analysis only looks at the impact of proposed U.S. pilotage cost changes. All other costs were held constant at the 2016 levels, including Canadian pilotage costs, tolls, stevedoring, and port charges. This analysis estimates the impacts of Great Lakes pilotage rates holding all other factors constant. If other factors or sectors were not held constant but, instead, were allowed to adjust or fluctuate, it is likely that the impact of pilotage rates would be different. Many factors that drive the tonnage levels of foreign cargo on the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway were held constant for this analysis. These factors include, but are not limited to, demand for steel and grain, construction levels in the regions, tariffs, exchange rates, weather conditions, crop production, rail and alternative route pricing, tolls, vessel size restriction on the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway, and inland waterway river levels.
This proposed rule would allow the Coast Guard to meet the requirements in
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. 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 people.
For the proposed rule, we reviewed recent company size and ownership data for the vessels identified in the GLPMS and we reviewed business revenue and size data provided by publicly available sources such as MANTA
The entities all exceed the SBA's small business standards for small businesses. Further, these U.S. entities operate U.S.-flagged vessels and are not required to have pilots as required by 46 U.S.C. 9302.
In addition to the owners and operators of vessels affected by this proposed rule, there are three U.S. entities affected by the proposed rule that receive revenue from pilotage services. These are the three pilot associations that provide and manage pilotage services within the Great Lakes districts. Two of the associations operate as partnerships and one operates as a corporation. These associations are designated with the same NAICS industry classification and small-entity size standards described above, but they have fewer than 500 employees; combined, they have approximately 65 employees in total. We expect no adverse effect on these entities from this proposed rule because all associations would receive enough revenue to balance the projected expenses associated with the projected number of bridge hours (time on task) and pilots.
We did not find any small not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields. We did not find any small governmental jurisdictions with populations of fewer than 50,000 people. Based on this analysis, we found this proposed rulemaking, if promulgated, would not affect a substantial number of small entities.
Therefore, we certify under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment to the Docket Management Facility at the address under
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please consult Mr. Mike Moyers, Great Lakes Pilotage, Commandant (CG-WWM-2), Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-1533, email
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
This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). This proposed rule would not change the burden in the collection currently approved by OMB under OMB Control Number 1625-0086, Great Lakes Pilotage Methodology.
A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under E.O. 13132 and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements as described in E.O. 13132. Our analysis follows.
Congress directed the Coast Guard to establish “rates and charges for pilotage services.”
While it is well settled that States may not regulate in categories in which Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source of a vessel's obligations, the Coast Guard recognizes the key role that State and local governments may have in making regulatory determinations. Additionally, for rules with implications and preemptive effect, E.O. 13132 specifically directs agencies to consult with State and local governments during the rulemaking process. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 13132, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal Government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we discuss the effects of this proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under E.O. 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under E.O. 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This proposed rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under E.O. 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that E.O. because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under E.O. 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under E.O. 13211.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, codified as a note to 15 U.S.C. 272, directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Directive 023-01, Revision (Rev) 01,
Administrative practice and procedure, Great Lakes, Navigation (water), Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seamen.
Great Lakes, Navigation (water), Seamen.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 46 CFR parts 401 and 404 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 2103, 2104(a), 6101, 7701, 8105, 9303, 9304; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1(II)(92.a), (92.d), (92.e), (92.f).
(a) The Director shall determine the number of pilots required to be registered in order to assure adequate and efficient pilotage service in the United States waters of the Great Lakes and to provide for equitable participation of United States Registered Pilots with Canadian Registered Pilots in the rendering of pilotage services. The Director determines the number of pilots needed as follows:
(1) The Director determines the base number of pilots needed by dividing each area's peak pilotage demand data by its pilot work cycle. The pilot work cycle standard includes any time that the Director finds to be a necessary and reasonable component of ensuring that a pilotage assignment is carried out safely, efficiently, and reliably for each area. These components may include but are not limited to—
(i) Amount of time a pilot provides pilotage service or is available to a vessel's master to provide pilotage service;
(ii) Pilot travel time, measured from the pilot's base, to and from an assignment's starting and ending points;
(iii) Assignment delays and detentions;
(iv) Administrative time for a pilot who serves as a pilotage association's president;
(v) Rest between assignments, as required by 46 CFR 401.451;
(vi) Ten days' recuperative rest per month from April 15 through November 15 each year, provided that lesser rest allowances are approved by the Director at the pilotage association's request, if necessary to provide pilotage without interruption through that period; and
(vii) Pilotage-related training.
(2) Pilotage demand and the base seasonal work standard are based on available and reliable data, as so deemed by the Director, for a multi-year base period. The multi-year period is the 10 most recent full shipping seasons, and the data source is a system approved under 46 CFR 403.300. Where such data are not available or reliable, the Director also may use data, from additional past full shipping seasons or other sources, that the Director determines to be available and reliable.
(3) The number of pilots needed in each district is calculated by totaling the area results by district and rounding them to the nearest whole integer. For supportable circumstances, the Director may make reasonable and necessary adjustments to the rounded result to provide for changes that the Director anticipates will affect the need for pilots in the district over the period for which base rates are being established.
(a) The hourly rate for pilotage service on—
(1) The St. Lawrence River is $622;
(2) Lake Ontario is $424;
(3) Lake Erie is $454;
(4) The navigable waters from Southeast Shoal to Port Huron, MI is $553;
(5) Lakes Huron, Michigan, and Superior is $253; and
(6) The St. Mary's River is $517.
46 U.S.C. 2103, 2104(a), 9303, 9304; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1(II)(92.a), (92.f).
(a) The Director establishes base pilotage rates by a full ratemaking pursuant to §§ 404.101 through 404.110 of this part, which is conducted at least once every 5 years and completed by March 1 of the first year for which the base rates will be in effect. Base rates will be set to meet the goal specified in § 404.1(a) of this part.
(b) In the interim years preceding the next scheduled full rate review, the Director will adjust base pilotage rates by an interim ratemaking pursuant to §§ 404.101 through 404.110 of this part.
(c) Each year, the Director will announce whether the Coast Guard will conduct a full ratemaking or interim ratemaking procedure.
The Director projects, based on the number of persons applying under 46 CFR part 401 to become U.S. Great Lakes registered pilots, and on information provided by the district's pilotage association, the number of pilots expected to be fully working and compensated.
(a) In a full ratemaking year, the Director determines base individual target pilot compensation using a compensation benchmark, set after considering the most relevant currently available non-proprietary information. For supportable circumstances, the Director may make necessary and reasonable adjustments to the benchmark.
(b) In an interim year, the Director adjusts the previous year's individual target pilot compensation level by the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Consumer Price Index for the Midwest Region, or if that is unavailable, the Federal Open Market Committee median economic projections for Personal Consumption Expenditures inflation.
(c) The Director determines each pilotage association's total target pilot compensation by multiplying individual target pilot compensation computed in paragraph (a) or (b) of this section by the number of pilots projected under § 404.103(d) of this part, or § 401.220(a) of this part, whichever is lower.
(a) The Director calculates initial base hourly rates by dividing the projected needed revenue from § 404.106 of this part by averages of past hours worked in each district's designated and undesignated waters, using available and reliable data for a multi-year period set in accordance with § 401.220(a) of this part.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Request for comment (RFC).
NHTSA seeks public comments to identify any regulatory barriers in the existing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) to the testing, compliance certification and compliance verification of motor vehicles with Automated Driving Systems (ADSs) and certain unconventional interior designs. NHTSA is focusing primarily, but not exclusively, on vehicles with ADSs that lack controls for a human driver;
Comments are due no later than March 5, 2018.
Comments must refer to the docket number above and be submitted by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Regardless of how you submit your comments, you must include the docket number identified in the heading of this notice.
Note that all comments received, including any personal information provided, will be posted without change to
You may call the Docket Management Facility at 202-366-9324.
For research issues, John Harding, Intelligent Technologies Research Division, Office of Vehicle Crash Avoidance and Electronic Controls Research, telephone: 202-366-5665, email:
For rulemaking issues, David Hines, Director, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, telephone 202-366-1810, email
For legal issues, Stephen Wood, Assistant Chief Counsel, Vehicle Rulemaking and Harmonization, Office of Chief Counsel, 202-366-2992, email
NHTSA wants to avoid impeding progress with unnecessary or unintended regulatory barriers to motor vehicles that have Automated Driving Systems (ADS) and unconventional designs, especially those with unconventional interior designs. These barriers may complicate or may even make impossible the testing and certification of motor vehicles. At this stage, the Agency is primarily, but not exclusively, concerned with vehicles with ADSs that do not have the means for human driving,
To enable vehicles with ADSs and with unconventional interiors while maintaining those existing safety requirements that will be needed and appropriate for those vehicles, NHTSA is developing plans and proposals for removing or modifying existing regulatory barriers to testing and compliance certification in those areas for which existing data and knowledge are sufficient to support decision-making. In other areas, plans and proposals cannot be developed until the completion of near term research to determine how to revise the test procedures for those vehicles. In all
The Agency is mindful that, in some cases, the most appropriate response to an existing requirement in a FMVSS that may complicate or may even make impossible to test a motor vehicle to assess compliance with that requirement may not be to ask how the requirement can be adapted to apply to motor vehicles without manual driving controls. Instead, a more appropriate response may be to ask whether the requirement should be applied in any form to those motor vehicles. These requirements may serve a safety purpose in vehicles with manual driving controls, but may not in vehicles without such means of control. For example, there may not be any need to require that the telltales
To these ends, NHTSA is soliciting public comments on (1) the barriers identified thus far, (2) any as of yet unidentified, barriers, (3) whether the requirements or test procedures creating those barriers should be modified to eliminate the testing difficulties or should simply be amended so that the requirements do not apply to vehicles without means of manual control, (4) the research that needs to be done to determine how to remove some of the barriers; (5) and how to prioritize this research and any follow-on rulemaking proceedings.
This input will help NHTSA to plan and undertake more comprehensive and strategic efforts to remove barriers and to develop a stronger, more collaborative research plan that will complement research by the motor vehicle industry and other stakeholders. This will enable the Agency to use its resources as efficiently as possible in moving toward eliminating potential regulatory barriers to innovation.
Automotive transportation is evolving faster today than it has at any time since the introduction of the first motor vehicle. Artificial intelligence, combined with rapid improvements in sensors, such as cameras, lidar,
The introduction of vehicles with ADSs into the fleet has the potential to reduce injuries, the loss of life, and property damage, reduce congestion, enhance mobility, and improve productivity.
A fact sheet containing more detail can be found at
Part of NHTSA's responsibility in carrying out its safety mission is not only to develop and set new safety standards for new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, but also to modify existing standards as necessary to respond to changing circumstances such as the introduction of new technologies. Some old standards or portions of standards may no longer be needed or at least need to be updated to keep them relevant. Examples of previous technological transitions that triggered the need to adapt and/or replace requirements in the FMVSS include the replacing of analog dashboards by digital ones,
The existing FMVSS can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 49 CFR part 571. NHTSA has over 60 FMVSS today.
The FMVSS specify minimum performance requirements and test procedures for brakes, accelerator controls, electronic stability control, seat belts, airbags, exterior lighting and interior warning telltales that illuminate to alert the driver when there is a vehicle malfunction, and for other equipment. Manufacturers are prohibited from selling vehicles and vehicle equipment unless they comply with all applicable FMVSS and their compliance has been self-certified by their manufacturer.
Almost all of NHTSA's FMVSS were developed and established well before vehicles with ADSs became a practicable possibility. As a result, the performance requirements and test procedures in many of the FMVSS are based on the assumption that the driver
NHTSA has set out below some illustrative examples of potential problems with the existing FMVSS. The Agency requests commenters to identify other potential problems.
• If the FMVSS can no longer specify where controls and displays are located by requiring them to be visible to or within the reach of a person sitting in the driver's seat, then it is unclear for which person or persons in which seating position or positions must they be visible to or within the reach of or even if they are necessary at all.
• After the barriers to determining compliance are removed from the FMVSS, the Agency will turn to other closely related questions such as whether there is a continued need for certain current performance requirements in the FMVSS. For example, among the questions that the agency would need to address are: Would occupants still need warning telltales and other displays to be viewable if they did not have any means of driving their vehicles? Could there be any risk of adverse safety consequences if some or all of those warnings and messages were not provided to the occupants of those vehicles either before or during trips? If a vehicle, such as an ADS delivery vehicle without manual driving controls, were unlikely to be occupied during trips, would there be any safety need for warning telltales and other displays to be viewable?
• If future vehicles with ADSs lack any means of human control, it is unclear how the Agency and the manufacturers can conduct compliance tests (such as those for stopping distance) that are currently performed by human test drivers performing prescribed driving maneuvers on test tracks.
• FMVSS No. 126, Electronic stability control systems for light vehicles, specifies the use of an automated steering machine that depends on a vehicle's steering wheel to steer vehicles when they are tested for compliance. If a vehicle with ADS is not equipped with a steering wheel because the ADS will do all of the driving, the agency would need to determine how to amend the standard to enable the agency to conduct stability control testing and maintain the current level of effectiveness.
• Some vehicles with ADSs may have unique seating configurations that may make it impossible for existing crash protection requirements, test procedures and test devices (
• There may be other existing performance requirements and test procedures that would fail to accommodate unconventional designs. If there are, the Agency will need to identify them and determine how the Agency should amend them in ways maintain the current level of effectiveness.
• There may be some safety attributes or testing procedures that will no longer have sufficient value in a vehicle whose usage is anticipated to be predominantly automated, but still retains manual driving controls.
The Agency wishes to address these issues (and many others) in the coming months and years. We anticipate doing so publicly, seeking all available research and public input to help us adapt the FMVSS and possibly adopt other measures that are well-calibrated to promote innovation, respond to changing circumstances and address emerging technologies while maintaining safety.
We want to emphasize, in an attempt to ensure that there is not any misunderstanding about the source and nature of the barriers or about the vehicles affected by those barriers, that the FMVSS (or any other kind of legally-binding standards) do not have any provisions designed to address the self-driving capability of a motor vehicle. Further, nothing in the existing FMVSS prohibit ADS. Likewise, nothing in those standards poses testing or certification challenges for vehicles with ADSs so long as the vehicles have means of manual control and conventional seating.
If, however, manufacturers design vehicles with ADSs not only lack manual driving controls, but also have unconventional, flexible seating,
Thus, it is not the inclusion of an ADS in a new vehicle that complicates testing and certifying the compliance of the vehicle to the existing FMVSS. Testing and certifying compliance potentially becomes complicated only if a manufacturer wishes to go a step further and design a vehicle with ADS but without a steering wheel, brake pedal and accelerator pedal or with novel configurations or orientations for certain vehicle systems. As noted above, this problem arises because the FMVSS, as currently written, are premised on the presence of means of manual control and on conventional seating configurations and orientations.
Although the Agency may have a degree of flexibility in interpreting some of its existing FMVSS to accommodate innovative interior designs, in most instances, it will be necessary to amend the FMVSS. The FMVSS and the rulemaking process through which they are established and amended are subject to the Administrative Procedure Act,
NHTSA began the process of evaluating existing FMVSS for potential barriers in 2015. In August of that year, NHTSA contracted with DOT's Volpe Center to conduct a review of the FMVSS and issue a report identifying the standards that pose potential barriers to the introduction of vehicles with ADSs and with unconventional interior designs.
While that review was underway, Google submitted a letter, dated November 12, 2015, requesting an interpretation regarding the application of certain FMVSS to vehicles with ADSs. In describing its ADS vehicle, Google indicated its intent to design the vehicle so that it does not include conventional manual driving controls, including a steering wheel, accelerator, or brake pedal. NHTSA responded to that letter on February 4, 2016.
In its letter, NHTSA took the position that a motor vehicle's “self-driving system” (SDS) could be regarded as the driver or that the left front seating position could be regarded as the driver's position in a variety of standards referencing the “driver” or “driver's seating position.”
The response then addressed the question of whether and how Google could certify that the SDS meets a standard developed and designed to apply to a vehicle with a human driver. NHTSA said that in order for it to interpret a standard as allowing certification of compliance by a vehicle manufacturer, NHTSA must first have a suitable test procedure or other means of verifying such compliance. That is, NHTSA said that if a FMVSS lacks a test procedure that is suitable for the Agency's use in verifying a manufacturer's certification of the compliance of some of its vehicles with a FMVSS, the manufacturer cannot validly certify the compliance of those vehicles with the standard. As NHTSA further explained in the letter,
The critical point of NHTSA's responses for many of the requested interpretations is that defining the driver as the SDS (or the driver's position as the left front position) does not end the inquiry or determine the result. Once the SDS is deemed to be the driver for purposes of a particular standard or test, the next question is whether and how Google could certify that the SDS meets a standard developed and designed to apply to a vehicle with a human driver. Related, in order for NHTSA to interpret a standard as allowing certification of compliance by a vehicle manufacturer, NHTSA must first have a test procedure or other means of verifying such compliance.
Volpe completed its review of the FMVSS before NHTSA sent its February 4 letter to Google and thus did not consider that letter in conducting its review. The report on the results of the review was published one month later in March 2016.
FMVSS 135 requires that the service brakes “shall be activated by means of a foot control”.
In addition, NHTSA subject matter experts have identified specific requirements and test procedure limitations. NHTSA is initiating new research on the assessment and evaluation of, and solutions to, the preliminary challenges identified in the Volpe report to the testing, compliance verification and self-certification of vehicles with ADSs. Most of these challenges are precipitated by alternative vehicle designs, such as ones lacking manual driving controls. NHTSA's initial research focuses primarily on the FMVSS compliance test procedures, but will also explore options for telltales, visual and auditory displays and controls and other innovative new vehicle design challenges that may not have been identified in the original Volpe report. NHTSA has contracted with the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute to perform this research. This is a multidisciplinary project to develop technical translations to existing FMVSS and related testing procedure approaches for emerging innovative and non-traditional vehicle designs. The project is being conducted by a core team comprising FMVSS experts; industry team members General Motors and Nissan; testing facilities Dynamic Research, Inc., and MGA Research Corporation; and research institutions Booz Allen Hamilton and the Southwest Research Institute in concert with stakeholder and peer review groups. The research will review and identify alternative new vehicle designs, develop candidate alternative approaches, and establish an evaluation process as well as associated tools in close collaboration with critical stakeholders. This research project started at the beginning of FY2018 and is expected to develop robust alternative approaches within the next 12 months to demonstrate compliance with many of the identified FMVSS whose existing test procedures present challenges. The results of this research will be made public after the completion of the project.
To help guide NHTSA's research to address testing and self-certification issues, we seek comments on the topics below. The Agency urges that, where possible, comments be supported by data and analysis to increase their usefulness. Please clearly indicate the source of such data.
1. What are the different categories of barriers that the FMVSS potentially create to the testing, certification and compliance verification of a new ADS vehicle lacking manual driving controls? Examples of barrier categories include the following:
a. Test procedures that cannot be conducted for vehicles with ADSs and with innovative interior designs; and
b. performance requirements that may serve a reduced safety purpose or even no safety purpose at all for a vehicle
As noted earlier in this document, the first of the above categories is the primary focus of this document. However, the Agency seeks comments on both categories of barriers. If you believe that there are still other barrier categories, please identify them.
2. NHTSA requests comments on the statement made in NHTSA's February 2016 letter of interpretation to Google, that if a FMVSS lacks a test procedure that is suitable for the Agency's use in verifying a manufacturer's certification of compliance with a provision in that FMVSS, the manufacturer cannot validly certify the compliance of its vehicles with that provision. Do commenters agree that each of the standards identified in the letter as needing to be amended before manufacturers can certify compliance with it must be amended in order to permit certification? Why or why not? If there are other solutions, please describe them.
3. Do you agree (or disagree) that the FMVSS provisions identified in the Volpe report or Google letter as posing barriers to testing and certification are, in fact, barriers? Please explain why.
4. Do commenters think there are FMVSS provisions that pose barriers to testing and certification of innovative new vehicle designs, but were
5. Are there ways to solve the problems that may be posed by any of these FMVSS provisions without conducting additional research? If so, what are they and why do you believe that no further research is necessary? For example, can some apparent problems be solved through interpretation? If so, which ones?
6. Similarly, are there ways to solve the problems that may be posed by any of these FMVSS provisions without rulemaking? For example, can some apparent problems be solved through interpretation without either additional research or through rulemaking? If so, which ones?
7. In contrast, if a commenter believes that legislation might be necessary to enable NHTSA to remove a barrier identified by the commenter, please explain why and please identify the specific existing law that the commenter thinks should be changed and describe how it should be changed. If there are associated regulations that the commenter believes should be changed, please identify the specific CFR citation and explain why they need to be changed.
8. Many FMVSS contain test procedures that are based on the assumed presence of a human driver, and will therefore likely need to be amended to accommodate vehicles that cannot be driven by humans. Other FMVSS test procedures may seem, based on a plain reading of their language, to accommodate vehicles that cannot be driven by humans, but it may nevertheless be unclear how NHTSA (or a manufacturer attempting to self-certify to the test) would instruct the vehicle to perform the test as written.
a. Do commenters believe that these procedures should apply to a vehicle that cannot be driven by a human? If so, why? If there are data to support this positon, please provide it.
b. If not, can NHTSA test in some other manner? Please identify the alternative manner and explain why it would be appropriate.
9. What research would be necessary to determine how to instruct a vehicle with ADS but without manual means of control to follow a driving test procedure? Is it possible to develop a single approach to inputting these “instructions” in a manner applicable to all vehicle designs and all FMVSS, or will the approach need to vary, and if so, why and how? If commenters believe there is a risk of gaming,
10. In lieu of the approaches suggested in questions 8 and 9, is there an alternative means of demonstrating equivalent level of safety that is reliable, objective and practicable?
11. For FMVSS that include test procedures that assume a human driver is seated in a certain seating position (for example, procedures that assess whether a rearview mirror provides an image in the correct location), should NHTSA simply amend the FMVSS to require, for instance, that “driver's seat” requirements apply to any front seating position? If so, please explain why. If not, what research would need to be conducted to determine how NHTSA should amend those requirements?
12. A variety of FMVSS require safety-related dashboard telltales and other displays, if provided, to be visible to a human driver and controls to be within reach of that driver. Generally speaking, is there a safety need for the telltales and other displays in Table 1 and 2 of FMVSS 101 to be visible to any of the occupants in vehicles without manual driving controls?
a. Should the telltale or other display be required to be visible to one or more vehicle occupants in vehicles without manual driving controls?
b. If there is a need for continued visibility, to the occupant(s) of which seating position(s) should the telltale or other display be visible?
c. Does the answer to the question about the continued need for a telltale or other display to be visible to the occupant of a vehicle without manual driving controls change if a manufacturer equips the vehicle with a device like an “emergency stop button”? Why or why not?
d. Would the informational safety needs of the occupants of vehicles with ADSs differ according to whether the vehicle has a full set of manual driving controls, just an emergency stop button or no controls whatsoever?
e. Conversely, if a vehicle is designed such that it can be driven only by an ADS, does the ADS need to be provided with some or all of the same information currently required to be provided for a human driver? For example, does the ADS need to know if the tires are underinflated? Why or why not?
f. If commenters believe that it would enhance safety if a vehicle's ADS were required to receive information similar to some or all of that currently required to be provided to human drivers by telltales and other displays, what research needs to be conducted to develop the kinds of objective and practicable performance requirements or test procedures that would enable manufacturers and the Agency to evaluate whether that information was provided to and understood by the ADS?
13. If NHTSA is going to conduct research to determine whether there is any safety need for the occupants of fully-self-driving vehicles to continue to
a. If there is a safety need for the occupants of fully-self-driving vehicles to have access to any of the existing vehicle non-driving controls, please identify those controls and explain the safety need.
b. Do commenters believe that research should be conducted to determine whether any additional controls (such as an emergency stop button) might be necessary for safety or public acceptance if manual driving controls are removed from fully-self-driving vehicles? Why or why not, and what is the basis for your belief?
c. If NHTSA is going to conduct research to determine whether there is any safety need for the occupants of fully-self-driving vehicles to continue to be able to control exterior lighting like turn signals and headlamp beam switching devices, what should that research include and how should NHTSA conduct it? Separately, if NHTSA is going to conduct research on what exterior lighting continues to be needed for safety when a human is not driving, what should that research include and how should NHTSA conduct it?
14. If NHTSA is going to conduct research to determine whether there is a safety need for the occupants of vehicles with ADSs but without manual driving controls to be able to see to the side and behind those vehicles using mirrors or cameras, what should that research include and how should NHTSA conduct it? Separately, if NHTSA is going to conduct research to determine how NHTSA would test the ability of a vehicle's ADS' to “see” around and behind the vehicle as well as (or better than) a human driver would, what should that research include and how should NHTSA conduct it?
15. Do the FMVSS create testing and certification issues for vehicles with ADSs other than those discussed above? If so, which FMVSS do so and why do you believe they present such issues? For example, FMVSS No. 108, “Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment,” could potentially pose obstacles to certifying the compliance of a vehicle that uses exterior lighting and messaging, through words or symbols, to communicate to nearby pedestrians, cyclists and motorists, such as at a 4-way stop intersection, the vehicle's awareness of their presence and the vehicle's willingness to cede priority of movement to any of those people. If research is needed to eliminate the barriers in an appropriate way, please describe the research and explain why it is needed. Are there other lighting issues that should be considered? For example, what lighting will be needed to ensure the proper functioning of the different types of vehicle sensors, especially cameras whose functions include reading traffic control signs?
16. If occupants of vehicles with ADSs, especially those without manual driving controls, are less likely to sit in what is now called the driver's seating position or are less likely to sit in seats that are facing forward, how should these factors affect existing requirements for crashworthiness safety features?
17. If vehicles with ADSs have emergency controls that can be accessed through unconventional means, such as a smart phone or multi-purpose display and have unconventional interiors, how should the Agency address those controls?
18. Are there any specific regulatory barriers related to small businesses that NHTSA should consider, specifically those that may help facilitate small business participation in this emerging technology?
19. For issues about FMVSS barriers that NHTSA needs research to resolve, do commenters believe that there are specific items that would be better addressed through research by outside stakeholders, such as industry or research organizations, instead of by NHTSA itself?
a. Which issues is industry better equipped to undertake on its own, and why? Which issues are research organizations or other stakeholders better equipped to undertake on their own, and why?
b. What research is needed to determine which types of safety performance metrics
c. Which questions is NHTSA better equipped to undertake and why? For example, would NHTSA, as the regulator, be the more appropriate party to conduct research needed to determine what performance threshold to require vehicles to meet with respect to that metric? Why or why not?
d. What research have industry, research organizations, and other stakeholders done related to barriers to testing and certification? What research are they planning to do? With respect to research planned, but not yet completed, please identify the research and state the starting and end dates for that research.
e. How can NHTSA, industry, states, research organizations, and other stakeholders work together to ensure that, if the research on these issues were eventually to lead to rulemaking, it is done with the rigor and thoroughness that NHTSA would need to meet its statutory obligations, regardless of who performs it (
20. For the issues identified above or by commenters, which merit the most attention? How should the agency prioritize its research and any follow-on rulemakings to remove the barriers to testing and certification?
21. Correcting barriers associated with the track testing of motor vehicles will be particularly challenging. Examples of such barriers follow:
a. As noted above, FMVSS No. 126 specifies the use of an automated steering machine that depends on a vehicle's steering wheel to steer vehicles when they are tested for compliance. NHTSA will need to determine how to amend the standard to enable the agency to conduct stability control testing in vehicles that lack a steering wheel. Further, if NHTSA is going to conduct research to consider how to change the “sine with dwell” test procedure for FMVSS No. 126, so that steering wheel angle need not be measured at the steering wheel in determining compliance with the standard, what should that research include and how should NHTSA conduct it?
b. If NHTSA is going to conduct research to develop a performance test to verify how a vehicle is activating its service brakes, what should that research include and how should NHTSA conduct it? If NHTSA is going to conduct research to determine whether there continues to be a safety need to maintain a human-operable service brake, what should that research include and how should NHTSA conduct it?
22. Are there industry standards, existing or in development, that may be suitable for incorporation by reference by NHTSA in accordance with the standards provisions of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 and Office of Management and Budget Circular A-119, “Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and Conformity Assessment Activities?”
Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your comments are filed in the correct docket, please include the docket number of this document in your comments.
Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long (49 CFR 553.21). NHTSA established this limit to encourage you to write your primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments.
Please submit one copy (two copies if submitting by mail or hand delivery) of your comments, including the attachments, to the docket following the instructions given above under
If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, you must submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given above under
In addition, you may submit a copy (two copies if submitting by mail or hand delivery) from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business information, to the docket by one of the methods given above under
NHTSA will consider all comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under
You may read the comments received at the address given above under
Please note that, even after the comment closing date, NHTSA will continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, NHTSA recommends that you periodically check the docket for new material.
49 U.S.C. 30101
“• Current Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) do not explicitly address automated vehicle technology and often assume the presence of a human driver. As a result, existing language may create certification challenges for manufacturers of automated vehicles that choose to pursue certain vehicle concepts.
• The purpose of this work is to identify instances where the existing FMVSS may pose challenges to the introduction of automated vehicles. It identifies standards requiring further review—both to ensure that existing regulations do not unduly stifle innovation and to help ensure that automated vehicles perform their functions safely.
• The review highlighted standards in the FMVSS that may create certification challenges for automated vehicle concepts with particular characteristics, including situations in which those characteristics could introduce ambiguity into the interpretation of existing standards. The review team's approach was meant to be as inclusive as possible, with the intent to identify standards that would require further review or discussion.
• This is a preliminary report summarizing the review of FMVSS and includes a discussion on approach, findings, and analysis. As a preliminary review, the contents of this report reflect the results of an initial analysis and may be modified based on stakeholder input and future discussion.
• The Volpe team conducted two reviews of the FMVSS: a driver reference scan to identify which standards include an explicit or implicit reference to a human driver and an automated vehicle concepts scan to identify which standards could pose a challenge for a wide range of automated vehicle capabilities and concepts.
○ The driver reference scan revealed references in numerous standards to a driver (defined in § 571.3 as “. . . the occupant of the motor vehicle seated immediately behind the steering control system”), a driver's seating position, or controls and displays that must be visible to or operable by a driver, or actuated by a driver's hands or feet.
○ In order to conduct the automated vehicle concepts scan, the Volpe team developed 13 different automated vehicle concepts, ranging from limited levels of automation (and near-term applications) to highly-automated, driverless concepts with innovative vehicle designs. The idea was to evaluate the FMVSS against these different automated vehicle concepts.
• In summary, the review revealed that there are few barriers for automated vehicles to comply with FMVSS, as long as the vehicle does not significantly diverge from a conventional vehicle design. Two standards: theft protection and rollaway prevention (§ 571.114) and light vehicle brake systems (§ 571.135) were identified as having potential issues for automated vehicles with conventional designs.
• Automated vehicles that begin to push the boundaries of conventional design (
• Subsequent to the Volpe Center's review of the FMVSS, but prior to the publication of this report, NHTSA released interpretations to BMW of North America and Google, Inc. in response to questions regarding how to interpret certain FMVSS requirements in the context of automated vehicles. As a result, the review does not reflect this subsequent development. The full text of these interpretations are available in NHTSA's repository of interpretation files at the website:
In the report, the Volpe Center reported 32 of 63 FMVSS's that may present certification challenges for certain types of automated vehicles because they contain performance specifications, test procedures, or equipment requirements that present potential barriers to the certification of one or more AV concepts:
1. Conventional Vehicles (with driver controls) with highly-automated features (2 standards identified).
• key must be in position before moving out of park position, and park position interlock with the service brake (571.114),
• foot-actuated service brake control, brake system warning indicator, and warning device for lining replacements (571.135).
2. Fully-self-driving vehicles (no driver controls or novel design) (32 standards identified, some examples listed below).
• controls and displays visible to the driver (571.101),
• transmission shift position sequence and interlock (571.102),
• windshield defrosting and defogging (571.103),
• windshield wipers (571.104),
• foot-actuated service brake control, brake system warning indicator, and warning device for lining replacements (571.105),
• turn signal, flasher, headlamp beam switch, and upper beam indicator (571.108),
• tire/rim retention requirement for driver (571.110),
• requirements for rear visibility for the driver (571.111),
• key must be in position before moving out of park position, and park position interlock with the service brake (571.114),
• powered windows and roof panels (571.118),
• foot-actuated service brake control, low-pressure brake system warning indicator, and brake adjustment indicators (571.121),
• motorcycle brake systems (571.122),
• accelerator pedal must return to neutral when released by the driver (571.124),
• a steering wheel (a requirement for completing tests) and certain controls and displays (571.126),
• foot-actuated service brake control, brake system warning indicator, and warning device for lining replacements (571.135),
• TPMS telltale for low tire pressure to warn driver (571.138),
• occupant protection in interior impact (571.201),
• door locks and door retention components (571.206),
• a designated seating position for the driver (571.207),
• occupant protection and warning system for non-buckled seat belt (571.208),
• seat belt anchorages (571.210),
• side impact protection (571.214),
• windshield zone intrusion (571.219),
• child restraint anchorage systems (571.225),
• readiness monitor for ejection mitigation countermeasures visible to the driver (571.226),
• flammability of interior materials (571.302),
• interior trunk release (571.401),
• other equipment may pose barriers to certification.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
The Bridger-Teton Nation Forest (BTNF) will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) to disclose the effects of continued control of noxious and other invasive plants through the integration of manual, mechanical, biological, and ground and aerial herbicide control methods. Effects analysis of treatments of invasive plants, including cheatgrass (
Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received by February 20, 2018. The draft EIS is expected in May of 2018, and the final EIS is expected in October 2018.
Send written comments to Forest Supervisor, Bridger-Teton National Forest, P.O. Box 1880, 340 N. Cache, Jackson, Wyoming 83001. Comments may also be sent via email to
Direct questions about the proposed action and the EIS to Chad Hayward, Project Coordinator, 10418 S Hwy 189, Big Piney, Wyoming, 83113, phone (307) 276-5817 or email
Invasive species are defined as alien species whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health (Federal Executive Order 13112). When developing an invasive plant management strategy, it is critical to consider all available resources and tools. Integrated pest management (IPM) strategies utilize various invasive plant management options that focus on the most economical, efficient and effective control of invasive plants. Anything that weakens the invasive plant, prevents spreading, or prevents seed production can be a valuable tool.
Currently, approximately 75,000 acres within the BTNF are infested with invasive plants. Invasive, non-native species are threatening or dominating areas of the BTNF with negative impacts on native plant communities, big game winter ranges, sage-grouse habitat, soil and watershed resources, recreation, domestic livestock forage availability, and aesthetic values. A shift from native vegetation to invasive plants alters wildlife habitats, decreases wildlife and livestock forage, reduces species diversity, increases soil erosion due to a decrease in surface cover, alters the fire return interval, and promotes undesirable monocultures.
The purpose and need of the project is to prevent and reduce loss of native plant communities associated with the spread of invasive plant species. Specifically, the purposes of this project are to prevent and treat invasive plants within the BTNF and to reduce the impacts from invasive plants on other resources by:
• Protecting the natural condition and biodiversity of the Bridger-Teton by preventing or limiting the spread of aggressive, non-native plant species that displace native vegetation;
• promptly eliminating new invaders (species not previously reported in the area) before they become established;
• preventing or limiting the spread of established invasive plants into areas containing little or no infestation;
• protecting sensitive and unique habitats including critical big game winter ranges, sage-grouse core areas and other important habitats; and
• reducing known and potential invasive plant seed sources along roads and trails, within powerline corridors, rights-of-ways, gravel and rock quarries, fuels reduction projects, and previously-burned areas to prevent the spread of invasive plants into new, un-infested areas.
The Forest Service, through the application of an invasive plant treatment strategy, proposes to continue to treat invasive plant species on the BTNF. The proposed action would occur over the next 10-15 years and would treat several thousands of acres annually. The proposed action would broaden the current management for control of noxious weeds to:
• Treat new infestations through a strategy for assessing new treatments and new sites;
• permit the use of newly developed, more species-specific, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-registered herbicides;
• continue the use of integrated treatment methods, including herbicides, within wilderness areas where approved in advance and necessary to maintain native vegetation consistent with wilderness values;
• broaden control methods to include the use of aerial application of herbicides where effective ground application is not possible outside of wilderness areas; and
• maintain or improve protection measures for herbicide applications.
Adding the capability for aerial treatments is necessary to safely and effectively apply herbicides, in uniform applications, on the steeper slopes that characterize critical big game winter ranges. It is also needed to cooperate with integrated land ownership partners that are experiencing extensive
The proposed action would utilize a variety of tools, singularly or in combination, to implement an integrated strategy. Proposed control methods include the following:
• Mechanical methods, such as hand-pulling, mowing or cutting;
• revegetation, where competitive vegetation is seeded to reduce invasive species, possibly after other treatments;
• grazing with livestock;
• biological control using predators, parasites, and pathogens;
• herbicide control using ground-based application methods; herbicide control using aerial application methods;
• prescribed fire in conjunction with other treatment methods;
• education programs to inform people of the effects of invasive plant infestations, methods of spread, and preventative management opportunities and practices; and
• prevention by using practices that reduce invasive plant spread, including a weed-free forage and gravel program and washing vehicles to remove seeds and plant parts.
The selection of control methods is not a choice of one tool over another, but rather selection of a combination of tools that would be most effective on target species for a location. The BTNF proposes to use a combination of control methods based on site-specific conditions and circumstances, EPA labels, USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) direction, and resource protection measures to ensure that treatment methods are properly used. No activities are being proposed to occur on private lands. It is anticipated, however, that the Forest Service may receive requests from intermingled and adjacent landowners to be a willing and able partner on projects that might be proposed to treat invasive plant populations that are found on multiple land ownerships that include National Forest System lands.
The BTNF will consider a reasonable range of alternatives, including a no action alternative. Based on the issues gathered through scoping, the action alternatives may vary in the amount and location of acres considered for treatment and the number, type, and location of activity.
The Bridger-Teton Forest Supervisor is the Responsible Official for making the decision concerning this proposal.
Given the purpose and need, the Responsible Official reviews the proposed action, the other alternatives, and the environmental consequences in order to make the following decisions: Whether to expand current efforts to control invasive plants; what control methods would be used; what herbicides would be used; what protection measures and monitoring measures would be required; and whether to include an adaptive management approach to address future spread of invasive weeds.
The EIS is a project-level analysis. The scope of the project is confined to issues and potential environmental consequences relevant to the decision. This analysis does not attempt to re-evaluate or alter decisions made at higher levels. The decision is subject to, and would implement direction from, higher levels.
National and regional policies and Forest Plan direction require consideration of effects of all projects on invasive plant spread and prescription of protection measures where practical to limit those effects. Reconsideration of other existing project-level decisions or programmatically prescribing protection measures or standards for future forest management activities (such as travel management, timber harvest, and grazing management) are beyond the scope of this document. Cumulative effects will be addressed in Chapter 3 of the EIS.
Even with careful consideration, unforeseen events can occur during project implementation that will require additional analyses. Unanticipated events can result in new information that could have a bearing on a decision. Forest Service procedures for addressing such new information, documents, and decisions are thoroughly explained in FSH 1909.15, Section 18.
Key issues identified to date include the current and potential impacts of invasive plants on natural resources such as big game winter habitat, native plant communities, wilderness values, watershed function, and threatened, endangered, or sensitive species and their habitats. Additional issues preliminarily identified include economic impacts; the effectiveness and potential impacts of various control methods on natural resources; and potential effects on non-target native plants and associated values, wildlife and fish populations, and human health from the application of herbicides.
This notice of intent initiates the scoping process, which guides the development of the EIS. Public participation will be especially important at several points during the analysis, beginning with the scoping process (40 CFR 1501.7). The decision and reasons for the decision will be documented in a Record of Decision. The decision will be subject to Forest Service Project-Level Predecisional Administrative Review Process (Objection Process) (36 CFR part 218).
It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such manner that they are useful to the agency's preparation of the EIS. Therefore, comments should be provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewer's concerns and contentions.
Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will become part of the public record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered, however anonymous comments will not provide the respondent eligibility to participate in subsequent administrative or judicial review.
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
The meeting will be held on Thursday, February 1, 2018 at 11:00 a.m. MT.
Angelica Trevino at
This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-267-6301, conference ID number: 8312057. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. 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 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Western Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 300 North Los Angeles Street, Suite 2010, Los Angeles, CA 90012. They may be faxed to the Commission at (213) 894-0508, or emailed Angelica Trevino at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meeting at
On November 22, 2017, the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board docketed an application submitted by the Brunswick and Glenn County Development Authority, grantee of FTZ 144, requesting subzone status subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 144, on behalf of Orgill, Inc., in Tifton, Georgia.
The application was processed in accordance with the FTZ Act and Regulations, including notice in the
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On December 26, 2017, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) published its preliminary results of changed circumstances reviews (CCRs) and intent to revoke, in part, the antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules, from the People's Republic of China (China) with respect to certain solar panels (collectively, the
Applicable January 18, 2018.
Lauren Caserta or Kaitlin Wojnar, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4737 and (202) 482-3857, respectively.
On December 7, 2012, Commerce published AD and CVD orders on certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules, from China.
On November 27, 2017, Commerce published the notice of initiation of the requested changed circumstances reviews.
Because no party submitted comments opposing Commerce's preliminary results, and the record contains no other information or evidence that calls into question the preliminary results, Commerce determines, pursuant to section 751(d)(1) of the Act, section 782(h) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.222(g), that there are changed circumstances that warrant revocation of the
The merchandise covered by the
The
Merchandise under consideration may be described at the time of importation as parts for final finished products that are assembled after importation, including, but not limited to, modules, laminates, panels, building-integrated modules, building-integrated panels, or other finished goods kits. Such parts that otherwise meet the definition of merchandise under consideration are included in the scope of the
Excluded from the scope of the
Also excluded from the scope of the
Additionally, excluded from the scope of these
Modules, laminates, and panels produced in a third-country from cells produced in China are covered by the
Merchandise covered by these
Because we determine that there are changed circumstances that warrant the revocation of the
This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing these final results and revocation, in part, and notice in accordance with sections 751(b) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216, 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3), and 19 CFR 351.222.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council's (Council) Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) Socio-Economic Panel (SEP).
The Council will hold a meeting of its SSC SEP to receive updates on fisheries issues being addressed by the Council and provide recommendations as appropriate. See
The SEP meeting will be held February 6, 2018, from 1 p.m. until 5 p.m. and February 7, 2018, from 9 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
John Hadley; 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405; phone: (843) 571-4366 or toll free: (866) SAFMC-10; fax: (843) 769-4520; email:
The following items will be discussed by the SEP during the meeting:
1. An update on recent Council actions and the Council's Citizen Science Program;
2. Review and discussion of the recent review of the Council's Individual Transferable Quota (ITQ) Program for the Wreckfish fishery;
3. Discussion on recreational reporting as proposed in Amendment 46 to the Snapper Grouper Fishery Management Plan for the South Atlantic;
4. A review of the outline for a socio-economic report of the Council's managed fisheries;
5. Discussion on fishing trip metrics used to estimate the economic impacts of recreational fisheries for species managed by the Council; and
6. A presentation of the results from the Socio-Economic Profile of the Commercial Snapper Grouper Fishery in the South Atlantic.
The SEP will provide recommendations on agenda items as appropriate. Agenda items are subject to change. A public comment period on agenda items will be held at the beginning and end of the meeting.
Written comment on SEP agenda topics is to be distributed to the Committee through the Council office, similar to all other briefing materials. Written comment to be considered by the SEP shall be provided to the Council office no later than one week prior to the SEP meeting. For this meeting the deadline for submission of written comment is 12 p.m., Tuesday, January 30, 2018. An online comment form will be posted as it becomes available at the Council's website at:
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meetings.
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) and its advisory committees will meet February 5, 2018 through February 12, 2018, in Seattle, WA.
The meetings will be held Monday, February 5, 2018 through Monday, February 12, 2018. See
David Witherell, Council staff; telephone: (907) 271-2809.
The Council, SSC, and AP will meet all day on Wednesday, February 7, 2018 for the Ecosystem Research Workshop in the Ballroom. The Council will begin its plenary session at 8 a.m. in the South Room on Thursday, February 8, continuing through Monday, February 12, 2018. The Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) will begin at 8 a.m. in the East Room on Monday, February 5, and continue through Tuesday, February 6, 2018. The Council's Advisory Panel (AP) will begin at 8 a.m. in the North/West Room on Tuesday, February 6, and continue through Friday, February 9, 2018. The IFQ Committee will meet on Monday, February 5, 2018, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. in the Marion Room. The Legislative Committee will meet on Monday, February 5, 2018, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. (Room TBD). The Ecosystem Committee will meet on Tuesday, February 6, 2018, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. in the Marion Room.
The Advisory Panel will address most of the same agenda issues as the Council except B reports.
The SSC agenda will include the following issues:
In addition to providing ongoing scientific advice for fishery management decisions, the SSC functions as the Councils primary peer review panel for scientific information as described by the Magnuson-Stevens Act section 302(g)(1)(e), and the National Standard 2 guidelines (78 FR 43066). The peer review process is also deemed to satisfy the requirements of the Information Quality Act, including the OMB Peer Review Bulletin guidelines.
The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted at
Although other non-emergency issues not on the agenda may come before these groups for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Actions will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Shannon Gleason at (907) 271-2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
NMFS and the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) will convene a Western Pacific Stock Assessment Review (WPSAR) of the draft 2017 benchmark stock assessments for Guam coral reef fish.
See
The meeting will be held at the Council office, 1164 Bishop St., Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813.
Michael Seki, Director, NMFS Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center (PIFSC), tel 808-725-5360.
PIFSC scientists are conducting stock assessments on exploited Pacific Islands coral reef fish included in the Council's fishery ecosystem plans. These stocks are generally classified as data-poor because they lack reliable, long-term, catch and fishing effort data. Historically, the Council has recommended, and NMFS has approved, setting annual catch limits (ACLs) using a percentile of median historical catch levels and, more recently, a biomass-augmented catch-MSY (maximum sustainable yield) method has been applied.
In an effort to use additional available data sources for these stocks, PIFSC scientists have conducted new coral reef fish assessments using length composition data, abundance data from diver surveys, and certain key population demographic parameters related to growth, maturity, and longevity. PIFSC scientists have been implementing an approach that uses size structure data to obtain an estimate
Overfishing limits can be generated by using recent total catch estimates and/or population size estimates from diver surveys. Furthermore, a meta-analytical approach using stochastic simulations was developed at PIFSC to obtain demographic parameter estimates for species with even less data than data-poor species (that is, “data-less” species). These scientific methods passed a rigorous independent review by a panel organized by the Center for Independent Experts in 2015. In 2017, these methods were applied to individual species in the main Hawaiian Islands, and now this general approach will be used to assess 20 species from the U.S. territory of Guam. Per WPSAR, there is a need to independently review these species-specific stock assessments prior to submission to a fishery management organization for consideration.
Section 301(a)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires that fishery conservation and management measures be based upon the best scientific information available. Magnuson-Stevens Act Section 302(g)(1)(E) provides that the Secretary of Commerce and each regional fishery management council may establish a peer review process for that Council for scientific information used to advise the Council about the conservation and management of a fishery. Consistent with this provision, the Council, PIFSC, and the NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office have established the WPSAR process in an effort to improve the quality, timeliness, objectivity, and integrity of stock assessments and other scientific information used in managing Pacific Island fishery resources.
The meeting schedule and agenda are as follows (9 a.m.-5 p.m. every day). The agenda order may change and the meeting will run as late as necessary to complete scheduled business.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Please direct requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aides to Michael Seki, Director, PIFSC, tel 808-725-5360, fax 808-725-5360), at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
16 U.S.C. 1801
The next meeting of the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts is scheduled for 18 January 2018, at 9:00 a.m. in the Commission offices at the National Building Museum, Suite 312, Judiciary Square, 401 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20001-2728. Items of discussion may include buildings, parks and memorials.
Draft agendas and additional information regarding the Commission are available on our website:
Corporation for National and Community Service.
Notice.
The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) has submitted a public information collection request (ICR) entitled Performance Measurement in AmeriCorps for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments may be submitted, identified by the title of the information collection activity, by February 20, 2018.
Comments may be submitted, identified by the title of the information collection activity, to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: Ms. Sharon Mar, OMB Desk Officer for the Corporation for National and Community Service, by any of the following two methods within 30 days from the date of publication in the
(1)
(2)
Copies of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling the Corporation for National and Community Service, Adrienne DiTommaso, at 202-606-3611 or email to
The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of CNCS, 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;
• Propose ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Propose ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
A 60-day Notice requesting public comment was published in the
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice and request for comments regarding a proposed extension of an approved information collection requirement.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, DoD announces the proposed extension of a public information collection requirement and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof.
DoD will consider all comments received by March 19, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by OMB Control Number 0704-0483, using any of the following methods:
Comments received generally will be posted without change to
Mr. Mark Gomersall, 571-372-6099. The information collection requirements addressed in this notice are available electronically on the internet at:
DFARS 231.205-18 requires contractors to report independent research and development projects to DTIC using the DTIC's online IR&D database. The inputs must be updated at least annually and when the project is completed.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.
Arms sales notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Pamela Young, (703) 697-9107,
This 36(b)(1) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 17-69 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Japan has requested a possible sale of four (4) Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) Block IIA missiles. Also included are four (4) MK 29 missile canisters, U.S. Government and contractor representatives' technical assistance, transportation, engineering and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistical and program support. The estimated total case value is $133.3 million.
This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by improving the security of a major ally that has been, and continues to be, a force for political stability and economic progress in the Asia-Pacific region.
The proposed sale will provide Japan with an increased ballistic missile defense capability to assist in defending the Japanese homeland and U.S. personnel stationed there. Japan will have no difficulty absorbing these additional munitions and support into the Japan Maritime Self Defense Force (JMSDF).
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractors will be Raytheon Missile Systems, Tucson, AZ (SM-3); and BAE Systems, Minneapolis, MN (MK 29). There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale will require annual trips to Japan involving U.S. Government and contractor representatives for technical reviews, support, and oversight for approximately five years.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The proposed sale will involve the release of sensitive technology to the Government of Japan related to the Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) Block IIA missile. The ship- or ground-launched SM-3 Block IIA is the most recent iteration in the SM-3 family. It has two distinct new features: larger rocket motors that will allow it to defend broader areas from ballistic missile threats; and a larger kinetic warhead. The kinetic warhead has been enhanced, improving the search, discrimination, acquisition and tracking functions, to address emerging threats. Once enclosed in the canister, the SM-3 Block IIA missile is classified CONFIDENTIAL. The optics hardware and signal processor are classified SECRET.
2. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of specific hardware, the information could be used to develop countermeasures which might reduce weapons system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
3. A determination has been made that Japan can provide substantially the same degree of protection for sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This proposed sustainment program is necessary to the furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the policy justification.
4. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal are authorized for release and export to the Government of Japan.
National Intelligence University, Department of Defense.
Notice of closed meeting.
The Department of Defense is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the National Intelligence University Board of Visitors has been scheduled. The meeting is closed to the public.
Tuesday, January 23, 2018 (7:30 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) and Wednesday, January 24, 2018 (7:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.).
Defense Intelligence Agency, 7400 Pentagon, ATTN: NIU, Washington, DC 20301-7400.
Dr. J. Scott Cameron, President, DIA National Intelligence University, Bethesda, MD 20816, Phone: (301) 243-2118.
Due to circumstances beyond the control of the Designated Federal Officer and the Department of Defense, the National Intelligence University Board of Visitors was unable to provide public notification concerning it meeting on January 23-24, 2018, as required by 41 CFR 102-3.150(a). Accordingly, the Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150(b), waives the 15-calendar day notification requirement.
The entire meeting is devoted to the discussion of classified information as defined in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) and therefore will be closed. Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140, and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the public or interested organizations may submit written statements to the National Intelligence University Board of Visitors about its mission and functions. Written statements may be submitted at any time or in response to the stated agenda of a planned meeting of the National Intelligence University Board of Visitors. All written statements shall be submitted to the Designated Federal Officer for the National Intelligence University Board of Visitors, and this individual will ensure that the written statements are provided to the membership for their consideration. Contact information for the Designated Federal Officer can be obtained from the GSA's FACA Database—
Office of Fossil Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of renewal.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act and in accordance with Title 41 of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 102.3.65, and following consultation with the Committee Management Secretariat, General Services Administration, notice is hereby given that the National Petroleum Council has been renewed for a two-year period.
The Council will continue to provide advice, information, and recommendations to the Secretary of Energy on matters relating to oil and natural gas, and the oil and natural gas industries. The Secretary of Energy has determined that renewal of the National Petroleum Council is essential to the conduct of the Department's business and in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed by law upon the Department of Energy. The Council will continue to operate in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the General Services Administration Final Rule on Federal Advisory Committee Management, and other directives and instructions issued in implementation of those Acts.
Ms. Nancy Johnson at (202) 586-6458
U.S. Department of Energy.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of Energy (DOE), pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, intends to extend for three years, an information collection request with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the extended 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, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before March 19, 2018. If you anticipate difficulty in submitting comments within that period, contact the person listed below as soon as possible.
Written comments may be sent to Sharon Archer by fax at 202-287-1349 or by email to
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Sharon Archer at 202-287-1739 or by fax at 202-287-1349 or by email at
This information collection request contains: (1) OMB No.: 1910-4100; (2) Information Collection Request Title: Procurement Requirements; (3) Type of Review: Renewal; (4) Purpose: Under 48 CFR part 952 and subpart 970.52, DOE must collect certain types of information from those seeking to do business with the Department or those awarded contracts by the Department. This package contains information collections necessary for the solicitation, award, administration, and closeout of procurement contracts. (5) Annual Estimated Number of Respondents: 7,469; (6) Annual Estimated Number of Total Responses: 7,469; (7) Annual Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 670,833; (8) Annual Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: $52,995,807.
42 U.S.C. 2201.
Office of Defense Programs, National Nuclear Security Administration, Department of Energy.
Notice of closed meeting.
This notice announces a closed meeting of the Defense Programs Advisory Committee (DPAC). The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of meetings be announced in the
February 2, 2018, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20585.
Dana Hunter, Office of RDT&E (NA-11), National Nuclear Security Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20585, (202) 287-6287.
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Woomera Energy LLC`s application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is January 29, 2018.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
On December 30, 2015, Algonquin Power (Beaver Falls), LLC, licensee for the Upper Beaver Falls Hydroelectric Project No. 2593 and the Lower Beaver Falls Hydroelectric Project No. 2823, filed a joint application for subsequent license
The license terms for Project Nos. 2593 and 2823 ended on December 31, 2017. Section 15(a)(1) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 808(a)(1), requires the Commission, at the expiration of a license term, to issue from year-to-year an annual license to the then licensee under the terms and conditions of the prior license until a new license is issued, or the project is otherwise disposed of as provided in section 15 or any other applicable section of the FPA. If the project's prior license waived the applicability of section 15 of the FPA, then, based on section 9(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 558(c), and as set forth at 18 CFR 16.21(a), if the licensee of such project has filed an application for a subsequent license, the licensee may continue to operate the project in accordance with the terms and conditions of the license after the minor or minor part license expires, until the Commission acts on its application. If the licensee of such a project has not filed an application for a subsequent license, then it may be required, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.21(b), to continue project operations until the Commission issues someone else a license for the project or otherwise orders disposition of the project.
If the project is subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is hereby given that an annual license for Project No. 2593 is issued to the licensee for a period effective January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018 or until the issuance of a new license for the project or other disposition under the FPA, whichever comes first. If issuance of a new license (or other disposition) does not take place on or before December 31, 2018, notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.18(c), an annual license
If the projects are not subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is hereby given that the licensee, Algonquin Power (Beaver Falls), LLC, is authorized to continue operation of the Upper Beaver Falls and Lower Beaver Falls Hydroelectric Projects, until such time as the Commission acts on its license application.
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will discuss the environmental impacts of the South Saskatchewan Pipeline Project involving construction and operation of facilities by Steel Reef Pipelines US LLC (Steel Reef) in Burke County, North Dakota. The Commission will use this EA in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity.
This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the project. You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EA. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before February 10, 2018.
If you sent comments on this project to the Commission before the opening of this docket on December 8, 2017, you will need to file those comments in Docket No. CP18-24-000 to ensure they are considered as part of this proceeding.
This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this project. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
Steel Reef provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know? This fact sheet addresses a number of typically asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. It is also available for viewing on the FERC website (
For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the
(2) You can file your comments electronically by using the
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address. Be sure to reference the project docket number (C18-24-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Steel Reef's proposed Saskatchewan Pipeline Project, referred to as the Border Crossing Facilities in its application, includes a 250-foot-long 10.75-inch-outside-diameter pipeline along with aboveground facilities including a metering facility, a remote telemetry unit, and a pig trap launcher. The facilities are part of the southern end of Steel Reef's planned 2.2-mile-long 10.75-inch-outside-diameter South Saskatchewan Access Pipeline (SSA Pipeline) it plans to build connecting gathering facilities owned by Petro Harvester Oil & Gas, LLC near Portal, North Dakota to an interconnection with an existing natural gas processing plant owned by Steel Reef Infrastructure Corporation near North Portal in Saskatchewan, Canada. Steel Reef states that the Saskatchewan Pipeline Project's facilities would, as part of the SSA Pipeline, permit the transport of up to 30 million standard cubic feet per day of sour natural gas gathered from existing oil wells owned and operated by Petro Harvester Oil & Gas, LLC (Petro Harvester) within the Burke County region of North Dakota.
Steel Reef requests certification by July 2, 2018, and expects to perform its construction activities in a 30-day period.
The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix 1.
Steel Reef would limit its construction activities to 0.75 acres of agricultural land, comprised of 0.35 acres of new permanent pipeline right-of-way and 0.40 acres of temporary workspace. The new permanent pipeline right-of-way width would be 65 feet. Steel Reef would restore the temporary right-of-way to pre-abandonment conditions. An 0.14 acre portion of the permanent right-of-way would overlap the Petro Harvester lease where Steel Reef would have a shared land use agreement. None of the route would be co-located with other existing utilities, roads or other infrastructure.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and
In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed project under these general headings:
We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
The EA will present our independent analysis of the issues. The EA will be available in the public record through eLibrary. Depending on the comments received during the scoping process, we may also publish and distribute the EA to the public for an allotted comment period. We will consider all comments on the EA before making our recommendations to the Commission. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public Participation section, beginning on page 2.
With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues of this project to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the EA.
In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on historic properties.
The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the project. We will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed project.
If we publish and distribute the EA, copies of the EA will be sent to the environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the attached Information Request (appendix 2).
In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want to become an intervenor which is an official party to the Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in the Document-less Intervention Guide under the e-filing link on the Commission's website. Motions to intervene are more fully described at
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
Finally, public sessions or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at
Take notice that on December 27, 2017, Utah Board of Water Resources (Utah BWR), applicant for the proposed Lake Powell Pipeline Project No. 12966, filed a petition for declaratory order (petition) pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2) of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2). Utah BWR requests that the Commission declare that the Commission's licensing jurisdiction under the Federal Power Act (FPA) includes all of the project facilities identified in the license application as the “Hydro System,” in particular, the penstock alignments there described as associated with the hydroelectric generating facilities, as more fully explained in the petition.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.211, 385.214. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.
Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any oral communication.
Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.
Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR 385.2201(e)(1)(v).
The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are available for electronic review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website at
Exempt:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that Lock +
The preliminary permit for Project No. 14715 will remain in effect until the close of business, February 9, 2018. But, if the Commission is closed on this day, then the permit remains in effect until the close of business on the next day in which the Commission is open.
On December 11, 2017, the Commission issued notice that the license application for the proposed Lake Powell Pipeline Project No. 12966 is accepted for filing, soliciting motions to intervene and protests, ready for environmental analysis, and soliciting comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions. The notice established a deadline of 60 days from issuance for initial filings and 105 days from issuance for reply comments.
On December 27, 2017, Utah Board of Water Resources (Utah BWR), applicant for the proposed Lake Powell Pipeline Project, filed a petition for declaratory order (petition) pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2) of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2). Utah BWR requests that the Commission declare that the Commission's licensing jurisdiction under the Federal Power Act (FPA) includes all of the project facilities identified in the license application as the “Hydro System,” in particular, the penstock alignments there described as associated with the hydroelectric generating facilities. Together with the petition, Utah BWR filed a motion to suspend the procedural schedule for the licensing proceeding until the Commission rules on the petition.
The Commission is requesting comments on the petition by separate notice. Utah BWR asserts that the Commission's resolution of the jurisdictional issues may affect the status under sections 4(e) and 33 of the FPA of any preliminary conditions provided by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the 50 miles of penstock alignments in the Hydro System that would traverse BLM lands using the Southern Route, or provided by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) for the 16.5 miles of penstock alignments in the Hydro System that would traverse the Kaibab Indian Reservation under the alternative route. To avoid possible confusion regarding these preliminary conditions, Utah BWR's request to suspend the procedural schedule is granted, effective immediately, until after the Commission issues a decision on the petition. Therefore, the deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests, comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions is extended to 60 days after issuance of a Commission decision on the petition, and the deadline for filing reply comments is extended to 105 days after issuance of a Commission decision on the petition.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and § 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
On August 10, 2012, Brookfield White Pine LLC, licensee for the West Buxton Hydroelectric Project, filed an Application for a New License pursuant to the Federal Power Act (FPA) and the Commission's regulations thereunder. The West Buxton Hydroelectric Project facility is located on the Saco River in the towns of Buxton, Hollis, and Standish, within York and Cumberland Counties, Maine.
The license for Project No. 2531 was issued for a period ending December 31, 2017. Section 15(a) (1) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 808(a)(1), requires the Commission, at the expiration of a license term, to issue from year-to-year an annual license to the then licensee under the terms and conditions of the prior license until a new license is issued, or the project is otherwise disposed of as provided in section 15 or any other applicable section of the FPA. If the project's prior license waived the applicability of section 15 of the FPA, then, based on section 9(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 558(c), and as set forth at 18 CFR 16.21(a), if the licensee of such project has filed an application for a subsequent license, the licensee may continue to operate the project in accordance with the terms and conditions of the license after the minor or minor part license expires, until the Commission acts on its application. If the licensee of such a project has not filed an application for a subsequent license, then it may be required, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.21(b), to continue project operations until the Commission issues someone else a license for the project or otherwise orders disposition of the project.
If the project is subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is hereby given that an annual license for Project No. 2531 is issued to the licensee for a period effective January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018 or until the issuance of a new license for the project or other disposition under the FPA, whichever comes first. If issuance of a new license (or other disposition) does not take place on or before December 31, 2018, notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.18(c), an annual license under section 15(a)(1) of the FPA is renewed automatically without further order or notice by the Commission, unless the Commission orders otherwise.
If the project is not subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is hereby given that the licensee, Brookfield White Pine, LLC is authorized to continue operation of the West Buxton Hydroelectric Project, until such time as the Commission acts on its application for a subsequent license.
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
l. With this notice, we are soliciting comments on Commission staff's Scoping Document 1 (SD1). All comments on the SD1 should be sent to the address above in paragraph h. In addition, all comments on SD1, requests for cooperating agency status, and all communications to and from Commission staff related to the merits of the potential application must be filed with the Commission. Documents may be filed electronically via the internet. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's website
All filings with the Commission must include on the first page, the project name (Evelyn Hydroelectric Project and number (P-14799-001), and bear the appropriate heading: Comments on Scoping Document 1, Request for Cooperating Agency Status, or Communications to and from Commission Staff. Any individual or entity interested in commenting on the SD1 must do so by February 8, 2018.
m. A copy of the Pre-Application Document is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room, or may be viewed on the Commission's website (
Register online at
n.
Commission staff does not propose to conduct any on-site scoping meetings at this time. Instead, we are soliciting comments, recommendations, and information, on the SD1 issued on January 9, 2018.
Copies of the SD1 outlining the subject areas to be addressed in the EA were distributed to the parties on the Commission's mailing list and the applicant's distribution list. Copies of the SD1 may be viewed on the web at
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before March 19, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
Section 90.621(b)(5) permits stations to be located closer than the required separation, so long as the applicant provides letters of concurrence indicating that the applicant and each co-channel licensee within the specified separation agree to accept any interference resulting from the reduced separation between systems. Applicants are still required to file such concurrence letters with the Commission. Additionally, the Commission did not eliminate filings required by provisions such as international agreements, its environmental (National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA)) rules, its antenna structure registration rules, or quiet zone notification/filing procedures.
Section 90.693 requires that 800 MHz incumbent Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) service licensees “notify the Commission within 30 days of any changes in technical parameters or additional stations constructed that fall within the short-spacing criteria.” It has been standard practice for incumbents to notify the Commission of all changes and additional stations constructed in cases where such stations are in fact located less than the required 70 mile distance separation, and are therefore technically “short-spaced,” but are in fact fully compliant with the parameters of the Commission's Short-Spacing Separation Table.
The Commission uses this information to determine whether to grant licenses to applicants making “minor modifications” to their systems which do not satisfy mileage separation requirements pursuant to the Short-Spacing Separation Table.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before March 19, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before March 19, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
Pursuant to the provisions of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that at 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, January 16, 2018, the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation met in closed session to consider matters related to the Corporation's supervision, corporate, and resolution activities.
In calling the meeting, the Board determined, on motion of Vice Chairman Thomas M. Hoenig, seconded by Director Mick Mulvaney (Acting Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau), and concurred in by Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg, that Corporation business required its consideration of the matters which were to be the subject of this meeting on less than seven days' notice to the public; that no earlier notice of the meeting was practicable; that the public interest did not require consideration of the matters in a meeting open to public observation; and that the matters could be considered in a closed meeting by authority of subsections (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), and (c)(9)(B) of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii) and (c)(9)(B).
Tuesday, January 23, 2018 at 10:00 a.m.
999 E Street NW, Washington, DC.
This meeting will be closed to the public.
Compliance matters pursuant to 52 U.S.C. 30109.
Matters relating to internal personnel decisions, or internal rules and practices.
Information the premature disclosure of which would be likely to have a considerable adverse effect on the implementation of a proposed Commission action.
Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreements to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within twelve days of the date this notice appears in the
By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a currently approved information collection requirement concerning place of performance.
Submit comments on or before February 20, 2018.
Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for GSA, Room 10236, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503.
•
•
Mr. Michael O. Jackson, Procurement Analyst, Acquisition Policy Division at 202-208-4949 or email
The information relative to the place of performance and owner of plant or facility, if other than the prospective contractor, is a basic requirement when contracting for supplies or services (including construction). A prospective contractor must affirmatively demonstrate its responsibility. Hence, the Government must be apprised of this information prior to award. The contracting officer must know the place of performance and the owner of the plant or facility to (1) determine bidder responsibility; (2) determine price reasonableness; (3) conduct plant or source inspections; and (4) determine whether the prospective contractor is a manufacturer or a regular dealer.
The information is used to determine the prospective contractor's eligibility for awards and to assure proper preparation of the contract. Prospective contractors are only required to submit place of performance information on an exceptional basis; that is, whenever the place of performance for a specific solicitation is different from the address of the prospective contractor as indicated in the proposal. A notice was published in the
Time required to read, prepare, and record information is estimated at 2.73 minutes per completion. The Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) shows that for fiscal year 2016, there were 1,960,218 solicitations that would have contained the two provisions (including contracts and orders, excluding modifications) for manufacturing in the United States. The 1,960,218 actions will be used as the new basis for total annual responses.
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB) will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement concerning OMB Circular A-119.
Submit comments on or before February 20, 2018.
Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for GSA, Room 10236, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503. Additionally submit a copy to GSA by any of the following methods:
•
Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching the OMB control number 9000-0153. Select the link “Comment Now” that corresponds with “Information Collection 9000-0153, OMB Circular A-119”. Follow the instructions provided on the screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “Information Collection 9000-0153, OMB Circular A-119” on your attached document.
•
Mr. Michael O. Jackson, Procurement Analyst, Acquisition Policy Division, GSA 202-208-4949 or email
A revised OMB Circular A-119, “Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities,” was published at
We believe the burden for FAR 52.211-7 to be negative, as it is purely a permissive means for offerors to propose reducing regulatory burden on a given solicitation. There are other places A-119 has an effect, though we believe these to be positive. One is by enabling the single process initiative. Another is the general replacement of Mil standards with commercial standards,
To the extent that the data on the annual frequency of the use of voluntary consensus standards under FAR 52.211-7 is not available, we believe 100 is reasonable. As an aside, FAR part 45 recognizes the use of voluntary consensus standards in the management of Government property. However, in these cases, there is no Government standard per se, with the voluntary consensus standard serving as the Government standard. Consequently, when under part 45 voluntary consensus standards are used, they are not an alternative to a Government standard under FAR 52.211-7.
This collection implements OMB Circular A-119, Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards. FAR solicitation provision 52.211-7, Alternatives to Government-Unique Standards, is the collection instrument. We have previously indicated that “to the extent that the data on the annual frequency of the use of voluntary consensus standards under FAR 52.211-7 is not available, we believe that 100 is reasonable.” This is the number that has been reported since the inception of this PRA collection, which indicates that revised data has been consistently unavailable since responses are provided to contracting personnel at the local level in response to a local solicitation. We checked the FPDS data dictionary and there are no codes to flag data fields or provide a count of when Mil standards are used in solicitations/contracts. Considering the lack of FPDS or other data, we recommend continuing the PRA coverage at the current level.
A 60 day notice was published in the
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is denying William Ralph Kincaid's (Kincaid's) request for a hearing and is issuing an order under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) permanently debarring Kincaid from providing services in any capacity to a person that has an approved or pending drug product application. FDA bases this order on a finding that Kincaid was convicted of a felony under Federal law for conduct relating to the regulation of a drug product under the FD&C Act. Kincaid was given notice of the proposed debarment and an opportunity to request a hearing within the timeframe prescribed by regulation. Kincaid submitted a request for hearing but failed to file with the Agency information and analysis sufficient to create a basis for a hearing.
This order is applicable January 18, 2018.
Any application by Kincaid for special termination of debarment under section 306(d) of the FD&C Act (application) may be submitted as follows:
•
• If you want to submit an application with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the application as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For a written/paper application submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your application, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
•
Julie Finegan, Office of Scientific Integrity, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 1, Rm. 4218, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-8618.
On June 24, 2013, the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee entered a criminal judgment against William Ralph Kincaid pursuant to his guilty plea. Kincaid pled guilty to a felony under the FD&C Act, namely receiving in interstate commerce a misbranded drug with intent to defraud or mislead, in violation of sections 301(c) and 303(a)(2) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 331(c) and 333(a)(2)) and 18 U.S.C. 2. The basis for this conviction was Kincaid's admission that he obtained drugs from Quality Specialty Products (QSP), a foreign company, for use at East Tennessee Hematology-Oncology Associates, P.C. (McLeod Cancer). These drugs were not FDA approved and were misbranded in that they lacked adequate directions for use and were manufactured in an establishment that was not registered with FDA and that did not list with FDA the drug products it manufactured. From approximately September 2007 to early 2008 and from August 2009 to February 2012, McLeod Cancer purchased more than $2 million in misbranded unapproved drugs for use at McLeod Cancer. Additionally, Kincaid and McLeod Cancer billed Medicare, TennCare, and other government health benefit programs approximately $2.5 million for these unapproved drugs.
Kincaid is subject to debarment based on a finding, under section 306(a)(2) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335a(a)(2)), that he was convicted of a felony under Federal law for conduct relating to the regulation of a drug product under the FD&C Act. By the letter dated May 20, 2015, FDA notified Kincaid of a proposal to permanently debar him from providing services in any capacity to a person having an approved or pending drug product application. The proposal also offered Kincaid an opportunity to request a hearing, providing him 30 days from the date of receipt of the letter in which to file the request and 60 days from the date of receipt of the letter to support that request with information sufficient to justify a hearing. In a letter dated June 17, 2015, Kincaid requested a hearing and indicated that the information justifying the hearing would be forthcoming. More than 60 days have passed from the date Kincaid received FDA's letter, and Kincaid has not filed any additional information to support his request.
Under the authority delegated to him by the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, the Director of the Office of Scientific Integrity (OSI) has considered Kincaid's request for a hearing. Hearings will not be granted on issues of policy or law, on mere allegations, denials, or general descriptions of positions and contentions, or on data and information insufficient to justify the factual determination urged (see 21 CFR 21.24(b)).
Because Kincaid has not presented any information to support his hearing request, OSI concludes that Kincaid failed to raise a genuine and substantial issue of fact requiring a hearing. Therefore, OSI denies Kincaid's request for a hearing.
Therefore, OSI, under section 306(a)(2) of the FD&C Act and under the authority delegated, finds that William Ralph Kincaid has been convicted of a felony under Federal law for conduct relating to the regulation of a drug product under the FD&C Act.
As a result of the foregoing findings, William Ralph Kincaid is permanently debarred from providing services in any capacity to a person with an approved or pending drug product application under section 505, 512, or 802 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 355, 360b, or 382), or under section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262), effective (see
Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
This notice provides an update of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) poverty guidelines to account for last calendar year's increase in prices as measured by the Consumer Price Index.
Applicable beginning January 13, 2018, unless an office administering a program using the guidelines specifies a different applicability date for that particular program.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Room 404E, Humphrey Building, Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC 20201.
For information about how the guidelines are used or how income is defined in a particular program, contact the Federal, state, or local office that is responsible for that program. For information about poverty figures for immigration forms, the Hill-Burton Uncompensated Services Program, and the number of people in poverty, use the specific telephone numbers and addresses given below.
For general questions about the poverty guidelines themselves, contact Kendall Swenson, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Room 422F.5, Humphrey Building, Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC 20201—telephone: (202) 690-7409—or visit
For information about the percentage multiple of the poverty guidelines to be used on immigration forms such as USCIS Form I-864, Affidavit of Support, contact U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services at 1-800-375-5283.
For information about the Hill-Burton Uncompensated Services Program (free or reduced-fee health care services at certain hospitals and other facilities for persons meeting eligibility criteria involving the poverty guidelines), contact the Health Resources and Services Administration Information Center at 1-800-275-4772. You also may visit
For information about the number of people in poverty, visit the Poverty section of the Census Bureau's website at
Section 673(2) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 9902(2)) requires the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to update the poverty guidelines at least annually, adjusting them on the basis of the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U). The poverty guidelines are used as an eligibility criterion by Medicaid and a number of other Federal programs. The
As required by law, this update is accomplished by increasing the latest published Census Bureau poverty thresholds by the relevant percentage change in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U). The guidelines in this 2018 notice reflect the 2.1 percent price increase between calendar years 2016 and 2017. After this inflation adjustment, the guidelines are rounded and adjusted to standardize the differences between family sizes. In rare circumstances, the rounding and standardizing adjustments in the formula result in small decreases in the poverty guidelines for some household sizes even when the inflation factor is not negative. In cases where the year-to-year change in inflation is not negative and the rounding and standardizing adjustments in the formula result in reductions to the guidelines from the previous year for some household sizes, the guidelines for the affected household sizes are fixed at the prior year's guidelines. As in prior years, these 2018 guidelines are roughly equal to the poverty thresholds for calendar year 2017 which the Census Bureau expects to publish in final form in September 2018.
The poverty guidelines continue to be derived from the Census Bureau's current official poverty thresholds; they are not derived from the Census Bureau's Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM).
The following guideline figures represent annual income.
For families/households with more than 8 persons, add $4,320 for each additional person.
For families/households with more than 8 persons, add $5,400 for each additional person.
For families/households with more than 8 persons, add $4,970 for each additional person.
Separate poverty guideline figures for Alaska and Hawaii reflect Office of Economic Opportunity administrative practice beginning in the 1966-1970 period. (Note that the Census Bureau poverty thresholds—the version of the poverty measure used for statistical purposes—have never had separate figures for Alaska and Hawaii.) The poverty guidelines are not defined for Puerto Rico or other outlying jurisdictions. In cases in which a Federal program using the poverty guidelines serves any of those jurisdictions, the Federal office that administers the program is generally responsible for deciding whether to use the contiguous-states-and-DC guidelines for those jurisdictions or to follow some other procedure.
Due to confusing legislative language dating back to 1972, the poverty guidelines sometimes have been mistakenly referred to as the “OMB” (Office of Management and Budget) poverty guidelines or poverty line. In fact, OMB has never issued the guidelines; the guidelines are issued each year by the Department of Health and Human Services. The poverty guidelines may be formally referenced as “the poverty guidelines updated periodically in the
Some federal programs use a percentage multiple of the guidelines (for example, 125 percent or 185 percent of the guidelines), as noted in relevant authorizing legislation or program regulations. Non-Federal organizations that use the poverty guidelines under their own authority in non-Federally-funded activities also may choose to use a percentage multiple of the guidelines.
The poverty guidelines do not make a distinction between farm and non-farm families, or between aged and non-aged units. (Only the Census Bureau poverty thresholds have separate figures for aged and non-aged one-person and two-person units.)
Note that this notice does not provide definitions of such terms as “income” or “family,” because there is considerable variation in defining these terms among the different programs that use the guidelines. These variations are traceable to the different laws and regulations that govern the various programs. This means that questions such as “Is income counted before or after taxes?”, “Should a particular type of income be counted?”, and “Should a particular person be counted as a member of the family/household?” are actually questions about how a specific program applies the poverty guidelines. All such questions about how a specific program applies the guidelines should be directed to the entity that administers or funds the program, since that entity has the responsibility for defining such terms as “income” or “family,” to the extent that these terms are not already defined for the program in legislation or regulations.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
General notice.
This document announces that the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) will be the sole electronic data interchange (EDI) system authorized by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) for processing electronic drawback filings under part 181 (NAFTA drawback) and part 191 (non-TFTEA drawback) of Title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations. This document also announces that the Automated Commercial System (ACS) will no longer be a CBP-authorized EDI system for purposes of processing such filings. This notice further announces the deployment of a new ACE filing code for all electronic drawback filings, replacing the six distinct drawback codes previously filed in ACS.
As of February 24, 2018, ACE will be the sole CBP-authorized EDI system for processing drawback filings under part 181 (NAFTA drawback) and part 191 (non-TFTEA drawback) of Title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and ACS will no longer be a CBP-authorized EDI system for such purpose.
Randy Mitchell, Commercial Operations and Entry Division, Trade Policy and Programs, Office of Trade at (202) 863-6532 or
Section 484 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1484), establishes the requirement for importers of record to make entry for merchandise to be imported into the customs territory of the United States. Customs entry information is used by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Partner Government Agencies (PGAs) to determine whether merchandise may be released from CBP custody. Importers of record are also obligated to complete the entry by filing an entry summary declaring the value, classification, rate of duty applicable to the merchandise and such other information as is necessary for CBP to properly assess duties, collect accurate statistics and determine whether any other applicable requirement of law is met.
The customs entry requirements were amended by Title VI of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (Pub. L. 103-182, 107 Stat. 2057, December 8, 1993), commonly known as the Customs Modernization Act, or Mod Act. In particular, section 637 of the Mod Act amended section 484(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1484(a)(1)(A)) by revising the requirement to make and complete customs entry by submitting documentation to CBP to allow, in the alternative, the electronic transmission of such entry information pursuant to a CBP-authorized electronic data interchange (EDI) system. CBP created the Automated Commercial System (ACS) to track, control, and process all commercial goods imported into the United States. CBP established the specific requirements and procedures for the electronic filing of entry and entry summary data for imported merchandise through the Automated Broker Interface (ABI) to ACS.
In an effort to modernize the business processes essential to securing U.S. borders, facilitating the flow of legitimate shipments, and targeting illicit goods pursuant to the Mod Act and the Security and Accountability for Every (SAFE) Port Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-347, 120 Stat. 1884), CBP developed the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) to eventually replace ACS as the CBP-authorized EDI system. Over the last several years, CBP has tested ACE and provided significant public outreach to ensure that the trade community is fully aware of the transition from ACS to ACE.
On October 13, 2015, CBP published an Interim Final Rule in the
CBP developed a staggered transition strategy for decommissioning ACS. The phases of the transition were announced in several
This notice announces that, beginning February 24, 2018, ACE will become the sole CBP-authorized EDI system for electronic filings of NAFTA drawback (19 CFR part 181) and non-TFTEA drawback (19 CFR part 191), and ACS will no longer be a CBP-authorized EDI system for purposes of processing these electronic filings. A separate
CBP announces the deployment of a new ACE filing code 47 for drawback as of February 24, 2018, which will replace the following six drawback codes previously filed in ACS:
This notice announces that the following entry types will not be automated in either ACS or ACE due to low shipment volume:
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
General notice.
This document announces that certain previously announced modifications to the National Customs Automation Program (NCAP) test regarding reconciliation will become operational, and that the test program will transition from the Automated Commercial System (ACS) to the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE).
As of February 24, 2018, the modifications to the reconciliation test will become operational. As of the same date, the test will transition into ACE, and ACS will be decommissioned for the filing of reconciliation entries.
Comments concerning this test program may be submitted via email, with a subject line identifier reading, “Comment on Reconciliation test” to
Randy Mitchell, Commercial Operations and Entry Division, Trade Policy and Programs, Office of Trade at (202) 863-6532 or
Title VI of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Implementation Act (Pub. L. 103-182, 107 Stat. 2057, 2170, December 8, 1993), commonly known as the Customs Modernization Act or Mod Act, amended the Tariff Act of 1930 and related laws, in part, to increase voluntary compliance with customs laws and improvements to customs enforcement. Subtitle B of Title VI established the National Customs Automation Program (NCAP) which is an automated and electronic system for processing commercial importations, and includes the testing of existing and planned components. (19 U.S.C. 1411). Section 637 of the Mod Act amended Section 484 of the Tariff Act of 1930 to establish a new section (b), entitled “Reconciliation”, a planned component of the NCAP. (19 U.S.C. 1484(b), 19 U.S.C. 1411(a)(2)(C)).
Reconciliation is the process that allows an importer, at the time an entry summary is filed, to identify indeterminable information (other than that affecting admissibility) to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and to provide that outstanding information at a later date. The importer identifies the outstanding information by means of an electronic “flag” which is placed on the entry summary at the time the entry summary is filed and payment (applicable duty, taxes, and fees) is made.
Section 101.9(b) of Title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR 101.9(b)) provides for the testing of NCAP components.
The Security and Accountability for Every (SAFE) Port Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-347, 120 Stat. 1884) modified the Mod Act and added subsection (d) to 19 U.S.C. 1411. This subsection established the International Trade Data System (ITDS) which allows for the collection and distribution of standard import and export data required by CBP through a single portal system. The Automated
Over the last several years, CBP has tested ACE and provided significant public outreach to ensure that the trade community is fully aware of the transition from ACS to ACE. On October 13, 2015, CBP published an Interim Final Rule in the
CBP has developed a staggered transition strategy for decommissioning ACS to give the trade additional time to adjust their business practices. The phases of the transition were announced in several
On December 12, 2016, CBP published a notice in the
This notice announces that, beginning February 24, 2018, all reconciliation entries must be filed in ACE regardless of whether the underlying entry was filed in ACS or ACE and regardless of whether it is a replacement, substitution or follow-up to a reconciliation entry originally filed in ACS, and ACS is decommissioned for the filing of such entries. In addition, as of February 24, 2018, the test modifications announced in the December 12, 2016 notice will become operational.
Office of the Secretary, DHS.
Notice.
Under Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regulations, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may generally only approve petitions for H-2A and H-2B nonimmigrant status for nationals of countries that the Secretary of Homeland Security, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, has designated by notice published in the
Eric B. Johnson, Office of Policy, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528, (202) 282-8652.
Generally, USCIS may approve H-2A and H-2B petitions for nationals of only those countries
In designating countries to include on the list, the Secretary of Homeland Security, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, will take into account factors including, but not limited to: (1) The country's cooperation with respect to issuance of travel documents for citizens, subjects, nationals, and residents of that country who are subject to a final order of removal; (2) the number of final and unexecuted orders of removal against citizens, subjects, nationals, and residents of that country; (3) the number of orders of removal executed against citizens, subjects, nationals, and residents of that country; and (4) such other factors as may serve the U.S. interest.
In December 2008, DHS published in the
The Secretary of Homeland Security has determined, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, that 82 countries previously designated in the October 26, 2016 notice continue to meet the standards identified in that notice for eligible countries and therefore should remain designated as countries whose nationals are eligible to participate in the H-2A program. Additionally, the Secretary of Homeland Security has determined, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, that 81 countries previously designated in the October 26, 2016 notice continue to meet the standards identified in that notice for eligible countries and therefore should remain designated as countries whose nationals are eligible to participate in the H-2B program.
Further, the Secretary of Homeland Security, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, has determined that it is now appropriate to add one country whose nationals are eligible to participate in the H-2A and H-2B programs, and to add one country whose nationals are eligible to participate in the H-2B program. This determination is made taking into account the four regulatory factors identified above. The Secretary of Homeland Security's consideration of factors that may serve the U.S. interest included, but were not limited to, evidence of past usage of the H-2A and H-2B programs by nationals of the country to be added, as well as evidence relating to the economic impact on particular U.S. industries or regions resulting from the addition or continued non-inclusion of specific countries.
The Secretary of Homeland Security has determined, however, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, that the following countries should no longer be designated as eligible countries because they are not meeting the standards set out in the regulation: Belize, Haiti, and Samoa.
Belize is listed on the U.S. Department of State's 2017 Trafficking in Persons Report as a “Tier 3” country. “Tier 3” means the country does not fully meet the Trafficking Victims Protection Act's minimum standards and is not making significant efforts to do so.
Haitian nationals applying for H-2A and H-2B visas present extremely high rates of refusal, and those issued H-2A or H-2B visas have historically demonstrated high levels of fraud and abuse and a high rate of overstaying the terms of their H-2 admission. Haiti has shown no improvement in these areas, and the Secretary of Homeland Security has determined, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, that Haiti's inclusion on the 2018 H-2A and H-2B lists is no longer in the U.S. interest.
Samoa is currently listed as “At Risk of Non-Compliance” according to ICE's year-end assessment of foreign countries' cooperation in accepting back their nationals that have been ordered removed from the United States. Despite attempts to improve cooperation on removals to Samoa, there has been not been sufficient progress on removals to Samoa.
Accordingly, DHS has removed these countries from the H-2A and H-2B eligibility lists for 2018, though their nationals may still be beneficiaries of approved H-2A and H-2B petitions upon the request of the petitioner if DHS determines, as a matter of discretion, that it is in the U.S. interest for the individual to be a beneficiary of such petition. See 8 CFR 214.2(h)(5)(i)(F)(1)(D)(ii) and 8 CFR 214.2(h)(6)(i)(E)(2).
The Secretary of Homeland Security has also determined, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, that Mongolia should be designated as an eligible H-2A and H-2B country because it is now meeting the standards set out in the regulation. Mongolia is no longer listed as “At Risk of Non-Compliance” according to ICE's year-end assessment of foreign countries that cooperate in accepting back their nationals that have been ordered deported from the United States, and has demonstrated increased cooperation with the United States regarding the return of their nationals with final orders of removal.
Pursuant to the authority provided to the Secretary of Homeland Security under sections 214(a)(1), 215(a)(1), and 241 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(a)(1), 1185(a)(1), and 1231), I am designating, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, nationals from the following countries to be eligible to participate in the H-2A nonimmigrant worker program:
Pursuant to the authority provided to the Secretary of Homeland Security under sections 214(a)(1), 215(a)(1), and 241 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(a)(1), 1185(a)(1), and 1231), I am designating, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, nationals from the following countries to be eligible to participate in the H-2B nonimmigrant worker program:
This notice does not affect the status of aliens who currently hold valid H-2A or H-2B nonimmigrant status. Persons currently holding such status, however, will be affected by this notice should they seek an extension of stay in H-2 classification, or a change of status from one H-2 status to another. Similarly, persons holding nonimmigrant status other than H-2 status are not affected by this notice unless they seek a change of status to H-2 status.
Nothing in this notice limits the authority of the Secretary of Homeland Security or her designee or any other federal agency to invoke against any foreign country or its nationals any other remedy, penalty, or enforcement action available by law.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
The designation of Haiti for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) is set to expire on January 22, 2018. After reviewing country conditions and consulting with the appropriate U.S. Government agencies, the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security determined on November 20, 2017 that conditions in Haiti no longer support its designation for TPS and is therefore terminating the TPS designation of Haiti. To provide time for an orderly transition, this termination is effective on July 22, 2019, 18 months following the end of the current designation.
Nationals of Haiti (and aliens having no nationality who last habitually resided in Haiti) who have been granted TPS and wish to maintain their TPS and receive TPS-based Employment Authorization Documents (EAD) valid through July 22, 2019, must re-register for TPS in accordance with the procedures set forth in this Notice. After July 22, 2019, nationals of Haiti (and aliens having no nationality who last habitually resided in Haiti) who have been granted TPS under the Haiti designation will no longer have TPS.
The designation of Haiti for TPS is terminated effective at 11:59 p.m., local time, on July 22, 2019.
The 60-day re-registration period runs from January 18, 2018 through March 19, 2018.
• You may contact Alex King, Branch Chief, Waivers and Temporary Services Branch, Service Center Operations Directorate, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529-2060; or by phone at (202) 272-8377 (this is not a toll-free number).
• For further information on TPS, including guidance on the re-registration process and additional information on eligibility, please visit the USCIS TPS web page at
• Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases may check Case Status Online, available on the USCIS website at
• Further information will also be available at local USCIS offices upon publication of this Notice.
Through this Notice, DHS sets forth procedures necessary for eligible nationals of Haiti (or aliens having no nationality who last habitually resided in Haiti) to re-register for TPS and to apply for renewal of their EADs with USCIS. Re-registration is limited to persons who have previously registered for TPS under the designation of Haiti and whose applications have been granted.
For individuals who have already been granted TPS under Haiti's designation, the 60-day re-registration period runs from January 18, 2018 through March 19, 2018. USCIS will issue new EADs with a July 22, 2019 expiration date to eligible Haitian TPS beneficiaries who timely re-register and apply for EADs. Given the timeframes involved with processing TPS re-registration applications, DHS recognizes that not all re-registrants will receive new EADs before their current EADs expire on January 22, 2018. Accordingly, through this
• TPS is a temporary immigration status granted to eligible nationals of a country designated for TPS under the INA, or to eligible persons without nationality who last habitually resided in the designated country.
• During the TPS designation period, TPS beneficiaries are eligible to remain in the United States, may not be removed, and are authorized to work and obtain EADs so long as they continue to meet the requirements of TPS.
• TPS beneficiaries may also apply for and be granted travel authorization as a matter of discretion.
• The granting of TPS does not result in or lead to lawful permanent resident status.
• To qualify for TPS, beneficiaries must meet the eligibility standards at INA section 244(c)(2), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(c)(2).
• When the Secretary terminates a country's TPS designation, beneficiaries return to one of the following:
○ The same immigration status or category that they maintained before TPS, if any (unless that status or category has since expired or been terminated); or
○ Any other lawfully obtained immigration status or category they received while registered for TPS, as long as it is still valid on the date TPS terminates.
On January 21, 2010, the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) designated Haiti for TPS under INA section 244(b)(1)(C) based on “extraordinary and temporary conditions” within the country, specifically the effects of the 7.0-magnitude earthquake that occurred on January 12, 2010, that prevented Haitians from returning in safety.
Section 244(b)(1) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(1), authorizes the Secretary, after consultation with appropriate U.S. Government agencies, to designate a foreign state (or part thereof) for TPS if the Secretary determines that certain country conditions exist.
At least 60 days before the expiration of a country's TPS designation or extension, the Secretary, after consultation with appropriate Government agencies, must review the conditions in a foreign state designated for TPS to determine whether the conditions for the TPS designation continue to be met.
DHS has reviewed conditions in Haiti. Based on the review, including input received from other appropriate U.S. Government agencies, the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security determined on November 20, 2017 that the conditions for Haiti's designation for TPS—on the basis of “extraordinary and temporary conditions” relating to the 2010 earthquake that prevented Haitian nationals from returning in safety—are no longer met.
Haiti has made progress recovering from the 2010 earthquake and subsequent effects that formed the basis for its designation. For example, the number of internally displaced persons (IDP) from the earthquake has continued to decline—98 precent of IDP sites have closed, and only approximately 38,000 of the estimated 2 million Haitians who lost their homes in the earthquake were still living in camps as of June 2017. In October 2017, the United Nations withdrew its peacekeeping mission, noting the mission had achieved its goals. The peacekeeping mission has been replaced by a successor operation that is a police-only force focused on strengthening rule of law, promoting human rights and supporting the Haitian National Police.
Haiti successfully completed its presidential election in February 2017. The 2010 earthquake destroyed key government infrastructure, including dozens of primary federal buildings, which the Haitian government is working to rebuild. The Supreme Court is already reconstructed and operational, and, in April 2017, President Moïse announced a project to rebuild Haiti's National Palace. A Palace spokesperson announced on January 8 that a project to reconstruct the Palace would commence on January 12, 2018.
Haiti's economy continues to recover from the 2010 earthquake. Annual GDP growth has been generally positive since 2010, averaging 1.7 percent over the period (2010-2016). Although Haiti has grappled with a cholera epidemic that began in 2010 in the aftermath of the earthquake, cholera is currently at its lowest level since the outbreak began.
By the authority vested in the Secretary of Homeland Security under INA section 244(b)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(3), the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security determined on November 20, 2017, after consultation with appropriate U.S. Government agencies, that the conditions for the designation of Haiti for TPS under 244(b)(1)(C) of the INA. 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(1)(C), are no longer met. Accordingly, I order as follows:
(1) Pursuant to INA section 244(b)(3)(B) and in accordance with INA section 244(d)(3), in order to provide for an orderly transition, the designation of Haiti for TPS is terminated effective at 11:59 p.m., local time, on July 22, 2019, 18 months following the end of the current designation.
(2) Information concerning the termination of TPS for nationals of Haiti (and aliens having no nationality who last habitually resided in Haiti) will be available at local USCIS offices upon publication of this Notice and through the USCIS National Customer Service Center at 1-800-375-5283. This information will be published on the USCIS website at
To re-register for TPS based on the designation of Haiti, you
Through operation of this
If you are seeking an EAD with your re-registration for TPS, please submit both the Form I-821 and Form I-765 together. If you are unable to pay the application fee and/or biometric services fee, you may complete a Request for Fee Waiver (Form I-912) or submit a personal letter requesting a fee waiver with satisfactory supporting documentation. For more information on the application forms and fees for TPS, please visit the USCIS TPS web page at
If you have a Form I-821 and/or Form I-765 that was still pending as of January 18, 2018, then you do
Biometrics (such as fingerprints) are required for all applicants 14 years and older. Those applicants must submit a biometric services fee. As previously stated, if you are unable to pay for the biometric services fee, you may complete a Form I-912 or submit a personal letter requesting a fee waiver with satisfactory supporting documentation. For more information on the biometric services fee, please visit the USCIS website at
You should file as soon as possible within the 60-day re-registration period so USCIS can process your application
Although a re-registering TPS beneficiary age 14 and older must pay the biometric services fee (but not the Form I-821 fee) when filing a TPS re-registration application, you may decide to wait to request an EAD. Therefore, you do not have to file the Form I-765 or pay the associated Form I-765 fee (or request a fee waiver) at the time of re-registration, and could wait to seek an EAD until after USCIS has approved your TPS re-registration. If you choose to do this, to re-register for TPS you would only need to file the Form I-821 with the biometrics services fee, if applicable, (or request a fee waiver).
Mail your application for TPS to the proper address in Table 1.
If you were granted TPS by an Immigration Judge (IJ) or the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and you wish to request an EAD or are re-registering for the first time following a grant of TPS by an IJ or the BIA, please mail your application to the appropriate mailing address in Table 1. When re-registering and requesting an EAD based on an IJ/BIA grant of TPS, please include a copy of the IJ or BIA order granting you TPS with your application. This will help us to verify your grant of TPS and process your application, as USCIS may not have received records of your grant of TPS by either the IJ or the BIA.
The filing instructions on the Form I-821 list all the documents needed to establish eligibility for TPS. You may also find information on the acceptable documentation and other requirements for applying or registering for TPS on the USCIS website at
To get case status information about your TPS application, including the status of an EAD request, you can check Case Status Online at
Yes. Provided that you currently have a Haiti TPS-based EAD, this
• Are a national of Haiti (or an alien having no nationality who last habitually resided in Haiti);
• Have an EAD with a marked expiration date of January 22, 2018, bearing the notation A-12 or C-19 on the face of the card under Category.
Although this
You can find a list of acceptable document choices on the “Lists of Acceptable Documents” for Form I-9. Employers must complete Form I-9 to verify the identity and employment authorization of all new employees. Within three days of hire, employees must present acceptable documents to their employers as evidence of identity and employment authorization to satisfy Form I-9 requirements.
You may present any document from List A (which provides evidence of both identity and employment authorization), or one document from List B (which provides evidence of your identity) together with one document from List C (which is evidence of employment authorization), or you may present an acceptable receipt for List A, List B, or List C documents as described in the Form I-9 Instructions. Employers may not reject a document based on a future expiration date. You can find additional detailed information about Form I-9 on USCIS' I-9 Central web page at
An EAD is an acceptable document under List A. If your EAD has an
To reduce confusion over this extension at the time of hire, you should explain to your employer that your EAD has been automatically extended through July 21, 2018. You may also provide your employer with a copy of this
Even though your EAD has been automatically extended, your employer will need to ask you about your continued employment authorization no later than before you start work on January 23, 2018. You will need to present your employer with evidence that you are still authorized to work. Once presented, you may correct your employment authorization expiration date in Section 1 and your employer should correct the EAD expiration date in Section 2 of Form I-9. See the subsection titled, “
The last day of the automatic EAD extension is July 21, 2018. Before you start work on July 22, 2018, your employer must reverify your employment authorization. At that time, you must present any document from List A or any document from List C on Form I-9 Lists of Acceptable Documents, or an acceptable List A or List C receipt described in the Form I-9 Instructions to reverify employment authorization.
By July 22, 2018, your employer must complete Section 3 of the current version of the form, Form I-9 07/17/17 N, and attach it to the previously completed Form I-9, if your original Form I-9 was a previous version. Your employer can check the USCIS' I-9 Central web page at
Note that your employer may not specify which List A or List C document you must present and cannot reject an acceptable receipt.
No. When completing Form I-9, including reverifying employment authorization, employers must accept any documentation that appears on the Form I-9 “Lists of Acceptable Documents” that reasonably appears to be genuine and that relates to you, or an acceptable List A, List B, or List C receipt. Employers need not reverify List B identity documents. Employers may not request documentation that does not appear on the “Lists of Acceptable Documents.” Therefore, employers may not request proof of Haitian citizenship or proof of re-registration for TPS when completing Form I-9 for new hires or reverifying the employment authorization of current employees. If presented with EADs that have been automatically extended, employers should accept such documents as a valid List A document so long as the EAD reasonably appears to be genuine and relates to the employee. Refer to the Note to Employees section of this
When using an automatically extended EAD to complete Form I-9 for a new job before July 22, 2018, you and your employer should do the following:
1. For Section 1, you should:
a. Check “An alien authorized to work until” and enter July 21, 2018, the automatically extended EAD expiration date as the “expiration date, if applicable, mm/dd/yyyy”; and
b. Enter your Alien Number/USCIS number or A-Number where indicated (your EAD or other document from DHS will have your USCIS number or A-Number printed on it; the USCIS number is the same as your A-Number without the A prefix).
2. For Section 2, employers should:
a. Determine if the EAD is auto-extended for 180 days by ensuring it is in category A-12 or C-19 and has a January 22, 2018 expiration date;
b. Write in the document title;
c. Enter the issuing authority;
d. Provide the document number; and
e. Insert July 21, 2018, the date that is 180 days from the date the current EAD expires.
If you also filed for a new EAD, as proof of the automatic extension of your employment authorization, you may present your expired or expiring EAD with category A-12 or C-19 in combination with the Form I-797C
a. Determine if the EAD is auto-extended for 180 days by ensuring:
• It is in category A-12 or C-19; and
• The category code on the EAD is the same category code on Form I-797C, noting that employers should consider category codes A-12 and C-19 to be the same category code.
b. Write in the document title;
c. Enter the issuing authority;
d. Provide the document number; and
e. Insert July 21, 2018, the date that is 180 days from the date the current EAD expires. Before the start of work on July 22, 2018, employers must reverify the employee's employment authorization in Section 3 of Form I-9.
If you presented a TPS-related EAD that was valid when you first started your job and your EAD has now been automatically extended, your employer may need to re-inspect your current EAD if they do not have a copy of the EAD on file. You and your employer should correct your previously completed Form I-9 as follows:
1. For Section 1, you may:
a. Draw a line through the expiration date in Section 1;
b. Write July 21, 2018, the date that is 180 days from the date your current EAD expires above the previous date (January 22, 2018); and
c. Initial and date the correction in the margin of Section 1.
2. For Section 2, employers should:
a. Determine if the EAD is auto-extended for 180 days by ensuring:
• It is in category A-12 or C-19; and
• Has an expiration date of January 22, 2018.
b. Draw a line through the expiration date written in Section 2;
c. Write July 21, 2018, the date that is 180 days from the date the employee's current EAD expires above the previous date (January 22, 2018); and
d. Initial and date the correction in the margin of Section 2.
In the alternative, if you properly applied for a new EAD, you may present your expired EAD with category A-12 or C-19 in combination with the Form I-797C Notice of Action. The Form I-797C should show that the EAD renewal application was filed and that the qualifying eligibility category is either A-12 or C-19. To avoid confusion, you may also provide your employer a copy of this Notice. Your employer should correct your previously completed Form I-9 as follows:
For Section 2, employers should:
a. Determine if the EAD is auto-extended for 180 days by ensuring:
• It is in category A-12 or C-19; and
• The category code on the EAD is the same category code on Form I-797C, noting that employers should consider category codes A-12 and C-19 to be the same category code.
b. Draw a line through the expiration date written in Section 2;
c. Write July 21, 2018, the date that is 180 days from the date the employee's current EAD expires above the previous date (January 22, 2018); and
d. Initial and date the correction in the Additional Information field in Section 2.
This is not considered a reverification. Employers do not need to complete Section 3 until either the 180-day extension has ended or the employee presents a new document to show continued employment authorization, whichever is sooner. By July 22, 2018, when the employee's automatically extended EAD has expired, employers must reverify the employee's employment authorization in Section 3.
Employers may create a case in E-Verify for a new employee using the EAD with expiration date January 22, 2018, or the Form I-797C receipt information provided on Form I-9. In either case, the receipt number entered as the document number on Form I-9 should be entered into the document number field in E-Verify.
E-Verify automated the verification process for employees whose TPS-related EAD was automatically extended. If you have employees who are TPS beneficiaries who provided a TPS-related EAD when they first started working for you, you will receive a “Work Authorization Documents Expiring” case alert when the auto-extension period for this EAD is about to expire. This indicates that you should update Form I-9 in accordance with the instructions above. Before such an employee starts to work on July 22, 2018, employment authorization must be reverified in Section 3. Employers should not use E-Verify for reverification.
Employers are reminded that the laws requiring proper employment eligibility verification and prohibiting unfair immigration-related employment practices remain in full force. This
For general questions about the employment eligibility verification process, employees may call USCIS at 888-897-7781 (TTY 877-875-6028) or email USCIS at
To comply with the law, employers must accept any document or combination of documents from the Lists of Acceptable Documents if the documentation reasonably appears to be genuine and to relate to the employee, or an acceptable List A, List B, or List C receipt as described in the Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) Instructions. Employers may
Employers may not terminate, suspend, delay training, withhold pay, lower pay, or take any adverse action against an employee based on the employee's decision to contest a TNC or because the case is still pending with E-Verify. A Final Nonconfirmation (FNC) case result is received when E-Verify cannot verify an employee's employment eligibility. An employer may terminate employment based on a case result of FNC. Work-authorized employees who receive an FNC may call USCIS for assistance at 888-897-7781 (TTY 877-875-6028). For more information about E-Verify-related discrimination or to report an employer for discrimination in the E-Verify process based on citizenship, immigration status, or national origin, contact IER's Worker Hotline at 800-255-7688 (TTY 800-237-2515). Additional information about proper nondiscriminatory Form I-9 and E-Verify procedures is available on the IER website at
While Federal Government agencies must follow the guidelines laid out by the Federal Government, state and local government agencies establish their own rules and guidelines when granting certain benefits. Each state may have different laws, requirements, and determinations about what documents you need to provide to prove eligibility for certain benefits. Whether you are applying for a Federal, state, or local government benefit, you may need to provide the government agency with documents that show you are a TPS beneficiary and/or show you are authorized to work based on TPS. Examples of such documents are:
(1) Your current EAD;
(2) A copy of your Notice of Action (Form I-797C) for your application to renew your current EAD providing an automatic extension of your currently expired or expiring EAD;
(3) A copy of your Application for Temporary Protected Status Notice of Action (Form I-797) for this re-registration; and
(4) A copy of your past or current Application for Temporary Protected Status Notice of Action (Form I-797), if you received one from USCIS.
Check with the government agency regarding which document(s) the agency will accept. Some benefit-granting agencies use the USCIS Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program to confirm the current immigration status of applicants for public benefits. In most cases, SAVE provides an automated electronic response to benefit-granting agencies within seconds, but, occasionally, verification can be delayed. You can check the status of your SAVE verification by using CaseCheck at the following link:
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
The designation of El Salvador for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) is set to expire on March 9, 2018. After reviewing country conditions and consulting with appropriate U.S. Government agencies, the Secretary of Homeland Security has determined that conditions in El Salvador no longer support its designation for TPS and that termination of the TPS designation of El Salvador is required pursuant to statute. To provide time for an orderly transition, the Secretary is terminating the designation effective on September 9, 2019, which is 18 months following the end of the current designation.
Nationals of El Salvador (and aliens having no nationality who last habitually resided in El Salvador) who have been granted TPS and wish to maintain their TPS and receive TPS-based Employment Authorization Documents (EAD) valid through September 9, 2019, must re-register for TPS in accordance with the procedures set forth in this Notice. After September 9, 2019, nationals of El Salvador (and aliens having no nationality who last habitually resided in El Salvador) who have been granted TPS under the El Salvador designation will no longer have TPS.
The designation of El Salvador for TPS is terminated effective at 11:59 p.m., local time, on September 9, 2019.
The 60-day re-registration period runs from January 18, 2018 through March 19, 2018. (
• You may contact Alex King, Branch Chief, Waivers and Temporary Services Branch, Service Center Operations Directorate, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529-2060; or by phone at (202) 272-8377 (this is not a toll-free number).
• For further information on TPS, including guidance on the re-registration process and additional information on eligibility, please visit the USCIS TPS web page at
• Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases may check Case Status Online, available on the USCIS website at
• Further information will also be available at local USCIS offices upon publication of this Notice.
Through this Notice, DHS sets forth procedures necessary for eligible nationals of El Salvador (or aliens having no nationality who last habitually resided in El Salvador) to re-register for TPS and to apply for renewal of their EADs with USCIS. Re-registration is limited to persons who have previously registered for TPS under the designation of El Salvador and whose applications have been granted.
For individuals who have already been granted TPS under El Salvador's designation, the 60-day re-registration period runs from January 19, 2018 through March 19, 2018. USCIS will issue new EADs with a September 9, 2019 expiration date to eligible Salvadoran TPS beneficiaries who timely re-register and apply for EADs. Given the timeframes involved with processing TPS re-registration applications, DHS recognizes that not all re-registrants will receive new EADs before their current EADs expire on March 9, 2018. Accordingly, through this
• TPS is a temporary immigration status granted to eligible nationals of a country designated for TPS under the INA, or to eligible persons without nationality who last habitually resided in the designated country.
• During the TPS designation period, TPS beneficiaries are eligible to remain in the United States, may not be removed, and are authorized to obtain EADs so long as they continue to meet the requirements of TPS.
• TPS beneficiaries may also apply for and be granted travel authorization as a matter of discretion.
• The granting of TPS does not result in or lead to lawful permanent resident status.
• To qualify for TPS, beneficiaries must meet the eligibility standards at INA section 244(c)(1)-(2), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(c)(1)-(2).
• When the Secretary terminates a country's TPS designation, beneficiaries return to one of the following:
○ The same immigration status or category that they maintained before TPS, if any (unless that status or category has since expired or been terminated); or
○ Any other lawfully obtained immigration status or category they received while registered for TPS, as long as it is still valid on the date TPS terminates.
On March 9, 2001, the Attorney General designated El Salvador for TPS based on an environmental disaster within that country, specifically the devastation resulting from a series of earthquakes that occurred in 2001.
Section 244(b)(1) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(1), authorizes the Secretary, after consultation with appropriate U.S. Government agencies, to designate a foreign state (or part thereof) for TPS if the Secretary determines that certain country conditions exist.
At least 60 days before the expiration of a country's TPS designation or extension, the Secretary, after consultation with appropriate Government agencies, must review the conditions in the foreign state designated for TPS to determine whether the conditions for the TPS designation continue to be met.
DHS has reviewed conditions in El Salvador. Based on the review, including input received from other appropriate U.S. Government agencies, including the Department of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security has determined that the conditions supporting El Salvador's 2001 designation for TPS on the basis of
Following the 2001 earthquake, El Salvador received a significant amount of international aid to assist in its recovery efforts, including millions of dollars dedicated to emergency and long-term assistance. Accordingly, many reconstruction projects have now been completed. Damaged schools and hospitals have been reconstructed and repaired, homes have been rebuilt, and money has been provided for water and sanitation and to repair damaged roads and other infrastructure. Additionally, El Salvador's economy is steadily improving. The Salvadoran Government has estimated that the country's unemployment rate was 7 percent in 2014, 2015, and 2016. The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in El Salvador reached an all-time high of $26.80 billion (USD) in 2016 and is expected to reach $27.3 billion (USD) by the end of 2017. El Salvador's GDP is projected to increase to about $28.6 billion in 2020.
Government assistance and resources for returnees are reportedly limited, but the Salvadoran Government, U.S. Government, and international organizations are working cooperatively to improve security and economic opportunities in El Salvador to lay the groundwork for an eventual return of many Salvadorans from the United States. DHS estimates that there are approximately 262,500 nationals of El Salvador (and aliens having no nationality who last habitually resided in El Salvador) who hold TPS under El Salvador's designation.
By the authority vested in the Secretary of Homeland Security under INA section 244(b)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(3), I have determined, after consultation with appropriate U.S. Government agencies, that the conditions for the designation of El Salvador for TPS under 244(b)(1)(B) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(1)(B), are no longer met. Accordingly, I order as follows:
(1) Pursuant to INA section 244(b)(3)(B) and in accordance with INA section 244(d)(3), in order to provide for an orderly transition, the designation of El Salvador for TPS is terminated effective at 11:59 p.m., local time, on September 9, 2019, which is 18 months following the end of the current designation.
(2) Information concerning the termination of TPS for nationals of El Salvador (and aliens having no nationality who last habitually resided in El Salvador) will be available at local USCIS offices upon publication of this Notice and through the USCIS National Customer Service Center at 1-800-375-5283. This information will be published on the USCIS website at
To re-register for TPS based on the designation of El Salvador, you
Through operation of this
If you are seeking an EAD with your re-registration for TPS, please submit both the Form I-821 and Form I-765 together. If you are unable to pay the application fee and/or biometric services fee, you may complete a Request for Fee Waiver (Form I-912) or submit a personal letter requesting a fee waiver with satisfactory supporting documentation. For more information on the application forms and fees for TPS, please visit the USCIS TPS web page at
If you have a Form I-821 and/or Form I-765 that was still pending as of January 18, 2018, then you do
Biometrics (such as fingerprints) are required for all applicants 14 years and older. Those applicants must submit a biometric services fee. As previously stated, if you are unable to pay for the biometric services fee, you may complete a Form I-912 or submit a personal letter requesting a fee waiver with satisfactory supporting documentation. For more information on the biometric services fee, please visit the USCIS website at
You should file as soon as possible within the 60-day re-registration period so USCIS can process your application and issue any EAD promptly. Properly filing early will also allow you to have time to refile your application before the deadline, should USCIS deny your fee waiver request. If, however, you receive a denial of your fee waiver request and are unable to refile by the re-registration deadline, you may still refile your Form
Although a re-registering TPS beneficiary age 14 and older must pay the biometric services fee (but not the Form I-821 fee) when filing a TPS re-registration application, you may decide to wait to request an EAD. Therefore, you do not have to file the Form I-765 or pay the associated Form I-765 fee (or request a fee waiver) at the time of re-registration, and could wait to seek an EAD until after USCIS has approved your TPS re-registration application. If you choose to do this, to re-register for TPS you would only need to file the Form I-821 with the biometrics services fee, if applicable, (or request a fee waiver).
Mail your application for TPS to the proper address in Table 1.
If you were granted TPS by an Immigration Judge (IJ) or the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and you wish to request an EAD or are re-registering for the first time following a grant of TPS by an IJ or the BIA, please mail your application to the appropriate mailing address in Table 1. When re-registering and requesting an EAD based on an IJ/BIA grant of TPS, please include a copy of the IJ or BIA order granting you TPS with your application. This will help us to verify your grant of TPS and process your application.
The filing instructions on the Form I-821 list all the documents needed to establish eligibility for TPS. You may also find information on the acceptable documentation and other requirements for applying or registering for TPS on the USCIS website at
To get case status information about your TPS application, including the status of an EAD request, you can check Case Status Online at
Yes. Provided that you currently have an El Salvador TPS-based EAD, this
• Are a national of El Salvador (or an alien having no nationality who last habitually resided in El Salvador);
• Have an EAD with a marked expiration date of March 9, 2018, bearing the notation A-12 or C-19 on the face of the card under Category.
Although this
You can find a list of acceptable document choices on the “Lists of Acceptable Documents” for Form I-9. Employers must complete Form I-9 to verify the identity and employment authorization of all new employees. Within three days of hire, employees
You may present any document from List A (which provides evidence of both identity and employment authorization), or one document from List B (which provides evidence of your identity) together with one document from List C (which is evidence of employment authorization), or you may present an acceptable receipt for List A, List B, or List C documents as described in the Form I-9 Instructions. Employers may not reject a document based on a future expiration date. You can find additional detailed information about Form I-9 on USCIS' I-9 Central web page at
An EAD is an acceptable document under List A. If your EAD has an expiration date of March 9, 2018, and states A-12 or C-19 under Category, it has been extended automatically for 180 days by virtue of this
To reduce confusion over this extension at the time of hire, you should explain to your employer that your EAD has been automatically extended through September 5, 2018. You may also provide your employer with a copy of this
Even though your EAD has been automatically extended, your employer will need to ask you about your continued employment authorization no later than before you start work on March 10, 2018. You will need to present your employer with evidence that you are still authorized to work. Once presented, you may correct your employment authorization expiration date in Section 1 and your employer should correct the EAD expiration date in Section 2 of Form I-9. See the subsection titled, “What corrections should my current employer and I make to Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) if my employment authorization has been automatically extended?” for further information. You may show this
The last day of the automatic EAD extension is September 5, 2018. Before you start work on September 6, 2018, your employer must reverify your employment authorization. At that time, you must present any document from List A or any document from List C on Form I-9 Lists of Acceptable Documents, or an acceptable List A or List C receipt described in the Form I-9 Instructions to reverify employment authorization.
By September 6, 2018, your employer must complete Section 3 of the current version of the form, Form I-9 07/17/17 N, and attach it to the previously completed Form I-9, if your original Form I-9 was a previous version. Your employer can check the USCIS' I-9 Central web page at
Note that your employer may not specify which List A or List C document you must present and cannot reject an acceptable receipt.
No. When completing Form I-9, including reverifying employment authorization, employers must accept any documentation that appears on the Form I-9 “Lists of Acceptable Documents” that reasonably appears to be genuine and that relates to you, or an acceptable List A, List B, or List C receipt. Employers need not reverify List B identity documents. Employers may not request documentation that does not appear on the “Lists of Acceptable Documents.” Therefore, employers may not request proof of Salvadoran citizenship or proof of re-registration for TPS when completing Form I-9 for new hires or reverifying the employment authorization of current employees. If presented with EADs that have been automatically extended, employers should accept such documents as a valid List A document so long as the EAD reasonably appears to be genuine and relates to the employee. Refer to the Note to Employees section of this
When using an automatically extended EAD to complete Form I-9 for a new job before September 6, 2018, you and your employer should do the following:
1. For Section 1, you should:
a. Check “An alien authorized to work until” and enter September 5, 2018, the automatically extended EAD expiration date as the “expiration date, if applicable, mm/dd/yyyy”; and
b. Enter your Alien Number/USCIS number or A-Number where indicated (your EAD or other document from DHS will have your USCIS number or A-Number printed on it; the USCIS number is the same as your A-Number without the A prefix).
2. For Section 2, employers should:
a. Determine if the EAD is auto-extended for 180 days by ensuring it is in category A-12 or C-19 and has a March 9, 2018 expiration date;
b. Write in the document title;
c. Enter the issuing authority;
d. Provide the document number; and
e. Insert September 5, 2018, the date that is 180 days from the date the current EAD expires.
If you also filed for a new EAD, as proof of the automatic extension of your employment authorization, you may present your expired or expiring EAD with category A-12 or C-19 in combination with the Form I-797C Notice of Action showing that the EAD renewal application was filed and that the qualifying eligibility category is either A-12 or C-19. Unless your TPS has been withdrawn or your request for TPS has been denied, this document combination is considered an unexpired EAD under List A. In these situations, to complete Section 2, employers should:
a. Determine if the EAD is auto-extended for 180 days by ensuring:
• It is in category A-12 or C-19; and
• The category code on the EAD is the same category code on Form I-797C, noting that employers should consider category codes A-12 and C-19 to be the same category code.
b. Write in the document title;
c. Enter the issuing authority;
d. Provide the document number; and
e. Insert September 5, 2018, the date that is 180 days from the date the current EAD expires. Before the start of work on September 6, 2018, employers must reverify the employee's employment authorization in Section 3 of Form I-9.
If you presented a TPS-related EAD that was valid when you first started your job and your EAD has now been automatically extended, your employer may need to re-inspect your current EAD if they do not have a copy of the EAD on file. You may, and your employer should, correct your previously completed Form I-9 as follows:
1. For Section 1, you may:
a. Draw a line through the expiration date in Section 1;
b. Write September 5, 2018, the date that is 180 days from the date your current EAD expires above the previous date (March 9, 2018); and
c. Initial and date the correction in the margin of Section 1.
2. For Section 2, employers should:
a. Determine if the EAD is auto-extended for 180 days by ensuring:
• It is in category A-12 or C-19; and
• Has an expiration date of March 9, 2018.
b. Draw a line through the expiration date written in Section 2;
c. Write September 5, 2018, the date that is 180 days from the date the employee's current EAD expires above the previous date (March 9, 2018); and
d. Initial and date the correction in the Additional Information field in Section 2.
In the alternative, if you properly applied for a new EAD, you may present your expired EAD with category A-12 or C-19 in combination with the Form I-797C Notice of Action. The Form I-797C should show that the EAD renewal application was filed and that the qualifying eligibility category is either A-12 or C-19. To avoid confusion, you may also provide your employer a copy of this Notice. Your employer should correct your previously completed Form I-9 as follows:
For Section 2, employers should:
a. Determine if the EAD is auto-extended for 180 days by ensuring:
• It is in category A-12 or C-19; and
• The category code on the EAD is the same category code on Form I-797C, noting that employers should consider category codes A-12 and C-19 to be the same category code.
b. Draw a line through the expiration date written in Section 2;
c. Write September 5, 2018, the date that is 180 days from the date the employee's current EAD expires above the previous date (March 9, 2018); and
d. Initial and date the correction in the Additional Information field in Section 2.
This is not considered a reverification. Employers do not need to complete Section 3 until either the 180-day extension has ended or the employee presents a new document to show continued employment authorization, whichever is sooner. By September 6, 2018, when the employee's automatically extended EAD has expired, employers must reverify the employee's employment authorization in Section 3.
Employers may create a case in E-Verify for a new employee using the EAD bearing the expiration date March 9, 2018, or the Form I-797C receipt information provided on Form I-9. In either case, the receipt number entered as the document number on Form I-9 should be entered into the document number field in E-Verify.
E-Verify automated the verification process for employees whose TPS-related EAD was automatically extended. If you have employees who are TPS beneficiaries who provided a TPS-related EAD when they first started working for you, you will receive a “Work Authorization Documents Expiring” case alert when the auto-extension period for this EAD is about to expire. This indicates that you should update Form I-9 in accordance with the instructions above. Before such an employee starts to work on September 6, 2018, employment authorization must be reverified in Section 3. Employers should not use E-Verify for reverification.
Employers are reminded that the laws requiring proper employment eligibility verification and prohibiting unfair immigration-related employment practices remain in full force. This
For general questions about the employment eligibility verification process, employees may call USCIS at 888-897-7781 (TTY 877-875-6028) or email USCIS at
To comply with the law, employers must accept any document or combination of documents from the Lists of Acceptable Documents if the documentation reasonably appears to be genuine and to relate to the employee, or an acceptable List A, List B, or List C receipt as described in the Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) Instructions. Employers may not require extra or additional documentation beyond what is required for Form I-9 completion. Further, employers participating in E-Verify who receive an E-Verify case result of “Tentative Nonconfirmation” (TNC) must promptly inform employees of the TNC and give such employees an opportunity to contest the TNC. A TNC case result means that the information entered into E-Verify from an employee's Form I-9 differs from Federal or state government records.
Employers may not terminate, suspend, delay training, withhold pay, lower pay, or take any adverse action against an employee because of the TNC while the case is still pending with E-Verify. A Final Nonconfirmation (FNC) case result is received when E-Verify cannot verify an employee's employment eligibility. An employer may terminate employment based on a case result of FNC. Work-authorized employees who receive an FNC may call USCIS for assistance at 888-897-7781 (TTY 877-875-6028). For more information about E-Verify-related discrimination or to report an employer for discrimination in the E-Verify process based on citizenship, immigration status, or national origin, contact IER's Worker Hotline at 800-255-7688 (TTY 800-237-2515). Additional information about proper nondiscriminatory Form I-9 and E-Verify procedures is available on the IER website at
While Federal Government agencies must follow the guidelines laid out by the Federal Government, state and local government agencies establish their own rules and guidelines when granting certain benefits. Each state may have different laws, requirements, and determinations about what documents you need to provide to prove eligibility for certain benefits. Whether you are applying for a Federal, state, or local government benefit, you may need to provide the government agency with documents that show you are a TPS beneficiary and/or show you are authorized to work based on TPS. Examples of such documents are:
(1) Your current EAD;
(2) A copy of your Notice of Action (Form I-797C), the notice of receipt, for your application to renew your current EAD providing an automatic extension of your currently expired or expiring EAD;
(3) A copy of your Notice of Action (Form I-797C), the notice of receipt, for your Application for Temporary Protected Status for this re-registration; and
(4) A copy of your Notice of Action (Form I-797), the notice of approval, for a past or current Application for Temporary Protected Status, if you received one from USCIS. Check with the government agency regarding which document(s) the agency will accept. Some benefit-granting agencies use the USCIS Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program to confirm the current immigration status of applicants for public benefits. In most cases, SAVE provides an automated electronic response to benefit-granting agencies within seconds, but, occasionally, verification can be delayed. You can check the status of your SAVE verification by using CaseCheck at the following link:
Office of the Secretary, HUD.
Notice of delegation of authority.
This notice is issued to consolidate the authorities delegated from the Secretary to the President and Executive Vice President—Chief Operations Officer of the Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae).
Senior Vice President and Chief Risk Officer, Office of Enterprise Risk, Government National Mortgage Association, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Capital View, 425 3rd Street SW, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20024; telephone number 202-475-4918 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing- or speech-impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 (this is a toll-free number).
Ginnie Mae is a wholly owned U.S. Government corporation within the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Ginnie Mae's organic statute vests all the powers and duties of Ginnie Mae in the Secretary of HUD (12 U.S.C. 1723).
In Ginnie Mae's bylaws, the Secretary has delegated all the powers and duties of Ginnie Mae that were vested in the Secretary to Ginnie Mae. In previous
This notice consolidates the functions that the Secretary has delegated to the President of Ginnie Mae, while also delegating concurrent authority to Ginnie Mae's Executive Vice President—Chief Operations Officer. While the Secretary has delegated authority to the Ginnie Mae President and Ginnie Mae Executive Vice President—Chief Operations Officer, the Secretary retains authority under 12 U.S.C. 1723.
The Secretary hereby concurrently delegates authority to the President and the Executive Vice President—Chief Operations Officer of Ginnie Mae.
1. All powers and duties of Ginnie Mae, which are by law vested in the Secretary, except as otherwise provided in the Ginnie Mae bylaws (posted at
2. All authority of the Secretary with respect to the management of Ginnie Mae and Ginnie Mae programs pursuant to title III of the National Housing Act, 12 U.S.C. 1723 (68 FR 41840);
3. The power to waive HUD regulations; section 7(q), Department of Housing and Urban Development Act (42 U.S.C. 3535(q) and 73 FR 76674);
4. The power to impose suspensions and debarments, with the concurrence of the General Counsel; section 7(d), Department of Housing and Urban Development Act (42 U.S.C. 3535(d); 54 FR 4913 and 63 FR 57133); and
5. Authority to authenticate documents and affix the seal of HUD to documents (68 FR 41840).
The Ginnie Mae President and Ginnie Mae Executive Vice President—Chief Operations Officer may redelegate the authorities delegated by the Secretary, except for the authority to waive HUD regulations. The authority to waive HUD regulations is reserved for the Ginnie Mae President, pursuant to the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act (42 U.S.C. 3535(q)), and may not be redelegated. However, if the Ginnie Mae President is absent from office, the Ginnie Mae Executive Vice President—Chief Operations Officer or other persons authorized to act in the President's absence may exercise the waiver authority of the President consistent with HUD's policies and procedures (73 FR 76674 and 66 FR 13944).
This delegation of authority supersedes all previous delegations of authority and redelegations of authority for Ginnie Mae, including the delegation of authority published in the
The Secretary hereby ratifies all actions previously taken by the Ginnie Mae President and Ginnie Mae Executive Vice President—Chief Operations Officer that are consistent with the delegations of authority provided in this notice.
Section 7(d), Department of Housing and Urban Development Act (42 U.S.C. 3535(d)); Article 3, Bylaws of the Government National Mortgage Association, posted at ginniemae.gov; 24 CFR part 310.
Office of the President of the Government National Mortgage Association, HUD.
Notice of order of succession.
In this Notice, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development designates the Order of Succession for the Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae). This Order of Succession supersedes all prior Orders of Succession for Ginnie Mae.
Senior Vice President and Chief Risk Officer, Office of Enterprise Risk, Government National Mortgage Association, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Capital View, 425 3rd Street SW, Washington, DC 20024; telephone number (202) 475-4918. (This is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing- or speech-impairments may access this number though TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339.
The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development hereby issues this Order of Succession pursuant to the Bylaws of Ginnie Mae which authorize the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development or the President of Ginnie Mae to designate the sequence in which other officers of Ginnie Mae shall act. The officers designated below shall perform the duties and exercise the power and authority of the President, when the President is absent or unable to act, or when there is a vacancy in the Office of the President of Ginnie Mae. This Order of Succession is subject to the provisions of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 (5 U.S.C. 3345- 3349d) and the Bylaws of the Government National Mortgage Association, as published at
Subject to the provisions of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 and the Bylaws of Ginnie Mae, during any period when, by reason of absence, disability, or vacancy in office, the President of Ginnie Mae is not available to exercise the powers or perform the duties of the President, the following officials within Ginnie Mae are hereby designated to exercise the powers and perform the duties of the Office:
These officials shall perform the functions and duties of the Office in the
This Order of Succession supersedes the prior Orders of Succession for the President of Ginnie Mae.
Section 7(d), Department of Housing and Urban Development Act (42 U.S.C. 3535(d)). Section 3.05, Bylaws of the Government National Mortgage Association, as published in the Bylaws published at
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) owns or has an interest in irrigation projects located on or associated with various Indian reservations throughout the United States. We are required to establish irrigation assessment rates to recover the costs to administer, operate, maintain, and rehabilitate these projects. We request your comments on the proposed rate adjustments.
Interested parties may submit comments on the proposed rate adjustments on or before March 19, 2018.
All comments on the proposed rate adjustments must be in writing and addressed to: Ms. Yulan Jin, Chief, Division of Water and Power, Office of Trust Services, Mail Stop 4637-MIB, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240, Telephone (202) 219-0941.
For details about a particular irrigation project, please use the tables in
The first table in this notice provides contact information for individuals who can give further information about the irrigation projects covered by this notice. The second table provides the proposed rates for calendar year (CY) 2018 and CY 2019.
In this notice:
This notice affects you if you own or lease land within the assessable acreage of one of our irrigation projects or if you have a carriage agreement with one of our irrigation projects.
You can contact the appropriate office(s) stated in the tables for the irrigation project that serves you, or you can use the internet site for the Government Printing Office at
We are publishing this notice to inform you that we propose to adjust
Our authority to issue this notice is vested in the Secretary of the Interior by 5 U.S.C. 301 and the Act of August 14, 1914 (38 Stat. 583; 25 U.S.C. 385). The Secretary has in turn delegated this authority to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs under Part 209, Chapter 8.1A, of the Department of the Interior's Departmental Manual.
We will put the rate adjustments into effect for CY 2018 and CY 2019.
We calculate annual irrigation assessment rates in accordance with 25 CFR part 171.500 by estimating the annual costs of operation and maintenance at each of our irrigation projects and then dividing by the total assessable acres for that particular irrigation project. The result of this calculation for each project is stated in the rate table in this notice.
Consistent with 25 CFR part 171.500, these expenses include the following:
(a) Personnel salary and benefits for the project engineer/manager and project employees under the project engineer/manager's management or control;
(b) Materials and supplies;
(c) Vehicle and equipment repairs;
(d) Equipment costs, including lease fees;
(e) Depreciation;
(f) Acquisition costs;
(g) Maintenance of a reserve fund available for contingencies or emergency costs needed for the reliable operation of the irrigation facility infrastructure;
(h) Maintenance of a vehicle and heavy equipment replacement fund;
(i) Systematic rehabilitation and replacement of project facilities;
(j) Contingencies for unknown costs and omitted budget items; and
(k) Other expenses we determine necessary to properly perform the activities and functions characteristic of an irrigation project.
We will mail or hand-deliver your bill notifying you (a) the amount you owe to the United States and (b) when such amount is due. If we mail your bill, we will consider it as being delivered no later than five business days after the day we mail it. You should pay your bill by the due date stated on the bill.
All responsible parties are required to provide the following information to the billing office associated with the irrigation project where you own or lease land within the project's assessable acreage or to the billing office associated with the irrigation project with which you have a carriage agreement:
(1) The full legal name of person or entity responsible for paying the bill;
(2) An adequate and correct address for mailing or hand delivering our bill; and
(3) The taxpayer identification number or social security number of the person or entity responsible for paying the bill.
Public Law 104-134, the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, requires that we collect the taxpayer identification number or social security number before billing a responsible party and as a condition to servicing the account.
If you are late paying your bill because of your failure to furnish the required information listed above, you will be assessed interest and penalties as provided below, and your failure to provide the required information will not provide grounds for you to appeal your bill or any penalties assessed.
We can refuse to provide you irrigation service.
Yes. 25 CFR 171.545(a) states: “We will not provide you irrigation service until: (1) Your bill is paid; or (2) You make arrangement for payment pursuant to § 171.550 of this part.” If we do not receive your payment before the close of business on the 30th day after the due date stated on your bill, we will send you a past due notice. This past due notice will have additional information concerning your rights. We will consider your past due notice as delivered no later than five business days after the day we mail it. We follow the procedures provided in 31 CFR 901.2, “Demand for Payment,” when demanding payment of your past due bill.
Yes. We will assess you interest on the amount owed, using the rate of interest established annually by the Secretary of the United States Treasury (Treasury) to calculate what you will be assessed. You will not be assessed this charge until your bill is past due. However, if you allow your bill to become past due, interest will accrue from the original due date, not the past due date. Also, you will be charged an administrative fee of $12.50 for each time we try to collect your past due bill. If your bill becomes more than 90 days past due, you will be assessed a penalty charge of six percent per year, which will accrue from the date your bill initially became past due. Pursuant to 31 CFR 901.9, “Interest, penalties and administrative costs,” as a Federal agency, we are required to charge interest, penalties, and administrative costs in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3717.
If you do not pay your bill or make payment arrangements to which we agree, we are required to send your past due bill to the Treasury for further action. Under the provisions of 31 CFR 901.1, “Aggressive agency collection activity,” Federal agencies should consider referring debts that are less than 180 days delinquent, and we must send any unpaid annual irrigation assessment bill to Treasury no later than 180 days after the original due date of the bill.
The following tables are the regional and project/agency contacts for our irrigation facilities.
The rate table below contains the current rates for all irrigation projects where we recover costs of administering, operating, maintaining, and rehabilitating them. The table also contains the proposed rates for the CY 2018 and CY 2019. An asterisk immediately following the rate category notes the irrigation projects where rates are proposed for adjustment.
The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Indian Tribes through a commitment to consultation with Indian Tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and Tribal sovereignty. We have evaluated this notice under the Department's consultation policy and under the criteria of Executive Order 13175 and have determined there to be substantial direct effects on federally recognized Tribes because the irrigation projects are located on or associated with Indian reservations. To fulfill its consultation responsibility to Tribes and Tribal organizations, BIA communicates, coordinates, and consults on a continuing basis with these entities on issues of water delivery, water availability, and costs of administration, operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation of projects that concern them. This is accomplished at the individual irrigation project by project, agency, and regional representatives, as appropriate, in accordance with local protocol and procedures. This notice is one component of our overall coordination and consultation process to provide notice to, and request comments from, these entities when we adjust irrigation assessment rates.
The proposed rate adjustments are not a significant energy action under the definition in Executive Order 13211. A Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
These proposed rate adjustments are not a significant regulatory action and do not need to be reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.
These proposed rate adjustments are not a rule for the purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because they establish “a rule of particular applicability relating to rates.” 5 U.S.C. 601(2).
These proposed rate adjustments do not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, or Tribal governments in the aggregate, or on the private sector, of more than $130 million per year. They do not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, the Department is not required to prepare a statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531
These proposed rate adjustments do not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have “takings” implications
Under the criteria in section 1 of Executive Order 13132, these proposed rate adjustments do not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement because they will not affect the States, the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among various levels of government. A federalism summary impact statement is not required.
This notice complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988. Specifically, in issuing this notice, the Department has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct as required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988.
These proposed rate adjustments do not affect the collections of information which have been approved by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The OMB Control Number is 1076-0141 and expires June 30, 2019.
The Department has determined that these proposed rate adjustments do not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and that no detailed statement is required under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4370(d)), pursuant to 43 CFR 46.210(i). In addition, the proposed rate adjustments do not present any of the 12 extraordinary circumstances listed at 43 CFR 46.215.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
The Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California negotiated the First Amended Compact between the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California and the State of Nevada governing Class III gaming; this notice announces approval of the amended Compact.
This compact takes effect on January 18, 2018.
Ms. Paula L. Hart, Director, Office of Indian Gaming, Office of the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, Washington, DC 20240, (202) 219-4066.
Section 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) requires the Secretary of the Interior to publish in the
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The National Park Service is soliciting comments on the significance of properties nominated before December 16, 2017, for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places.
Comments should be submitted by February 2, 2018.
Comments may be sent via U.S. Postal Service and all other carriers to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St. NW, MS 7228, Washington, DC 20240.
The properties listed in this notice are being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places. Nominations for their consideration were received by the National Park Service before December 16, 2017. Pursuant to section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60, written comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Nominations submitted by State Historic Preservation Officers:
A request for removal has been made for the following resources:
Additional documentation has been received for the following resource:
Nominations submitted by Federal Preservation Officers:
The State Historic Preservation Officer reviewed the following nominations and responded to the Federal Preservation Officer within 45 days of receipt of the nominations and supports listing the properties in the National Register of Historic Places.
60.13 of 36 CFR part 60
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at
The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of 10X Genomics, Inc. on January 11, 2018. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain microfluidic systems and components thereof and products containing same. The complaint names as respondent: Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. of Hercules, CA. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order, a cease and desist order and impose a bond upon respondents' alleged infringing articles during the 60-day Presidential review period pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j).
Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five (5) pages in length, inclusive of attachments, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.
Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to § 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3287) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
By order of the Commission.
On the basis of the record
The Commission, pursuant to section 735(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)), instituted these investigations effective March 28, 2017, following receipt of a petition filed with the Commission and Commerce by Charter Steel, Saukville, Wisconsin; Gerdau Ameristeel US Inc., Tampa, Florida; Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc., Peoria, Illinois; and Nucor Corporation, Charlotte, North Carolina. The Commission scheduled the final phase of the investigations following notification of preliminary determinations by Commerce that imports of carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod from Belarus, Russia, and the United Arab Emirates were being sold at LTFV within the meaning of section 733(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b(b)). Notice of the scheduling of the final phase of the Commission's investigations and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the
The Commission made these determinations pursuant to section 735(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)). It completed and filed its determinations in these investigations on January 11, 2018. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4752, January 2018, entitled
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to review-in-part the final initial determination (“ID”) issued by the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) on October 26, 2017, finding no violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. The Commission requests certain briefing from the parties on the issues under review, as indicated in this notice.
Amanda Fisherow, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
The Commission instituted this investigation on October 25, 2016, based on a complaint filed by Andrea Electronics Corp. of Bohemia, New York (“Andrea”). 81 FR 73418 (Oct. 25, 2016). The complaint alleges violations of section 337 by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,049,607 (“the '607 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 6,363,345 (“the '345 patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 6,377,637 (“the '637 patent”). The Commission's notice of investigation named the following respondents: Apple Inc. of Cupertino, California (“Apple”); and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. of Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea, and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. of Ridgefield Park, New Jersey (collectively, “Samsung”). The Office of Unfair Import Investigations (“OUII”) is also a party in this investigation. Samsung was previously terminated from the investigation. All asserted claims of the '607 and '637 patents were also previously terminated from the investigation.
On October 26, 2017, the ALJ issued her final ID finding no violation of section 337 by Apple for the '345 patent. Specifically, the final ID found that Andrea does not have standing to assert the '345 patent, the accused products do not infringe the '345 patent, and Andrea has not met the domestic industry requirements.
On November 8, 2017, Andrea and OUII each filed timely petitions for review of the final ID. That same day, Apple filed a contingent petition for review of the final ID. On November 16, 2017, the parties each filed a timely response to the petitions for review. On November 27, 2017, the private parties filed their public interest comments pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50. No public interest comments were received from the public.
Having examined the record of this investigation, including the ALJ's final ID, the petitions for review, and the responses thereto, the Commission has determined to review-in-part the final ID. Specifically, the Commission has determined to review the ID's findings on (1) standing, (2) infringement, (3) invalidity, (4) inequitable conduct, and (5) domestic industry.
The parties are invited to brief their responses to the following question only, with reference to the applicable law and the evidentiary record.
1. Is a determination on whether a licensee is subject to an exclusive license necessary to reach the “all substantial rights” analysis? Are the factors set forth in
The parties are not to brief other issues on review, which are adequately presented in the parties' existing filings. At this time, the Commission is not requesting written submissions on remedy, public interest, or bonding.
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to Commission Rule 210.4(f), 19 CFR 210.4(f). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (“Inv. No. 1026”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR part 210.
By order of the Commission.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before March 19, 2018.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on October 23, 2017, Chemtos, LLC, 14101 W. Highway 290, Building 2000B, Austin, Texas 78737-9331 applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer for the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to manufacture small quantities of the listed controlled substances in bulk for distribution to its customers.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before March 19, 2018.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on July 4, 2017, Alcami Wisconsin Corporation, W130 N10497 Washington Drive, Germantown, Wisconsin 53022 applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of thebaine (9333), a basic class of controlled substance listed in schedule II.
The company states they plan to conduct clinical trials.
On January 9, 2018, a fully-executed proposed Settlement Agreement was received by the Department of Justice, among the United States on behalf of the U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”), the State of Georgia, on behalf of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (“GDNR”), and Fukunaga Kaiun Co., Ltd., a Japanese company that was the former operator of the Motor Vessel Fortune Epoch in November 2004.
The Settlement Agreement resolves certain claims by the FWS and GDNR for natural resource damages resulting from a November 2004 oil spill from the M/V Fortune Epoch near Tybee Island, Georgia. The Settlement Agreement requires Fukunaga Kaiun Co., Ltd. to pay $775,000 to pay the FWS and GDNR, the natural resource trustees (“Trustees”) for this matter, for past assessment costs and for the joint benefit and use of the Trustees to pay for Trustee-sponsored natural resource restoration efforts.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the proposed Settlement Agreement. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the proposed Settlement Agreement may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department website:
Please enclose a check or money order for $4 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
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 specified by the Respiratory Protection Standard.
Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by March 19, 2018.
Charles McCormick or Theda Kenney, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3609, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-2222.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (
The Respiratory Protection Standard (29 CFR 1910.134; hereafter, “the Standard”) contains information collection requirements that require employers to: develop a written respirator program; conduct worker medical evaluations and provide follow-up medical evaluations to determine the worker's ability to use a respirator; provide the physician or other licensed healthcare professional with information about the worker's respirator and the conditions under
The Standard also requires employers to ensure that cylinders used to supply breathing air to respirators have a certificate of analysis from the supplier stating that the breathing air meets the requirements for Type 1—Grade D breathing air; such certification assures employers that the purchased breathing air is safe. Compressors used to supply breathing air to respirators must have a tag containing the most recent change date and the signature of the individual authorized by the employer to perform the change. Employers must maintain this tag at the compressor. These tags provide assurance that the compressors are functioning properly.
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 its approval of the information collection requirements contained in the Respiratory Protection Standard (29 CFR 1910.134). The Agency is requesting an adjustment increase in the number of burden hours from 6,642,537 to 7,622,100 hours, a total increase of 979,563 burden hours. This increase is based on updated data showing an increase in the number of covered establishments. In addition, OSHA is requesting an adjustment increase of $139,348,226 in operation and maintenance costs (from $232,934,143 to $372,282,369) associated with increased estimated costs for employee medical exams, fit-testing materials and fit-tests. The Agency will summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice and will include this summary in the 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
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 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.
All comments should be submitted within 30 calendar days from the date of this publication.
All comments should be addressed to Lori Parker, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 300 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20546-0001.
Requests for additional information or
Citizen science and crowdsourcing are tools that engage, educate and empower the public to apply their curiosity and contribute their talents to a wide range of scientific and societal issues. NASA's mission is to
Citizen science and crowdsourcing collections submitted under this generic clearance can be stand-alone projects or the methods may be incorporated into an existing or new project, including, but not limited to, projects in the following typology:
•
•
Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of NASA, including whether the information collected has practical utility; (2) the accuracy of NASA's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection. They will also become a matter of public record.
Information Security Oversight Office, National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Notice of advisory committee meeting.
NARA announces the following committee meeting.
The meeting will be held on March 14, 2018, from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
National Archives and Records Administration; 700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Archivist's Reception Room, Room 105; Washington, DC 20408.
Robert Tringali, Program Analyst, by mail at ISOO; National Archives Building; 700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20408, by telephone at (202) 357-5335, or by email at
The purpose of this meeting is to discuss National Industrial Security Program policy matters. This announcement is in accord with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app 2) and implementing regulation 41 CFR 101-6. This meeting will be open to the public. However, due to space limitations and access procedures, you must submit the name and telephone number of individuals planning to attend to the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO) no later than Friday, March 9. ISOO will provide additional instructions for gaining access to the meeting.
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Notice.
NARA announces that we have submitted to OMB for renewed approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act our information collection on researcher applications, and we invite you to comment on the proposed information collection.
OMB must receive written comments at the address below on or before February 20, 2018.
Send comments to Mr. Nicholas A. Fraser by mail to Office of Management and Budget; New Executive Office Building; Washington, DC 20503, by fax to 202-395-5167, or by email to
To request additional information or copies of the proposed information collection and supporting statement, please contact Tamee Fechhelm by phone at 301-837-1694 or by fax at 301-837-0319.
Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), we invite comments on proposed information collections. We published a notice of proposed collection for this information collection on October 27, 2017 (82 FR 49857), and we received no comments. We have therefore submitted the described information collection to OMB for approval.
In response to this notice, comments and suggestions should address one or more of the following points: (a) Whether the proposed information collection is necessary for NARA to properly perform its functions; (b) the accuracy of our estimate of the information collection's burden on respondents; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information we propose to collect; (d) ways to minimize the burden on respondents of collecting the information, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) whether the collection affects small businesses. In this notice, NARA solicits comments concerning the following information collection:
9:30 a.m., Tuesday, February 6, 2018
NTSB Conference Center, 429 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Washington, DC 20594
The one item is open to the public.
Telephone: (202) 314-6100.
The press and public may enter the NTSB Conference Center one hour prior to the meeting for set up and seating.
Individuals requesting specific accommodations should contact Rochelle McCallister at (202) 314-6305 or by email at
The public may view the meeting via a live or archived webcast by accessing a link under “News & Events” on the NTSB home page at
Schedule updates, including weather-related cancellations, are also available at
Candi Bing at (202) 314-6403 or by email at
Eric Weiss at (202) 314-6100 or by email at
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Request for resumes.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) seeks qualified candidates for the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS). Submit resumes to Kendra Freeland and Jamila Perry, ACRS, Mail Stop T2E26, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, or email
The ACRS is a part-time advisory group, which is statutorily mandated by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. ACRS provides independent expert advice on matters related to the safety of existing and proposed nuclear power plants and on the adequacy of proposed reactor safety standards. Of primary importance are the safety issues associated with the operation of 99 commercial nuclear power plants in the United States and regulatory initiatives, including risk-informed and performance-based regulation, license renewal, power uprates, and the use of mixed oxide and high burnup fuels. An increased emphasis is being given to safety issues associated with new reactor designs and technologies, including passive system reliability and thermal hydraulic phenomena, use of digital instrumentation and control, international codes and standards used in multinational design certifications, materials, and structural engineering, nuclear analysis and reactor core performance, and nuclear materials and radiation protection. In addition, the ACRS may be requested to provide advice on radiation protection, radioactive waste management, and earth sciences in the agency's licensing reviews for fuel fabrication and enrichment facilities, and for waste disposal facilities. The ACRS also has some involvement in security matters related to the integration of safety and security of commercial reactors.
See the NRC website
Consistent with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Commission seeks candidates with diverse backgrounds, so that the membership on the Committee is fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented and functions to be performed by the Committee. Candidates will undergo a thorough security background check to obtain the security clearance that is mandatory for all ACRS members. The security background check will involve the completion and submission of paperwork to the NRC. Candidates for ACRS appointments may be involved in or have financial interests related to NRC-regulated aspects of the nuclear industry. However, because conflict-of-interest considerations may restrict the participation of a candidate in ACRS activities, the degree and nature of any such restriction on an individual's activities as a member will be considered in the selection process.
Each qualified candidate's financial interests must be reconciled with applicable Federal and NRC rules and regulations prior to final appointment. This might require divestiture of securities or discontinuance of certain contracts or grants. Information regarding these restrictions will be provided upon request. As a part of the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act of 2012, which bans insider trading by members of Congress, their staff, and other high-level Federal employees, candidates for appointments will be required to disclose additional financial transactions.
A resume describing the educational and professional background of the candidate, including any special accomplishments, publications, and professional references should be provided. Candidates should provide their current address, telephone number, and email address. All candidates will receive careful consideration. Appointment will be made without regard to factors such as race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, or disabilities. Candidates must be citizens of the United States and be able to devote approximately 100 days per year to Committee business, but may not be compensated for more than 130 calendar days. Resumes will be accepted until February 20, 2018.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Exemption; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing an exemption from the requirement to maintain a specified level of onsite property damage insurance in response to an October 22, 2015, request from the Southern California Edison Company (the licensee). Specifically, the licensee requested that the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, be granted an exemption to permit the licensee to reduce its onsite property damage insurance from $1.06 billion to $50 million.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0004 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:
•
•
•
Marlayna Vaaler, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3178; email:
The San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 (SONGS), operated by the Southern California Edison Company (SCE) is located approximately 4 miles south of San Clemente, California. The SONGS, Unit 1, Docket No. 50-206, was a Westinghouse 456 megawatt electric (MWe) pressurized water reactor which was granted Facility Operating License No. DPR-13 on January 1, 1968 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13309A138), and ceased operation on November 30, 1992 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13319B040). The licensee completed defueling on March 6, 1993 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13319B055), and maintained the unit in SAFSTOR until June 1999, when it initiated decommissioning (ADAMS Accession No. ML13319B111). On December 28, 1993 (ADAMS Accession No.
The SCE submitted the proposed Decommissioning Plan for SONGS, Unit 1, on November 3, 1994 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13319B073). As a result of the 1996 revision to the regulations in section 50.82 of title 10 of the
The SONGS, Units 2 and 3, Docket Nos. 50-361 and 50-362, are Combustion Engineering 1127 MWe pressurized water reactors, which were granted Facility Operating Licenses NPF-10 on February 16, 1982, and NPF-15 on November 15, 1982, respectively. In June 2013, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1)(i), the licensee certified to the NRC that as of June 7, 2013, operations had ceased at SONGS, Units 2 and 3 (ADAMS Accession No. ML131640201). The licensee subsequently certified, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1)(ii), that all fuel had been removed from the reactor vessels of both units, and committed to maintaining the units in a permanently defueled status (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML13204A304 and ML13183A391 for Unit 2 and Unit 3, respectively). Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2), SCE's 10 CFR part 50 licenses no longer authorize operation of SONGS or emplacement or retention of fuel into the reactor vessels. The licensee is still authorized to possess and store irradiated nuclear fuel. Irradiated fuel is currently being stored onsite in spent fuel pools (SFPs) and in dry casks at an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI).
The PSDAR for SONGS, Units 2 and 3, was submitted on September 23, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14272A121), and the associated public meeting was held on October 27, 2014, in Carlsbad, California (ADAMS Accession No. ML14352A063). The NRC confirmed its review of the SONGS, Units 2 and 3, PSDAR and addressed public comments in a letter dated August 20, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15204A383). On July 17, 2015, the NRC approved the Permanently Defueled Technical Specifications for SONGS, Units 2 and 3 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15139A390).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, “Specific exemptions,” SCE requested an exemption from 10 CFR 50.54(w)(1), by letter dated October 22, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15299A220). The exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(w)(1) would permit the licensee to reduce the required level of onsite property damage insurance from $1.06 billion to $50 million.
The regulation at 10 CFR 50.54(w)(1) requires each licensee to have and maintain onsite property damage insurance to stabilize and decontaminate the reactor and reactor site in the event of an accident. The onsite insurance coverage must be either $1.06 billion or whatever amount of insurance is generally available from private sources (whichever is less).
The licensee states that the risk of an incident at a permanently shutdown and defueled reactor is much less than the risk from an operating power reactor. In addition, since reactor operation is no longer authorized at SONGS, there are no events that would require the stabilization of reactor conditions after an accident. Similarly, the risk of an accident that that would result in significant onsite contamination at SONGS is also much lower than the risk of such an event at operating reactors. Therefore, SCE is requesting an exemption from 10 CFR 50.54(w)(1) to reduce its onsite property damage insurance from $1.06 billion to $50 million, commensurate with the reduced risk of an incident at the permanently shutdown and defueled SONGS site.
Under 10 CFR 50.12, the Commission may, upon application by any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR part 50 when (1) the exemptions are authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to public health or safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security; and (2) any of the special circumstances listed in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2) are present.
The financial protection limits of 10 CFR 50.54(w)(1) were established after the Three Mile Island accident out of concern that licensees may be unable to financially cover onsite cleanup costs in the event of a major nuclear accident. The specified $1.06 billion coverage amount requirement was developed based on an analysis of an accident at a nuclear reactor operating at power, resulting in a large fission product release and requiring significant resource expenditures to stabilize the reactor and ultimately decontaminate and cleanup the site.
These cost estimates were developed based on the spectrum of postulated accidents for an operating nuclear reactor. Those costs were derived from the consequences of a release of radioactive material from the reactor. Although the risk of an accident at an operating reactor is very low, the consequences onsite and offsite can be significant. In an operating plant, the high temperature and pressure of the reactor coolant system (RCS), as well as the inventory of relatively short-lived radionuclides, contribute to both the risk and consequences of an accident. With the permanent cessation of reactor operations at SONGS and the permanent removal of the fuel from the reactor cores, such accidents are no longer possible. As a result, the reactors, RCS, and supporting systems no longer operate and have no function related to the storage of the irradiated fuel. Therefore, postulated accidents involving failure or malfunction of the reactors, RCS, or supporting systems are no longer applicable.
As described in the PSDAR, SONGS, Unit 1, is being returned to a condition suitable for unrestricted use. According to SCE, there are no structures, systems, or components (SSCs) classified as safety-related remaining at SONGS, Unit 1. Plant dismantlement is complete and nearly all of the SSCs have been shipped offsite for disposal. Only the spent fuel, reactor vessel, and the below-grade portions of some buildings remain onsite. The principal remaining decommissioning activities are soil remediation, compaction, and grading. This is to be completed in conjunction with the future decommissioning of the ISFSI subsequent to shipment offsite of the SONGS stored spent fuel.
The licensee also stated that decommissioning of SONGS, Units 2 and 3, has begun and the nuclear reactors and essentially all associated SSCs in the nuclear steam supply system and balance of plant that supported the generation of power have been retired in place and are being prepared for removal. The SSCs that remain operable are associated with the SFPs and the spent fuel building, are needed to meet other regulatory requirements, or are needed to support other site facilities (
During reactor decommissioning, the largest radiological risks are associated with the storage of spent fuel onsite. In its October 22, 2015, exemption request, SCE discusses both design-basis and beyond design-basis events involving irradiated fuel stored in the SFPs. The licensee determined that there are no possible design-basis events at SONGS that could result in an offsite radiological release exceeding the limits established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) early-phase Protective Action Guidelines (PAGs) of 1 rem (roentgen equivalent man) at the exclusion area boundary, as a way to demonstrate that any possible radiological releases would be minimal and not require precautionary protective actions (
The only incident that might lead to a significant radiological release at a decommissioning reactor is a zirconium fire. The zirconium fire scenario is a postulated, but highly unlikely, beyond design-basis accident scenario that involves loss of water inventory from the SFP, resulting in a significant heat-up of the spent fuel, and culminating in substantial zirconium cladding oxidation and fuel damage. The probability of a zirconium fire scenario is related to the decay heat of the irradiated fuel stored in the SFP. Therefore, the risks from a zirconium fire scenario continue to decrease as a function of the time that SONGS has been permanently shut down. The licensee provided a detailed analysis of hypothetical beyond-design-basis accidents that could result in a radiological release at SONGS in its March 31, 2014, submittal to the NRC (ADAMS Accession No. ML14092A332), as supplemented by letters dated September 9, October 2, October 7, October 27, November 3, and December 15, 2014 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML14258A003, ML14280A265, ML14287A228, ML14303A257, ML14309A195, and ML14351A078, respectively). One of these beyond design-basis accidents involves a complete loss of SFP water inventory, where cooling of the spent fuel would be primarily accomplished by natural circulation of air through the uncovered spent fuel assemblies. The licensee's analysis of this accident shows that by August 31, 2014, air-cooling of the spent fuel assemblies will be sufficient to keep the fuel within a safe temperature range indefinitely without fuel damage or offsite radiological release.
The Commission has previously authorized a lesser amount of onsite financial protection, based on this analysis of the zirconium fire risk. In SECY-96-256, “Changes to Financial Protection Requirements for Permanently Shutdown Nuclear Power Reactors, 10 CFR 50.54(w)(1) and 10 CFR 140.11,” dated December 17, 1996 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15062A483), the staff recommended changes to the power reactor financial protection regulations that would allow licensees to lower onsite insurance levels to $50 million upon demonstration that the fuel stored in the SFP can be air-cooled. In its Staff Requirements Memorandum to SECY-96-256, dated January 28, 1997 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15062A454), the Commission supported the staff's recommendation that, among other things, would allow permanently shutdown power reactor licensees to reduce commercial onsite property damage insurance coverage to $50 million when the licensee was able to demonstrate the technical criterion that the spent fuel could be air-cooled if the spent fuel pool was drained of water. The staff has used this technical criterion to grant similar exemptions to other decommissioning reactors (
In SECY-00-0145, “Integrated Rulemaking Plan for Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning,” dated June 28, 2000, and SECY-01-0100, “Policy Issues Related to Safeguards, Insurance, and Emergency Preparedness Regulations at Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants Storing Fuel in the Spent Fuel Pool,” dated June 4, 2001 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML003721626 and ML011450420, respectively), the NRC staff discussed additional information concerning SFP zirconium fire risks at decommissioning reactors and associated implications for onsite property damage insurance. Providing an analysis of when the spent fuel stored in the SFP is capable of air-cooling is one measure that can be used to demonstrate that the probability of a zirconium fire is exceedingly low. However, the staff has more recently used an additional analysis that bounds an incomplete drain down of the SFP water, or some other catastrophic event (such as a complete drainage of the SFP with rearrangement of spent fuel rack geometry and/or the addition of rubble to the SFP). The analysis postulates that decay heat transfer from the spent fuel via conduction, convection, or radiation would be impeded. This analysis is often referred to as an adiabatic heatup.
The licensee's analyses referenced in its exemption request demonstrates that under conditions where the SFP water inventory has drained completely and only air-cooling of the stored irradiated fuel is available, there is reasonable assurance that after August 2014, the SONGS spent fuel will remain at temperatures far below those associated with a significant radiological release. However, a portion of the air-cooling analyses credits operation of the normal fuel building ventilation systems because the fuel building structures are robust and offer little potential for natural air exchange with the environment for cooling. Because the normal fuel building ventilation could become unavailable during an initiating event that would lead to complete SFP drainage (
Although the official certifications for permanent cessation of power operations and permanent removal of fuel from the reactor vessel were not submitted until June 2013, the staff notes that SONGS was in an extended outage to address steam generator issues, and neither SONGS, Units 2 nor 3, have produced power since January 2012. This additional storage time for the fuel in the SONGS SFPs has allowed it to cool for greater than the 5 years suggested in SECY-00-0145, which supports the conclusion that zirconium fire risks from the irradiated fuel stored in the SFPs is of negligible concern and exemption from the requested requirements is warranted.
In addition to the air-cooling scenario, the licensee's adiabatic heat-up analyses demonstrate that as of October 12, 2014, there would be at least 17 hours after the loss of all means of cooling (both air and/or water), before the spent fuel cladding would reach a temperature where the potential for a significant offsite radiological release could occur. The licensee states that for this loss of all cooling scenario, 10 hours is sufficient time for personnel to respond with additional resources, equipment, and capability to restore cooling to the SFPs, even after a non-credible, catastrophic event.
As provided in SCE's letters dated October 7 and December 15, 2014, the licensee furnished information concerning its makeup strategies, in the event of a loss of SFP coolant inventory. The multiple strategies for providing makeup to the SFPs include: using existing plant systems for inventory makeup; an internal strategy that relies on installed fire water pumps and service water or fire water storage tanks; or an external strategy that uses portable pumps to initiate makeup flow into the SFPs through a seismic standpipe and standard fire hoses routed to the SFPs or to a spray nozzle. These strategies will be maintained by a license condition until such time as all fuel has been moved to dry storage in an onsite ISFSI. The licensee states that the equipment needed to perform these actions are located onsite, and that the external makeup strategy (using portable pumps) is capable of being deployed within 2 hours. The licensee also stated that, considering the very low-probability of beyond design-basis accidents affecting the SFPs, these diverse strategies provide defense-in-depth and time to mitigate and prevent a zirconium fire, using makeup or spray into the SFPs before the onset of zirconium cladding rapid oxidation.
In the safety evaluation of the licensee's request for exemptions from certain emergency planning requirements dated June 4, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15082A204), the NRC staff assessed the SCE accident analyses associated with the radiological risks from a zirconium fire at the permanently shutdown and defueled SONGS site. The NRC staff has confirmed that under conditions where cooling air flow can develop, suitably conservative calculations indicate that by the end of August 2014, the fuel would remain at temperatures where the cladding would be undamaged for an unlimited period. The staff also finds that the additional cooling time provided for the fuel between January 2012 and the issuance of this exemption provides reasonable assurance that zirconium fire risks from the irradiated fuel stored in the SFPs is of negligible concern. For the very unlikely beyond design-basis accident scenario, where the SFP coolant inventory is lost in such a manner that all methods of heat removal from the spent fuel are no longer available, there will be a minimum of 10 hours from the initiation of the accident until the cladding reaches a temperature where offsite radiological release might occur. The staff finds that 10 hours is sufficient time to support deployment of mitigation equipment, consistent with plant conditions, to prevent the zirconium cladding from reaching a point of rapid oxidation.
The staff's basis as to why it considers $50 million to be an adequate level of onsite property damage insurance for a decommissioning reactor, once the spent fuel in the SFP is no longer susceptible to a zirconium fire, is provided in SECY-96-256. The staff has postulated that there is still a potential for other radiological incidents at a decommissioning reactor that could result in significant onsite contamination besides a zirconium fire. In SECY-96-256, the NRC staff cited the rupture of a large (~450,000 gallon) liquid radioactive waste storage tank containing slightly radioactive water, causing soil contamination and potential groundwater contamination, as the most costly postulated event to decontaminate and remediate (other than a SFP zirconium fire). The postulated large liquid radwaste storage tank rupture event was determined to have a bounding onsite cleanup cost of approximately $50 million.
The NRC staff has determined that the licensee's proposed reduction in onsite property damage insurance coverage to a level of $50 million is consistent with SECY-96-256 and subsequent insurance considerations, resulting from additional zirconium fire risks, as discussed in SECY-00-0145 and SECY-01-0100. In addition, the NRC staff notes that similar exemptions have been granted to other permanently shutdown and defueled power reactors, upon demonstration that the criterion of the zirconium fire risks from the irradiated fuel stored in the SFP is of negligible concern. As previously stated, the staff concluded that as of October 12, 2014, sufficient irradiated fuel decay time has elapsed at SONGS to decrease the probability of an onsite radiological release from a postulated zirconium fire accident to negligible levels. In addition, the licensee's proposal to reduce onsite insurance to a level of $50 million is consistent with the maximum estimated cleanup costs for the recovery from the rupture of a large liquid radwaste storage tank. Finally, the staff notes that in accordance with the SONGS PSDAR, all spent fuel will be removed from the SFPs and moved into dry storage at an onsite independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) by the end of 2019, and the probability of an initiating event that would threaten pool integrity occurring before that time is extremely low, which further supports the conclusion that the zirconium fire risk is negligible.
In accordance with 10 CFR 50.12, the Commission may grant exemptions from the regulations in 10 CFR part 50 as the Commission determines are authorized by law. The NRC staff has determined that granting the licensee's proposed exemption will not result in a violation of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Section 170, as amended, other laws, or the Commission's regulations, which require licensees to maintain adequate financial protection. Therefore, the proposed exemption for SONGS from the onsite property damage insurance requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(w)(1) is authorized by law.
The onsite property damage insurance requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(w)(1) were established to provide financial assurance that following a significant nuclear incident, onsite conditions could be stabilized and the site decontaminated. The requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(w)(1) and the existing level of onsite insurance coverage for SONGS are predicated on the assumption that the reactor is operating. However, SONGS is a permanently shutdown and defueled facility. The permanently defueled status of the facility has resulted in a significant reduction in the number and severity of potential accidents, and correspondingly, a significant reduction in the potential for and severity of onsite property damage. The proposed reduction in the amount of onsite insurance coverage does not impact the probability or consequences of potential accidents. The proposed level of insurance coverage is commensurate with the reduced risk and reduced cost consequences of potential nuclear accidents at SONGS. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that granting the requested exemption will not present an undue risk to the health and safety of the public.
The proposed exemption would not eliminate any requirements associated with physical protection of the site and would not adversely affect SCE's ability to physically secure the site or protect special nuclear material. Physical security measures at SONGS are not affected by the requested exemption. Therefore, the proposed exemption is consistent with the common defense and security.
Under 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), special circumstances are present if the application of the regulation in the particular circumstances would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule. The underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.54(w)(1) is to provide reasonable assurance that adequate funds will be available to stabilize conditions and cover onsite cleanup costs associated with site decontamination, following an accident that results in the release of a significant amount of radiological material. Because SONGS is permanently shut down and defueled, it is no longer possible for the radiological consequences of design-basis accidents or other credible events at SONGS to exceed the limits of the EPA PAGs at the exclusion area boundary. The licensee has performed site-specific analyses of highly unlikely, beyond-design-basis zirconium fire accidents involving the stored irradiated fuel in the SFPs. The analyses show that after October 12, 2014, the probabilities of such an accident are minimal. The NRC staff's evaluation of the licensee's analyses confirm this conclusion.
The NRC staff also finds that the licensee's proposed $50 million level of onsite insurance is consistent with the bounding cleanup and decontamination cost, as discussed in SECY-96-256, to account for hypothetical rupture of a large liquid radwaste tank at the SONGS site, should such an event occur. The staff notes that the SONGS technical specifications provide controls for unprotected outdoor liquid storage tanks to limit the quantity of radioactivity contained in these tanks, in the event of an uncontrolled release of the contents of these tanks. Therefore, the staff concludes that the application of the current requirements in 10 CFR 50.54(w)(1) to maintain $1.06 billion in onsite insurance coverage is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule for the permanently shutdown and defueled SONGS reactors.
Under 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(iii), special circumstances are present whenever compliance would result in undue hardship or other costs that are significantly in excess of those contemplated when the regulation was adopted, or that are significantly in excess of those incurred by others similarly situated. The NRC staff concludes that if the licensee was required to continue to maintain an onsite insurance level of $1.06 billion, the associated insurance premiums would be in excess of those necessary and commensurate with the radiological contamination risks posed by the SONGS site now that it has entered decommissioning. In addition, such insurance levels would be significantly in excess of other decommissioning reactor facilities that have been granted similar exemptions by the NRC.
The NRC staff finds that compliance with the existing rule would result in an undue hardship or other costs that are significantly in excess of those contemplated when the regulation was adopted and are significantly in excess of those incurred by others similarly situated. Therefore, the special circumstances required by 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii) and 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(iii) exist for the proposed exemption from the onsite property damage insurance requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(w)(1).
The NRC approval of an exemption to insurance or indemnity requirements belongs to a category of actions that the Commission, by rule or regulation, has declared to be a categorical exclusion, after first finding that the category of actions does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Specifically, the exemption is categorically excluded from further analysis under 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25), the granting of an exemption from the requirements of any regulation in Chapter I of 10 CFR is a categorical exclusion provided that (i) there is no significant hazards consideration; (ii) there is no significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite; (iii) there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative public or occupational radiation exposure; (iv) there is no significant construction impact; (v) there is no significant increase in the potential for or consequences from radiological accidents; and (vi) the requirements from which an exemption is sought are among those identified in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(vi).
The NRC staff has determined that approval of the exemption request involves no significant hazards consideration because reducing the licensee's onsite property damage insurance at the decommissioning San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, does not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The exempted financial protection regulation is unrelated to the operation of SONGS.
Accordingly, there is no significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite, and no significant increase in individual or cumulative public or occupational radiation exposure. The exempted regulation is not associated with construction, so there is no significant construction impact. The exempted regulation does not concern the source term (
Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) and 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the approval of this exemption request.
Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a), the exemption from 10 CFR 50.54(w)(1) is authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and is consistent with the common defense and security. In addition, special circumstances are present. Therefore, the Commission hereby grants SCE an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(w)(1), to permit the licensee to reduce its onsite property damage insurance to a level of $50 million.
This exemption is effective upon issuance.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License renewal; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued a renewal of Special Nuclear Materials (SNM) License No. SNM-986 held by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) to possess and use SNM for education, research, and training programs. The renewed license authorizes MIT to continue to possess and use SNM for an additional 10 years from the date of issuance.
The renewed license SNM-986 was issued on December 14, 2017.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0152 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Tyrone D. Naquin, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-7352; email:
Pursuant to section 2.106 of title 10 of the
The NRC prepared a safety evaluation report for the renewal of SNM-986 and concluded that the licensee can continue to operate the facility without endangering the health and safety of the public.
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through ADAMS accession numbers as indicated.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
President's Commission on White House Fellowships, Office of Personnel Management.
Notice of meeting.
The President's Commission on White House Fellowships (PCWHF) was established by an Executive Order in 1964. The PCWHF is an advisory committee composed of Special Government Employees appointed by the President.
By mail: Elizabeth Pinkerton, Director, President's Commission on White House Fellowships, 712 Jackson Place NW, Washington, DC 20503; By phone: 202-395-4522.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning the calculation of the assumed Federal income tax on competitive products income for Fiscal Year 2017. 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.
In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3634 and 39 CFR 3060.40
In accordance with 39 CFR 3060.42, the Commission establishes Docket No. T2018-1 to review the calculation of the assumed Federal income tax and supporting documentation.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filing in this docket is consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3634 and 39 CFR 3060.40
The Commission appoints Jennaca D. Upperman to serve as Public Representative in this docket.
1. The Commission establishes Docket No. T2018-1 to consider the calculation of the assumed Federal income tax on competitive products for FY 2017.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Jennaca D. Upperman is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in this proceeding (Public Representative).
3. Comments are due no later than February 2, 2018.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX PEARL Fee Schedule (the “Fee Schedule”).
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Add/Remove Tiered Rebates/Fees set forth in Section (1)(a) of the Fee Schedule to (i) modify the monthly volume thresholds that apply to MIAX PEARL Market Makers
The Exchange currently assesses transaction rebates and fees to all market participants which are based upon the total monthly volume executed by the Member on MIAX PEARL in the relevant, respective origin type (not including Excluded Contracts) expressed as a percentage of TCV. In addition, the per contract transaction rebates and fees are applied retroactively to all eligible volume for that origin type once the respective threshold tier (“Tier”) has been reached by the Member. The Exchange aggregates the volume of Members and their Affiliates.
Transaction rebates and fees applicable to all MIAX PEARL Market Makers are currently assessed according to the following table:
The Exchange proposes to modify the monthly volume thresholds applicable to the Exchange's Market Makers to adjust the thresholds in current Tiers 1, 3 and 4 and to add a new Tier 2 threshold and corresponding Tier 2 rebates and fees, as well as to add a new Tier 6 threshold and corresponding Tier 6 rebates and fees. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to adjust the calculation threshold of Tier 1's volume criteria from 0.00% up to 0.10% of the total monthly volume executed by the Member on MIAX PEARL, not including Excluded Contracts, divided by the TCV, to become above 0.00% up to 0.05% of the total monthly volume executed by the Member on MIAX PEARL, not including Excluded Contracts, divided by the TCV. The Exchange then proposes to add a new Tier 2 threshold applicable to all MIAX PEARL Market Makers. The new Tier 2 threshold volume criteria shall be calculated as above 0.05% up to 0.25% of the total monthly volume executed by the Member on MIAX PEARL, not including Excluded Contracts, divided by the TCV.
Further, the Exchange proposes to adjust the calculation threshold of former Tier 2 and now Tier 3's volume criteria from above 0.10% up to 0.50% of the total monthly volume executed by the Member on MIAX PEARL, not including Excluded Contracts, divided by the TCV, to become above 0.25% up to 0.50% of the total monthly volume executed by the Member on MIAX PEARL, not including Excluded Contracts, divided by the TCV. Former Tier 3 will now become Tier 4.
The Exchange additionally proposes to adjust the calculation threshold of former Tier 4 and now Tier 5's volume criteria from above 0.75% of the total monthly volume executed by the Member on MIAX PEARL, not including Excluded Contracts, divided by the TCV, to become above 0.75% up to 1.00% of the total monthly volume executed by the Member on MIAX PEARL, not including Excluded Contracts, divided by the TCV.
The Exchange then proposes to add a new Tier 6 threshold applicable to all MIAX PEARL Market Makers. The new Tier 6 threshold volume criteria shall be calculated as above 1.00% of the total monthly volume executed by the
The new thresholds for MIAX PEARL Market Makers will be as set forth in the following table:
The Exchange believes that the proposed new monthly volume tier and new rebates/fees in Tier 2 should provide incentives for the Exchange's Market Makers to more aggressively provide liquidity in Penny classes so that they can achieve the higher Maker rebate in Penny classes with less volume than previously required in the former tier. The Exchange additionally believes that the proposed new monthly volume tier and new rebates/fees in Tier 6 should provide incentives for the Exchange's Market Makers to more aggressively provide liquidity in Non-Penny classes so that they can achieve a higher Maker rebate in Non-Penny classes than previously offered. The Exchange believes that increased MIAX PEARL Market Maker volume should make the MIAX PEARL marketplace an attractive venue where the Exchange's Market Makers are incentivized to submit orders with narrow spreads and with greater size, deepening and enhancing the quality of the MIAX PEARL marketplace. This should in turn provide more trading opportunities and tighter spreads for other market participants and result in a corresponding increase in order flow from such other market participants.
Transaction rebates and fees applicable to all other market participants that are not Priority Customers or MIAX PEARL Market Makers are currently assessed according to the following table:
The Exchange proposes to modify the monthly volume thresholds applicable to all Non-Priority Customers, Firms, Broker-Dealers and Non-MIAX PEARL Market Makers to adjust the threshold in Tier 4 set forth above and to add a new Tier 5 threshold and corresponding Tier 5 rebates and fees. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to adjust the calculation threshold of Tier 4's volume criteria from above 0.75% of the total monthly volume executed by the Member on MIAX PEARL, not including Excluded Contracts, divided by the TCV, to become above 0.75% up to 1.00% of the total monthly volume executed by the Member on MIAX PEARL, not including Excluded Contracts, divided by the TCV. The rebates and fees applicable in the new Tier 5 shall be ($0.48) and $0.48 per contract for Penny classes, and ($0.85) and $1.04 for Non-Penny classes.
Additionally, the Exchange proposes to add a new Tier 5 threshold applicable to all such market participants. The new Tier 5 threshold volume criteria shall be calculated as above 1.00% of the total monthly volume executed by the Member on MIAX PEARL, not including Excluded Contracts, divided by the TCV.
The new thresholds for Non-Priority Customers, Firms, Broker-Dealers and Non-MIAX PEARL Market Makers will be as set forth in the following table:
The Exchange believes that the proposed new monthly volume tier and higher rebate in Tier 5 should provide incentives for such market participants to direct greater volume to the Exchange in Non-Penny classes. The Exchange believes that increased order flow by these market participants should make the MIAX PEARL marketplace an attractive venue where these market participants are incentivized to submit orders with narrower spreads and with greater size, deepening and enhancing the quality of the MIAX PEARL marketplace. This should in turn provide more trading opportunities and tighter spreads for all market participants and result in a corresponding increase in order flow from all market participants.
The Exchange proposes to offer Members transacting volume in MIAX PEARL Market Maker, Non-Priority Customer, Firm, Broker Dealer, and Non-MIAX PEARL Market Maker origin types (the “Select Origins”) a new method to achieve higher rebates and lower fees for transactions in Non-Penny classes. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to offer Members transacting volume in the Select Origins the Maker rebate and the Taker fee associated with the highest Tier for that respective origin type in Non-Penny classes for transactions in Non-Penny classes if such Member executes more than 0.30% volume in Non-Penny classes, not including Excluded Contracts, as compared to the TCV in all MIAX PEARL listed option classes. For example, under the proposed tiers, if a Market Maker transacted monthly volume of 0.45% in both Penny and Non-Penny classes, not including Excluded Contracts, as divided by TCV, such Member would receive proposed Tier 3 rebates and fees: Maker rebate of ($0.40) for orders that placed resting liquidity on the book and Taker fee of $0.48 for orders that removed liquidity from the book in Penny classes; Maker rebate of ($0.60) for orders that placed resting liquidity on the book and Taker fee of $1.03 for orders that removed liquidity from the book in Non-Penny classes. However, if such Member's volume was heavily concentrated in Non-Penny classes where its Non-Penny executed volume was above 0.30%, not including Excluded Contracts, as divided by TCV in all MIAX PEARL listed options classes, such Member would receive a Maker rebate of ($0.85) and Taker fee of $1.02, the proposed rates for Tier 6 in Non-Penny classes for Market Makers. Its Maker rebate of ($0.40) and Taker fee of $0.48 will continue to apply for Penny classes for Market Makers in proposed Tier 3. This example would be similar for Non-Priority Customers, Firms, Broker Dealers, and Non-MIAX PEARL Market Makers, except for the variations in the rates and thresholds. For example, under the proposed tiers, if a Member in these origins transacted monthly volume of 0.45% in both Penny and Non-Penny classes, not including Excluded Contracts, as divided by TCV, such Member would receive Tier 2 rebates and fees: Maker rebate of ($0.40) for orders that placed resting liquidity on the book and Taker fee of $0.49 for orders that removed liquidity from the book in Penny classes; Maker rebate of ($0.60) for orders that placed resting liquidity on the book and Taker fee of $1.04 for orders that removed liquidity from the book in Non-Penny classes. However, if such Member's volume was heavily concentrated in Non-Penny classes where its Non-Penny executed volume was above 0.30%, not including Excluded Contracts, as divided by TCV in all MIAX PEARL listed options classes, such Member would receive a Maker rebate of ($0.85) and Taker fee of $1.04, the proposed rates for Tier 5 in Non-Penny classes for these origins. Its Maker rebate of ($0.40) and Taker fee of $0.49 will continue to apply for Penny classes in that origin type in proposed Tier 2.
Lastly, the Exchange proposes to offer Members an alternative method to achieve such higher rebates and lower fees for transactions in Non-Penny classes by permitting the Member to aggregate its volume in Non-Penny classes with that of its Affiliates
The proposed rule change is scheduled to become operative January 2, 2018.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes that the proposed new tier structure applicable to the Exchange's Market Makers is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act in that it is fair, equitable and not unreasonably discriminatory and should improve market quality for the Exchange's Market Makers and
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes applicable to MIAX PEARL Market Makers are consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act in that they promote equitable access to the Exchange for all market participants. To the extent that MIAX PEARL Market Maker volume is increased by the proposal, market participants will increasingly compete for the opportunity to trade on the Exchange including sending more orders that are narrower and larger-sized. The resulting increased volume and liquidity will benefit all Exchange participants by providing more trading opportunities and tighter spreads.
The specific volume thresholds of the Tiers and the rebates and fees set forth in new Tiers 2 and 6 applicable to the Exchange's Market Makers were set based upon business determinations and an analysis of current volume levels. The Exchange believes that the proposed new monthly volume tier and new rebates/fees in Tier 2 should provide incentives for the Exchange's Market Makers to more aggressively provide liquidity so that they can achieve the higher Maker rebate in Penny classes with less volume than previously required in the former tier. The Maker Rebates and Taker Fees set forth in new Tier 6 are within the range of rebates and fees at other exchanges that have a Maker-Taker fee structure.
The Exchange believes that the proposed new tier structure applicable to the Exchange's other market participants who are not Priority Customers or MIAX PEARL Market Makers,
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes applicable to Non-Priority Customers, Firms, Broker-Dealers and Non-MIAX PEARL Market Makers are consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act in that they promote equitable access to the Exchange for all market participants. To the extent order flow by these market participants is increased by the proposal, other market participants will increasingly compete for the opportunity to trade on the Exchange including sending more orders that are narrower and larger sized. The resulting increased volume and liquidity will benefit all Exchange participants by providing more trading opportunities and tighter spreads.
The specific volume thresholds of Tiers 4 and 5 and the rebates and fees set forth in new Tier 5 applicable to Non-Priority Customers, Firms, Broker-Dealers and Non-MIAX PEARL Market Makers were set based upon business determinations and an analysis of current volume levels. The Maker Rebates and Taker Fees set forth in new Tier 5 are within the range of rebates and fees at other exchanges that have a Maker-Taker fee structure.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change applicable to Members' volume in Non-Penny classes is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act in that it is fair, equitable and not unreasonably discriminatory and should improve market quality for the Exchange's order flow in Non-Penny classes which will benefit all market participants. The proposed changes are fair and equitable and not unreasonably discriminatory because they apply equally to all Member orders in Non-Penny classes. All similarly situated Member orders in Non-Penny classes are subject to the same rebates and fees if they achieve the specified volume in Non-Penny classes, and access to the Exchange is offered on terms that are not unfairly discriminatory. The Exchange's proposal to offer Members and its Affiliates the opportunity to achieve such higher rebates and lower fees for transactions in Non-Penny classes by permitting the Member to aggregate its volume in Non-Penny classes with that of its Affiliates in the Select Origins, is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange will offer such market participants a means to reduce transaction fees by qualifying for higher volume in Non-Penny classes. The Exchange believes that offering all such market participants the opportunity to lower transaction fees by incentivizing them to transact order flow in Non-Penny classes in turn benefits all market participants. To the extent that this purpose is achieved, all the Exchange's market participants should benefit from the improved market liquidity. Enhanced market quality and increased transaction volume that results from the anticipated increase in order flow in Non-Penny classes directed to the Exchange will benefit all market participants and improve competition on the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that the proposal to allow the aggregation of
The Exchange believes that the proposal, which would only include volume transacted in Non-Penny classes of Members and their Affiliates from the Select Origins for purposes of the threshold aggregation, is fair, equitable and not unreasonably discriminatory. The Exchange believes that not including Priority Customer volume transacted in Non-Penny classes is reasonable because Priority Customers already receive a higher level of rebates offered by the Exchange for transactions in Non-Penny classes, higher than the rebate amounts proposed for the Select Origins. In Non-Penny classes, Priority Customers can receive Maker rebates of between ($0.85) to ($1.05) compared to the proposed highest tier rebate of ($0.85) for Select Origins. Other exchanges use similar qualifications for use in tier thresholds. For example, on Cboe BZX, for Firm, Broker Dealer, and Joint Back Office, a member would be required to have an ADAV (average daily added volume) in Non-Customer Non-Penny Orders >=0.20% of average OCV (OCC Customer Volume), as one of the criteria (criteria 3) to reach tier 3 or tier 4.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes applicable to Members' volume in Non-Penny classes are consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act in that they to promote just and equitable principles of trade of options in Non-Penny classes. To the extent Member volume in Non-Penny classes is increased by the proposal, market participants will increasingly compete for the opportunity to trade on the Exchange in Non-Penny classes which could result in more orders that are narrower and larger-sized. The resulting increased volume and liquidity will benefit all Exchange participants by providing more trading opportunities and tighter spreads.
MIAX PEARL does not believe that the proposed rule changes will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the proposed changes would increase both intermarket and intramarket competition by encouraging MIAX PEARL Market Makers as well as Non-Priority Customers, Firms, Broker-Dealers and Non-MIAX PEARL Market Makers to direct their orders to the Exchange, which should provide liquidity to the marketplace and increase the volume of contracts traded on MIAX PEARL. The Exchange believes that the proposed changes in the tier structure for these market participants should provide additional liquidity that enhances the quality of the Exchange's markets and increases the number of trading opportunities on MIAX PEARL for all participants who will be able to compete for such opportunities. The Exchange additionally believes that the proposed changes in volume associated with Non-Penny classes and the opportunity to receive higher rebates and lower fees as a result of achieving the specified volume in Non-Penny classes should provide additional liquidity in Non-Penny classes and encourage order flow for such classes. To the extent that there are market participants that are not able to aggregate order flow with Affiliates, the Exchange believes that this should incent such market participants to direct additional order flow to the Exchange and thus provide additional liquidity that enhances the quality of its markets and increases the volume of contracts traded here especially in Non-Penny classes. This should benefit all market participants and improve competition on the Exchange.
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. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its rebates and fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and to attract order flow. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes reflect this competitive environment because they modify the Exchange's fees in a manner that encourages all market participants to provide liquidity and to send order flow to the Exchange.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend BOX Rule 3030 to establish rules related to the use of Floor Broker error accounts. The text of the proposed rule change is available from the principal office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the Exchange's internet website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend BOX Rule 3030 to establish rules related to the use of Floor Broker error accounts. First, the Exchange proposes that each Participant who conducts a business as a Floor Broker on the Exchange and who is not self-clearing must establish and maintain an account with a clearing Participant of the Exchange, for the sole purpose of carrying positions resulting from bona fide errors made in the course of its floor brokerage business.
In practice, a Floor Broker will remedy a bona fide error by entering a subsequent trade on behalf of the customer on the correct terms of the original order. These types of transactions are transactions which broker-dealers place to remedy the execution of customer orders that have been placed in error or mishandled due to an error involving any term of an order, including but not limited to, for example, price, number of contracts, identification of security, or execution of a transaction on the wrong side of the market.
Next, the Exchange proposes that each Participant which conducts business as a Floor Broker must make available to the Exchange, upon request, accurate and complete records of all trades cleared in such Participant's error account. These records must include the following audit trail data elements: (1) Name or identifying symbol of the security; (2) number of shares or quantity of security; (3) transaction price; (4) time of trade execution; (5) executing Floor Broker badge number, or alpha symbol as may be used from time to time, in regard to its side of the contract; (6) executing Floor Broker badge number, or alpha symbol as may be used from time to time, of the contra side to the contract; (7) clearing firm number, or alpha symbol as may be used from time to time, in regard to its side of the contract; (8) clearing firm number, or alpha symbol as may be used from time to time, in regard to the contra side of the contract; (9) designation of whether the account for which the order was executed was that of a Participant; (10) the nature and amount of the error; (11) the Participant that cleared the error trade on the Participant's behalf; (12) an explanation of the means by which the Participant resolved the error; (13) the aggregate amount of liability that the Participant
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
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. More specifically, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition because it will be applicable to all Floor Brokers. In addition, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed change will impose any burden on intermarket competition because proposed Rule 3030 simply provides a mechanism for correcting errors. Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed change does not impose a burden on competition because it simply sets forth the process for Floor Brokers to correct bone fide errors on the Trading Floor.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
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) of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange is filing a proposal to make minor corrective changes to Exchange Rule 700, Exercise of Option Contracts; Rule 1308, Supervision of Accounts; and Rule 1322, Options Communications.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 700, Exercise of Option Contracts; Rule 1308, Supervision of Accounts; and Rule 1322, Options Communications, to make minor non-substantive corrective changes.
First, the Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 700(l) to make minor typographical corrections to cross-references in subsections (3), (5), and (7). The Exchange recently amended Rule 700 by renumbering paragraph (h) as paragraph (l).
Second, the Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 1308, Supervision of Accounts, to make minor typographical corrections to cross-references in the rule text. Specifically, Rule 1308(g)(6) cross-references Rule 1307(g) and 1307(h), which should instead cross-reference Rule 1308(g) and 1308(h) respectively. Rule 1308(g)(6) currently reads “[a] Member that specifically includes its options compliance program in a report that complies with substantially similar requirements of the New York Stock Exchange or FINRA will be deemed to have met the requirements of this Rule 1307(g) and Rule 1307(h).” The Exchange proposes to correct this language to instead cross-reference “Rule 1308(g)” and “Rule 1308(h)” respectively. Additionally, Rule 1308(h) cross-references Rule 1307(g), which should instead cross-reference Rule 1308(g). Rule 1308(h) currently reads “[b]y April 1 of each year, each Member shall submit a copy of the report that Rule 1307(g) requires the Member to prepare . . .” The Exchange proposes to correct the cross-reference from “Rule 1307(g)” to Rule “1308(g).”
Finally, the Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 1322, Options Communications, to make minor typographical corrections and to make corrections to cross-references in the rule text. Specifically, Rule 1322(e)(1)(ii) is currently missing the word “and” after the semicolon in this section. Therefore, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 1322(e)(1)(ii) to read “[c]ontain contact information for obtaining a copy of the ODD; and.” Additionally, the Exchange proposes to correct a typographical error in Rule 1322(e)(1)(iii). Currently, this section contains both a period and a semicolon at the end of the text. The Exchange proposes to remove the semicolon and leave only the period. Additionally, the Exchange proposes to make minor typographical changes to a cross-reference in Rule 1322(f). Currently, this section references “Rule 1322(e)(1)(B).” However, that is an erroneous cross-reference and the Exchange proposes to replace it with a cross-reference to “Rule 1322(e)(1)(ii).” The Exchange notes that this does not change the wording of the rule or its application, but only corrects the cross-reference to properly conform to the hierarchical heading scheme used throughout the Exchange's rulebook.
The Exchange believes that its proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes the proposed changes promote just and equitable principles of trade and remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because the proposed rule change corrects minor typographical errors and corrects errors in the hierarchical heading scheme to provide uniformity in the Exchange's rulebook. The Exchange notes that the proposed changes to Exchange Rule 700, Exercise of Option Contracts; Rule 1308, Supervision of Accounts; and Rule 1322, Options Communications, do not alter the application of each rule. As such, the proposed amendments would foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities and would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national exchange system. In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes will provide greater clarity to Members
MIAX Options does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change will have no impact on competition as it is not designed to address any competitive issues but rather is designed to add additional clarity to existing rules and to remedy minor non-substantive issues in the text of various rules identified in this proposal.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket competition as the Rules apply equally to all Exchange Members.
Written comments were neither solicited nor 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 after the date of the filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may 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 to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to list and trade the shares of the Goldman Sachs Access Emerging Markets Local Currency Bond ETF (the “Fund”), a series of Goldman Sachs ETF Trust (the “Trust”), under Commentary .02 to NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E(j)(3) (“Investment Company Units”). 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 list and trade shares (“Shares”) of the Goldman Sachs Access Emerging Markets Local Currency Bond ETF (“Fund”) under Commentary .02 to NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E(j)(3), which governs the listing and trading of Investment Company Units (“ICUs”) on the Exchange.
The investment adviser to the Fund will be Goldman Sachs Asset Management, L.P. (“Adviser”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
According to the Registration Statement, the Fund will seek to provide investment results that closely correspond, before fees and expenses, to the performance of the Citi Goldman Sachs Emerging Markets Local Currency Government Bond Index (the “Index”). Under normal market conditions,
While, under normal market conditions, the Fund will seek to achieve its investment objective by investing at least 80% of its assets (exclusive of collateral held from securities lending) in securities included in the Index, the Fund may invest up to 20% of its net assets in the securities and financial instruments not included in the Index, as described below.
The Fund may invest in commercial paper and other short-term obligations issued or guaranteed by U.S. corporations, non-U.S. corporations or other entities.
The Fund may hold foreign currencies.
The Fund may invest in investment company securities, including exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”)
The Fund may invest in equity and fixed income securities of foreign issuers, including securities quoted or denominated in a currency other than U.S. dollars.
The Fund may invest in Global Depositary Notes, credit linked notes and loan participation notes.
The Fund may purchase and sell futures contracts and may also purchase and write call and put options on futures contracts. The Fund may purchase and sell futures contracts based on US and foreign securities indices, foreign currencies, interest rates and Eurodollars.
The Fund may enter into interest rate, credit, total return, and currency swaps. The Fund also may enter into index swaps.
The Fund may invest in foreign currency forward contracts.
The Fund may enter into repurchase and reverse repurchase agreements.
The Fund may invest in U.S. Government Securities.
The Fund may invest in zero coupon, deferred interest, pay-in-kind and capital appreciation bonds.
The Fund may invest in inflation protected securities of varying maturities issued by the U.S. Treasury and other U.S. and non-U.S. Government agencies and corporations.
The Fund may invest in restricted securities (Rule 144A securities).
The Index is a rules-based index that is designed to measure the performance of bonds issued by emerging market
The Index is a custom index that is owned and calculated by FTSE Fixed Income LLC (“FTSE” or the “Index Provider”), and is based on the Citi Emerging Markets Government Bond Index (the “Reference Index”) using concepts developed with Goldman Sachs Asset Management.
The Index Provider constructs the Index in accordance with a rules-based methodology that involves two steps:
In the first step, the Index Provider defines the universe of potential index components (“Universe”) by applying specified criteria to the constituent securities of the Reference Index. The Reference Index includes sovereign debt issued in local currency that has a minimum of one year to maturity and is rated at least C by S&P or Ca by Moody's. Issuers need to have a minimum of local currency equivalent of $10 billion outstanding for three consecutive months to be eligible for inclusion in the Reference Index. Only constituents of the Reference Index that have a minimum local currency equivalent of approximately $1 billion outstanding are included in the Universe. Provided there are 10 or more countries represented in the Universe, the weight of each country within the Universe is capped at 10%.
In the second step, the Index Provider applies a fundamental screen to the Universe. Issuers are measured by two fundamental factors, money supply growth and current account to gross domestic product (“GDP”). The Index Provider ranks each issuer based on the two fundamental factors, equally weighted. The Index is constructed by including the highest ranking eligible securities, screening out lowest ranking eligible securities.
The Index is rebalanced (i) monthly on the last business day of each month, to account for changes in maturities or ratings migration, and (ii) quarterly, to account for updates to the constituent securities on the basis of the fundamental factors (as described above).
As of July 31, 2017, issuers from the following emerging market countries were included in the Index: Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Hungary, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, Poland, Russia, South Africa, and Thailand. The countries included in the Index may change over time. The percentage of the portfolio exposed to any country or geographic region will vary from time to time as the weightings of the securities within the Index change, and the Fund may not be invested in each country or geographic region at all times. All such issuers are a government of a foreign country or a political subdivision of a foreign country.
The Exchange is submitting this proposed rule change because the Index does not meet all of the “generic” listing requirements of Commentary .02 to NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E(j)(3) applicable to the listing of Units. The Index meets all such requirements except for those set forth in Commentary .02(a)(5) to NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E(j)(3) that an underlying index or portfolio (excluding one consisting entirely of exempted securities) must include a minimum of 13 non-affiliated issuers. Specifically, as of July 31, 2017, the Index included components from 12 non-affiliated issuers, each of which is a foreign government or political subdivision of a foreign country.
The Exchange represents that (1) except for the requirement under Commentary .02(a)(5) to NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E(j)(3) that an underlying index or portfolio (excluding one consisting entirely of exempted securities) must include a minimum of 13 non-affiliated issuers, the Shares of the Fund would satisfy all of the generic listing standards under NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E(j)(3); (2) the continued listing standards under NYSE Arca Rules 5.2-E(j)(3) and 5.5-E(g)(2) applicable to ICUs shall apply to the Shares; and (3) the Trust is required to comply with Rule 10A-3
The Exchange represents that the Fund will comply with the initial and continued listing requirements of NYSE Arca Rules 5.2-E(j)(3) and 5.5-E(g)(2) applicable to ICUs on a continued basis. In addition, the Exchange represents that the Shares will comply with all other requirements applicable to ICUs including, but not limited to, requirements relating to the dissemination of key information such as the Index value and Intraday Indicative Value, rules governing the trading of equity securities, initial minimum number of shares required to be outstanding at commencement of trading, hours of trading in the Exchange's Early, Core and Late Trading Sessions, trading halts, surveillance,
The Exchange believes it is appropriate to permit the listing and trading of the Shares notwithstanding that the requirement of Commentary .02(a)(5) to NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E(j)(3) is not met because the non-affiliated issuers represented by the Index components each is and will be a foreign sovereign government or government entity with a substantial amount of debt issuances outstanding, and, therefore, will make manipulation of the Index less feasible.
The Index will at all times include a minimum of ten non-affiliated issuers that are foreign sovereign government or government entities, and a minimum of 75 components, in addition to meeting the other continued listing requirements of Commentary .02 to NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E (j)(3).
All statements and representations made in this filing regarding (a) the description of the index, portfolio or reference asset, (b) limitations on index or portfolio holdings or reference assets, or (c) the applicability of Exchange listing rules specified in this rule filing will constitute continued listing requirements for listing the Shares of the Fund on the Exchange.
The issuer must notify the Exchange of any failure by the Fund to comply with the continued listing requirements, and, pursuant to its obligations under Section 19(g)(1) of the Act, the Exchange will monitor for compliance with the continued listing requirements. If the Fund is not in compliance with the applicable listing requirements, the Exchange will commence delisting procedures under NYSE Arca Rule 5.5-E(m).
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices in that the Shares will be listed and traded on the Exchange pursuant to the generic listing criteria in Commentary .02 to NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E(j)(3), except that the Index does not meet the requirement in Commentary .02(a)(5) to NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E(j)(3) that an underlying index or portfolio (excluding one consisting entirely of exempted securities) must include a minimum of 13 non-affiliated issuers. The Exchange believes that its surveillance procedures are adequate to properly monitor the trading of the Shares on the Exchange during all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and the applicable federal securities laws.
The proposed rule change is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade and to protect investors and the public interest in that the Index will at all times include a minimum of ten non-affiliated issuers that are foreign sovereign government or government entities; as noted above, such sovereign issuers have a substantial amount of debt outstanding.
In addition, the Exchange will obtain a representation from the issuer of the Shares that the net asset value (“NAV”) per Share will be calculated daily every day the New York Stock Exchange is open, and that the NAV will be made available to all market participants at the same time. In addition, a large amount of publicly available information will be publicly available regarding the Fund and the Shares, thereby promoting market transparency.
Moreover, the Intraday Indicative Value (“IIV”) will be widely disseminated by one or more major market data vendors at least every 15 seconds during the Exchange's Core Trading Session (normally, 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Eastern Time). Information regarding market price and trading volume of the Shares will be continually available on a real-time basis throughout the day on brokers' computer screens and other electronic services, and quotations and last sale information will be available via the Consolidated Tape Association (“CTA”) high-speed line. Quotation and last sale information for the Shares will be available via the CTA high-speed line. Price information for the Index components will be available from automated quotation systems, published or other public sources, or online information services such as Bloomberg or Reuters. The Fund's website, which will be publicly available prior to the public offering of Shares, will include a form of the prospectus for the Fund that may be downloaded. On each business day, before commencement of trading in Shares in the Core Trading Session on the Exchange, the Trust will disclose on its website the following information regarding each portfolio holding, as applicable to the type of holding: Ticker symbol, CUSIP number or other identifier, if any; a description of the holding (including the type of holding); the identity of the security, index or other asset or instrument underlying the holding, if any; maturity date, if any; coupon rate, if any; effective date, if any; for options, the strike price; market value of the holding; quantity of each security or other asset held; and the percentage weighting of the holding in the Fund's portfolio. In addition, a portfolio composition file, which will include the security names and quantities of securities and other assets required to be delivered in exchange for the Fund's Shares, together with estimates and actual cash components, will be publicly disseminated prior to the opening of the Exchange via the National Securities Clearing
The proposed rule change is designed to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest in that it will facilitate the listing and trading of an additional type of exchange-traded product that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace. As noted above, the Shares will be subject to the existing trading surveillances administered by the Exchange and FINRA on behalf of the Exchange. The Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or both, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares and certain futures with other markets and other entities that are members of ISG, and the Exchange, FINRA on behalf of the Exchange, or both, may obtain trading information in the Shares and certain futures from such markets and other entities. In addition, the Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares and certain futures from markets and other entities that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. In addition, as noted above, investors will have ready access to information regarding the Fund's holdings, the IIV, and quotation and last sale information for the Shares.
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 that the proposed rule change will facilitate the listing and trading of an additional type of exchange-traded fund that principally holds fixed income securities of foreign sovereign governments and government entities and that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
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) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act
As discussed above, the Exchange proposes to list and trade the Shares. The Fund will seek to provide investment results that closely correspond, before fees and expenses, to the performance of the Index. The Exchange notes that the Index meets all of the generic listing requirements under Commentary .02 to NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E(j)(3), except the requirement in Commentary .02(a)(5) that the underlying index or portfolio (excluding one consisting entirely of exempted securities) include a minimum of 13 non-affiliated issuers. Instead, the Index will at all times include a minimum of 10 non-affiliated issuers that are foreign sovereign government or government entities and a minimum of 75 components, in addition to meeting the other listing requirements of Commentary .02 to NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E(j)(3). Moreover, the Fund will comply with the listing requirements of NYSE Arca Rules 5.2-E(j)(3) and 5.5-E(g)(2) applicable to ICUs on a continued basis, and will comply with all other requirements applicable to ICUs.
The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. According to the Exchange, waiver of the operative delay would benefit the market and investors by permitting trading of the Shares prior to the 30-day delayed operative date, thereby enhancing market competition. The Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the proposal operative upon filing.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to modify the NYSE American Options Fee Schedule. The proposed change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The purpose of this filing is to modify portions of the Fee Schedule, as described below, effective January 1, 2018.
Section I.C. of the Fee Schedule sets forth the Sliding Scale of transaction fees charged to NYSE American Options Marker [sic] Makers (referred to as Market Makers herein), which fees decrease upon the Market Maker achieving higher monthly volumes.
The Exchange proposes to replace the current table that describes the Sliding Scale with the table below, which modifies qualification thresholds and associated transaction fees for all Electronic Marker [sic] Maker volume:
First, the Exchange proposes to restate the volume thresholds in terms of a Market Maker's average daily volume or ADV as a percent of the TCADV, a defined term,
Second, as shown in the table above, the Exchange proposes to:
• Increase the minimum volume necessary to achieve each successive Tier;
• Differentiate the type of volume that qualifies for specific rates by applying different rates depending on whether the Market Maker volume is take or non-take volume;
• Reduce the number of Tiers from 6 to 5.
Third, because the Exchange will be offering different rates depending on whether volume is make or take, the Exchange proposes to eliminate as unnecessary the minimum volume threshold for posted volume (of 0.85% of TCADV) to qualify for a reduced per contract rate. The Exchange proposes to continue to provide reduced rates to Market Makers that participate in the Prepayment Program.
The proposed changes are designed to incent Market Makers to transact more business on the Exchange, including by posting a more meaningful percentage of TCADV, executing more take volume, and committing to transact a certain amount of business on the Exchange by enrolling in the Prepayment Program.
The Exchange also proposes to update the Prepayment Programs that it will offer beginning in 2018. In January 2015, the Exchange introduced two Prepayment Programs—for a 1- or 3- year term—to allow Market Makers to prepay a portion of the charges incurred for transactions executed on the Exchange.
The Exchange proposes to continue to offer the 1 Year Prepayment Program, without altering any aspects of the Program, including offering the same $3 million prepayment amount as was offered for 2017.
Next, the Exchange is proposing to continue to offer a “Balance of the Year” Prepayment Program, without altering any material aspects of the Program. The Exchange would continue to require the following prepayments based on the quarter in which a Market Maker joined:
Consistent with the current Balance of the Year Prepayment Program, a Market Maker that participates in the Balance of the Year Program would receive a credit equal to its prepayment amount (
Finally, the Exchange proposes to make clear that any prepayments made pursuant to the 1 Year Prepayment Program 1 or the Balance of the Year Prepayment Program would apply to transactions effected using the BOLD Mechanism, pursuant to Section I.M. of the Fee Schedule.
Section I. E. of the Fee Schedule describes the Exchange's ACE Program. The ACE Program features a base tier and five higher tiers expressed as a percentage of TCADV
First, the Exchange proposes to delete the ACE credits for 3 Year Enhanced Customer Volume Credits, and any references thereto, to reflect that the 3 Year Prepayment Program has expired, as noted above.
Next, the Exchange proposes to modify the enhanced per contract credit applicable to Customer Complex Orders for 1 Year and Balance of the Year Prepayment Participants. Specially, the Exchange proposes to reduce the credit for Tier 1 from $0.20 to $0.19 per contract, while increasing the per contract credit for Tier 4 and 5, from $0.21 and $0.23, respectively, to $0.22 and $0.24, respectively.
The Exchange also proposes to modify the per contract credit applicable to Simple Orders on Customer volume for Tiers 3, 4 and 5. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to reduce the credit for Tier 3, 4, and 5 from $0.19, $0.20, and $0.22, respectively, to $0.17, $0.19, and $0.21, respectively. And, the Exchange proposes to increase the enhanced per contract credit applied to Simple Orders on Customer volume for Prepayment participants that qualify for Tier 5 from $0.23 to $0.24.
The proposed changes to credits payable on Customer volume are intended to encourage ATP Holders and their Affiliates and/or Appointed parties to participate in the Prepayment Programs, while still rewarding OFPs that direct significant amounts of Customer volume to the Exchange with credits on transactions.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed modifications to the Sliding Scale are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory for a number of reasons. First, the Sliding Scale is available to all Market Makers and is based on the amount of business transacted on—and is designed to attract greater volume to—the Exchange. In addition, the elimination of the alternative basis to qualify for a reduced rate by posting monthly volume of at least 0.85% TCADV (if not participating in a Prepayment Program) is not unfairly discriminatory because Market Makers that would like to receive a more favorable per contract rate under the Sliding Scale have the option to commit to one of the Prepayment Programs, which commitment increases liquidity on the Exchange to the benefit of all market participants. Moreover, all Market Makers will be subject to the proposal to impose differing rates
The Exchange believes that the proposed modifications to the Prepayment Programs are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory for a number of reasons. First, all of the Prepayment Programs offered on the Exchange are optional and Market Makers can elect to participate (or elect not to participate). Given the expiration of the 3 Year Prepayment Program, the Exchange believes that the goals of the Prepayment Program continue to be served by continuing to offer the 1 Year and Prepayment Program as well as the Balance of the Year Program. The Exchange believes that continuing to offer these Programs would provide Market Makers with the flexibility to join annually or at various points in the year, which may encourage broader participation in the Prepayment Programs. The Exchange anticipates that the potential greater capital commitment and resulting liquidity on the Exchange would benefit all market participants (including non-Market Makers). Moreover, the Exchange notes that other options exchanges likewise offer Prepayment Programs to market makers that may be joined after the start of the year.
In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposal to replace specific dates with the term “last business day” removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market by eliminating redundant annual rule filings when the Exchange is not changing its fees. The Exchange further believes that the proposal removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market by reducing potential confusion among market participants and the investing public who may see a rule filing and mistake it for a fee change when in fact a fee is not changing. The proposed change is also reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as it is designed to add clarity to the Fee Schedule to the benefit of all market participants.
The Exchange believes that the proposed change to make clear that fees associated with BOLD transactions would be applied against prepayments made under the Balance of the Year Program would add clarity, transparency and internal consistency to the Fee Schedule.
The Exchange believes the proposed changes to the ACE Program are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory for a number of reasons. First, the proposed changes to increase three of the credits associated with participants in one of the Prepayment Programs are designed to incent market participants to increase the orders sent directly to the Exchange and therefore provide liquidity that supports the quality of price discovery and promotes market transparency to the benefit of all market participants. The Exchange believes that the proposed fee change would directly relate to the activity of a Market Maker and the activity of an affiliated ATP Holder on the Exchange, thereby encouraging increased trading activity. The Exchange believes that the proposal to amend the credits associated with various Tiers of the ACE Program is reasonable because it provides ATP Holders affiliated with an NYSE American Options Market Maker with additional incentives to participate in the Prepayment Program. The Exchange believes that the proposal to slightly reduce the credits for Simple Orders not associated with participants in one of the Prepayment Programs are likewise reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because such credits are within the range offered by competing options exchanges.
The Exchange's proposed grammatical change (
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
Given the robust competition for volume among options markets, many of which offer the same products, implementing programs to attract order flow similar to the ones being proposed in this filing, are consistent with the above-mentioned goals of the Act. The
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 Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to list and trade shares of the GraniteShares Bitcoin ETF and the GraniteShares Short Bitcoin ETF (each a “Fund” and, collectively, the “Funds”), a series of the GraniteShares ETP Trust (the “Trust”), under Rule 14.11(f)(4) (“Trust Issued Receipts”). The shares of the Funds are referred to herein as the “Shares.”
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 list and trade shares of the GraniteShares Bitcoin ETF (the “Long Fund”) and the GraniteShares Short Bitcoin ETF (the “Short Fund”) under Rule 14.11(f)(4), which governs the listing and trading of Trust Issued Receipts
The Shares will be offered by the Trust, which was established as a Delaware statutory trust on November 7, 2016. The Trust will not be registered as an investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940 and is not required to register under such act.
GraniteShares Advisors LLC (the “Sponsor”) serves as the Trust's sponsor and commodity pool operator and is a member of the National Futures Association (the “NFA”). As a member of the NFA, the Sponsor is subject to NFA standards relating to fair trade practices, financial condition, and consumer protection. Bank of New York Mellon serves as administrator, custodian, and transfer agent for the Funds. Foreside Fund Services, LLC (“Marketing Agent”) serves as the distributor for the Trust.
The Funds are not actively managed by traditional methods (
Prior to listing a new commodity futures contract, a designated contract market must either submit a self-certification to the CFTC that the contract complies with the CEA and CFTC regulations or voluntarily submit the contract for CFTC approval. This process applies to all futures contracts and all commodities underlying the futures contracts, whether the new futures contracts are related to oil, gold, or any other commodity.
As such, the Exchange is proposing to list and trade the Funds under Rule 14.11(f)(4), which governs the listing and trading of Trust Issued Receipts on the Exchange.
The Long Fund seeks as its investment objective results (before fees and expenses) that, both for a single day
The Short Fund seeks to provide investment results that, on a daily basis correspond (before fees and expenses) to the inverse (-1x) of the daily performance of the Benchmark Futures Contracts for a single day. By being short Bitcoin Futures Contracts, as defined below, the Short Fund seeks to benefit from daily decreases in the price of the Bitcoin Futures Contracts and will lose value when the price of the Bitcoin Futures Contracts increase.
Each Fund will, under Normal Market Conditions,
Each Fund intends to enter into swap agreements only with major, global financial institutions that meet certain credit quality standards and monitoring policies. The Funds will each use various techniques to minimize credit risk, including posting collateral daily that is marked to market, using different counterparties, and limiting the net amount due from any individual counterparty.
Bitcoin Futures Contracts are measures of the market's expectation of the price of bitcoin at certain points in the future, and as such will behave differently than current or spot bitcoin prices. The Funds are not linked to bitcoin and in many cases the Funds could significantly underperform or outperform the price of bitcoin.
The Funds do not intend to hold Bitcoin Futures Contracts through expiration, but instead intend to either close or “roll” their respective positions. When the market for these contracts is such that the prices are higher in the more distant delivery months than in the nearer delivery months, the sale during the course of the “rolling process” of the more nearby contract would take place at a price that is lower than the price of the more nearby Bitcoin Futures Contracts would take place at a price that is lower than the price of the more distant Bitcoin Futures Contracts [sic]. This pattern of higher futures prices for longer expiration Bitcoin Futures Contracts is referred to as “contango.” Alternatively, when the market for certain Bitcoin Futures Contracts is such that the prices are higher in the nearer months than in the more distant months, the sale during the course of the “rolling process” of the more nearby Bitcoin Futures Contracts would take place at a price that is higher than the price of the more distant Bitcoin Futures Contracts. This pattern of higher future prices for shorter expiration Bitcoin Futures Contracts is referred to as “backwardation.” The presence of contango in the relevant Bitcoin Futures Contracts at the time of rolling would be expected to adversely affect the long positions held by the Long Fund, and positively affect the short positions held by the Short Fund. Similarly, the presence of backwardation in Bitcoin Futures Contracts at the time of rolling such Bitcoin Futures Contracts would be expected to adversely affect the short positions held by the Short Fund and positively affect the long positions held by the Long Fund.
Each Fund's investments will be consistent with its investment objective and will not be used to enhance leverage (although certain derivatives and other investments may result in leverage).
The Exchange recognizes that certain policy concerns exist as it relates to any series of Trust Issued Receipts that are listed on the Exchange, but that these concerns, as well as certain other concerns raised by this proposal specifically, are mitigated as it relates to the Funds and their holdings for the reasons enumerated below.
First, the Exchange believes that the policy concerns related to an underlying reference asset and its susceptibility to manipulation are mitigated as it relates to bitcoin because the very nature of the bitcoin ecosystem makes manipulation of bitcoin difficult. The geographically diverse and continuous nature of bitcoin trading makes it difficult and prohibitively costly to manipulate the price of bitcoin and, in many instances, that the bitcoin market is generally less susceptible to manipulation than the equity, fixed income, and commodity futures markets. There are a number of reasons this is the case, including that there is not inside information about revenue, earnings, corporate activities, or sources of supply; it is generally not possible to disseminate false or misleading information about bitcoin in order to manipulate; manipulation of the price on any single venue would require manipulation of the global bitcoin price in order to be effective; a substantial over-the-counter market provides liquidity and shock-absorbing capacity; bitcoin's 24/7/365 nature provides constant arbitrage opportunities across all trading venues; and it is unlikely that any one actor could obtain a dominant market share.
Further, bitcoin is arguably less susceptible to manipulation than other commodities that underlie ETPs; there may be inside information relating to the supply of the physical commodity such as the discovery of new sources of supply or significant disruptions at mining facilities that supply the commodity that simply are inapplicable as it relates to bitcoin. Further, the Exchange believes that the fragmentation across bitcoin exchanges, the relatively slow speed of transactions, and the capital necessary to maintain a significant presence on each exchange make manipulation of bitcoin prices through continuous trading activity unlikely. Moreover, the linkage between the bitcoin markets and the presence of arbitrageurs in those markets means that the manipulation of the price of bitcoin price on any single venue would require manipulation of the global bitcoin price in order to be effective. Arbitrageurs must have funds distributed across multiple bitcoin exchanges in order to take advantage of temporary price dislocations, thereby making it unlikely that there will be strong concentration of funds on any particular bitcoin exchange. As a result, the potential for manipulation on a particular bitcoin exchange would require overcoming the liquidity supply of such arbitrageurs who are effectively eliminating any cross-market pricing differences. For all of these reasons, bitcoin is not particularly susceptible to manipulation, especially as compared to other approved ETP reference assets.
Second, the Exchange believes that the policy concerns related to the susceptibility to manipulation of an underlying futures contract is, in addition to the arguments above, further mitigated by the significant liquidity that the Exchange expects to exist in the market for Bitcoin Futures Contracts. This belief is based on numerous conversations with market participants,
According to the Registration Statement, the net asset value (“NAV”) of the Shares of the Funds will be calculated by dividing the value of the net assets of the Fund (
Bitcoin Futures Contracts are generally valued at their settlement price as determined by the relevant exchange. Cash and Cash Equivalents will generally be valued at their market price using market quotations or information provided by a pricing service. Listed Bitcoin Swaps are generally valued at their settlement price as determined by the relevant swap execution facility. OTC swaps will be valued based on the then-current disseminated levels for the Bitcoin Futures Contracts or the applicable reference price for bitcoin applicable to the contract.
For more information regarding the valuation of Fund investments in calculating a Fund's NAV, see the Registration Statement.
The Funds will issue and redeem Shares on a continuous basis at the NAV per Share only in large blocks of a specified number of Shares or multiples thereof (“Creation Units”) in transactions with authorized participants who have entered into agreements with the Distributor. The Adviser currently anticipates that a Creation Unit will consist of 10,000 Shares, though this number may change from time to time, including prior to listing of the Shares. The exact number of Shares that will constitute a Creation Unit will be disclosed in the Registration Statement. Once created, Shares of the Funds may trade on the secondary market in amounts less than a Creation Unit.
Although the Adviser anticipates that purchases and redemptions for Creation Units will generally be executed on an all-cash basis, the consideration for purchase of Creation Units of the Funds may consist of an in-kind deposit of a designated portfolio of assets (including any portion of such assets for which cash may be substituted) (
The Deposit Assets and Fund Securities (as defined below), as the case may be, in connection with a purchase or redemption of a Creation Unit, generally will correspond pro rata, to the extent practicable, to the assets held by the Funds.
The Cash Component will be an amount equal to the difference between the NAV of the Shares (per Creation Unit) and the “Deposit Amount,” which will be an amount equal to the market value of the Deposit Assets, and serve to compensate for any differences between the NAV per Creation Unit and the Deposit Amount. The Funds generally offer Creation Units partially or entirely for cash. The Adviser will make available through the National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”) on each business day, prior to the opening of business on the Exchange, the list of names and the required number or par value of each Deposit Asset and the amount of the Cash Component to be included in the current Fund Deposit (based on information as of the end of the previous business day) for the Fund.
The identity and number or par value of the Deposit Assets may change pursuant to changes in the composition of a Fund's portfolio as rebalancing and rolling adjustments and corporate action events occur from time to time. The composition of the Deposit Assets may also change in response to adjustments to the weighting or composition of the holdings of the Fund.
The Fund reserves the right to permit or require the substitution of a “cash in lieu” amount to be added to the Cash Component to replace any Deposit Asset that may not be available in sufficient quantity for delivery or that may not be eligible for transfer through the Depository Trust Company (“DTC”) or the clearing process through the NSCC.
Except as noted below, all creation orders must be placed for one or more Creation Units and must be received by the Distributor at a time specified by the Adviser. The Fund currently intends that such orders must be received in proper form no later than 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the date such order is placed in order for creation of Creation Units to be effected based on the NAV of Shares of each Fund as next determined on such date after receipt of the order in proper form. The “Settlement Date” is generally the second business day after the transmittal date. On days when the Exchange or the futures markets close earlier than normal, the Funds may require orders to create or to redeem Creation Units to be placed earlier in the day.
Fund Deposits must be delivered through either the Continuous Net Settlement facility of the NSCC, the Federal Reserve System (for cash and government securities), through DTC (for corporate securities), or through a central depository account, such as with Euroclear or DTC, maintained by each Fund's Custodian (a “Central Depository Account”), in any case at the discretion of the Adviser, by an authorized participant. Any portion of a Fund Deposit that may not be delivered through the NSCC, Federal Reserve System or DTC must be delivered through a Central Depository Account.
A standard creation transaction fee may be imposed to offset the transfer and other transaction costs associated with the issuance of Creation Units.
Shares of the Funds may be redeemed only in Creation Units at their NAV next determined after receipt of a redemption request in proper form by the Distributor and only on a business day. The Adviser will make available through the NSCC, prior to the opening of business on the Exchange on each business day, the designated portfolio of assets (including any portion of such assets for which cash may be substituted) that will be applicable (subject to possible amendment or correction) to redemption requests received in proper form on that day (“Fund Securities”). The redemption proceeds for a Creation Unit generally will consist of a specified amount of cash less a redemption transaction fee. The Fund generally will redeem Creation Units entirely for cash.
A standard redemption transaction fee may be imposed to offset transfer and other transaction costs that may be incurred by the Fund.
Redemption requests for Creation Units of the Funds must be submitted to the Distributor by or through an authorized participant by a time specified by the Adviser. The Fund currently intends that such requests must be received no later than 3:30 p.m. Eastern Time on any business day, in order to receive that day's NAV. The authorized participant must transmit the request for redemption in the form required by the Funds to the Distributor in accordance with procedures set forth in the authorized participant agreement.
Additional information regarding the Shares and the Funds, including investment strategies, risks, creation and redemption procedures, fees and expenses, portfolio holdings disclosure policies, distributions, taxes and reports to be distributed to beneficial owners of the Shares can be found in the Registration Statement or on the website for the Funds (
The Funds' website, which will be publicly available prior to the public offering of Shares, will include a form of the prospectus for each Fund that may be downloaded. The websites will include additional quantitative information updated on a daily basis, including, for the Fund: (1) The prior business day's reported NAV, the closing market price or the midpoint of the bid/ask spread at the time of calculation of such NAV (the “Bid/Ask Price”),
In addition, for each Fund, an estimated value that reflects an estimated intraday value of the Fund's portfolio (the “Intraday Indicative Value”), will be disseminated. Moreover, the Intraday Indicative Value will be based upon the current value for the components of the Disclosed Portfolio and will be updated and widely disseminated by one or more major market data vendors at least every 15 seconds during the Exchange's Regular Trading Hours.
The dissemination of the Intraday Indicative Value, together with the Disclosed Portfolio, will allow investors to determine the value of the underlying portfolio of each Fund on a daily basis and provide an estimate of that value throughout the trading day.
Intraday price quotations on Cash Equivalents of the type held by the Funds are available from major broker-dealer firms and from third-parties, which may provide prices free with a time delay, or “live” with a paid fee. For Bitcoin Futures Contracts and Listed Bitcoin Swaps, such intraday information is available directly from the applicable listing venue. Intraday price information is also available through subscription services, such as Bloomberg and Thomson Reuters, which can be accessed by authorized participants and other investors. Pricing information related to Cash Equivalents will be available through issuer websites and publicly available quotation services such as Bloomberg, Markit and Thomson Reuters.
Information regarding market price and volume of the Shares will be continually available on a real-time basis throughout the day on brokers' computer screens and other electronic services. The previous day's closing price and trading volume information for the Shares will be generally available daily in the print and online financial press. Quotation and last sale information for the Shares will be available on the facilities of the CTA.
The Shares will be subject to BZX Rule 14.11(f)(4), which sets forth the initial and continued listing criteria applicable to Trust Issued Receipts that invest in Financial Instruments. The Exchange will obtain a representation that the Trust's NAV will be calculated daily and that these values and information about the assets of the Trust will be made available to all market participants at the same time. The Trust currently expects that there will be at least 20,000 Shares outstanding at the time of commencement of trading on the
As required in Rule 14.11(f)(4)(D), the Exchange notes that any registered market maker (“Market Maker”) in the Shares must file with the Exchange in a manner prescribed by the Exchange and keep current a list identifying all accounts for trading in an underlying commodity, related commodity futures or options on commodity futures, or any other related commodity derivatives, which the registered Market Maker may have or over which it may exercise investment discretion. No registered Market Maker shall trade in an underlying commodity, related commodity futures or options on commodity futures, or any other related commodity derivatives, in an account in which a registered Market Maker, directly or indirectly, controls trading activities, or has a direct interest in the profits or losses thereof, which has not been reported to the Exchange as required by this Rule. In addition to the existing obligations under Exchange rules regarding the production of books and records (see,
With respect to trading halts, the Exchange may consider all relevant factors in exercising its discretion to halt or suspend trading in the Shares. The Exchange will halt trading in the Shares under the conditions specified in BZX Rule 11.18. Trading may be halted because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the Shares inadvisable. These may include: (1) The extent to which trading is not occurring in the bitcoin underlying the Shares; or (2) whether other unusual conditions or circumstances detrimental to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market are present. Trading in the Shares also will be subject to Rule 14.11(f)(4)(C)(ii), which sets forth circumstances under which trading in the Shares may be halted and delisting proceedings commenced.
The Exchange deems the Shares to be equity securities, thus rendering trading in the Shares subject to the Exchange's existing rules governing the trading of equity securities. BZX will allow trading in the Shares from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The Exchange has appropriate rules to facilitate transactions in the Shares during all trading sessions. As provided in BZX Rule 11.11(a) the minimum price variation for quoting and entry of orders in securities traded on the Exchange is $0.01 where the price is greater than $1.00 per share or $0.0001 where the price is less than $1.00 per share.
The Exchange believes that its surveillance procedures are adequate to properly monitor the trading of the Shares on the Exchange during all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and the applicable federal securities laws. Additionally, the Bitcoin Futures Contracts will be subject to the rules and surveillance programs of CFE, CME, and the CFTC.
Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its members in an Information Circular of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Specifically, the Information Circular will discuss the following: (1) The procedures for purchases and redemptions of Shares in Creation Units (and that Shares are not individually redeemable); (2) Exchange Rule 3.7, which imposes suitability obligations on Exchange members with respect to recommending transactions in the Shares to customers; (3) how information regarding the Intraday Indicative Value is disseminated; (4) the risks involved in trading the Shares during the Pre-Opening
In addition, the Information Circular will advise members, prior to the commencement of trading, of the prospectus delivery requirements applicable to the Fund. Members purchasing Shares from the Funds for resale to investors will deliver a prospectus to such investors. The Information Circular will also discuss any exemptive, no-action, and interpretive relief granted by the Commission from any rules under the Act.
In addition, the Information Circular will reference that each Fund is subject to various fees and expenses described in the Registration Statement. The Information Circular will also disclose the trading hours of the Shares of the Funds and the applicable NAV calculation time for the Shares. The Information Circular will disclose that information about the Shares of the Funds will be publicly available on that Fund's website. In addition, the Information Circular will reference that the Trust is subject to various fees and expenses described in the Registration Statement.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices in that the Exchange believes that its surveillance procedures are adequate to properly monitor the trading of the Shares on the Exchange during all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and the applicable federal securities laws. Additionally, the Bitcoin Futures Contracts will be subject to the rules and surveillance programs of CFE, CME, and the CFTC. Trading of the Shares through the Exchange will be subject to the Exchange's surveillance procedures for derivative products, including Trust Issued Receipts. The Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares and the underlying Bitcoin Futures Contracts via ISG, from other exchanges who are members or affiliates of the ISG, or with which the Exchange has entered into a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. The Exchange may also obtain information regarding trading in the spot bitcoin market via the ISG, from other exchanges who are members or affiliates of the ISG, or from other exchanges with which the Exchange has entered into a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. In addition, the Exchange is able to access, as needed, trade information for certain fixed income instruments reported to TRACE. The Exchange prohibits the distribution of material non-public information by its employees. The Exchange believes that its surveillance procedures are adequate to properly monitor the trading of the Shares on the Exchange during all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and the applicable federal securities laws.
The Exchange further believes that the proposal is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices in that the Exchange expects that the market for Bitcoin Futures Contracts will be sufficiently liquid to support numerous ETPs shortly after launch. This belief is based on numerous conversations with market participants, issuers, and discussions with personnel of CFE. As such, the Exchange believes that the expected liquidity in the market for Bitcoin Futures Contracts combined with the Exchange surveillance procedures related to the Shares and the broader regulatory structure will prevent trading in the Shares from being susceptible to manipulation.
Because of its innovative features as a cryptoasset, bitcoin has gained wide acceptance as a secure means of exchange in the commercial marketplace and has generated significant interest among investors. In less than a decade since its creation in 2008, bitcoin has achieved significant market penetration, with payments giant PayPal and thousands of merchants and businesses accepting it as a form of commercial payment, as well as receiving official recognition from several governments, including Japan and Australia. Accordingly, investor interest in gaining exposure to bitcoin is increasing exponentially as well. As expected, the total volume of bitcoin transactions in the market continues to grow exponentially.
Despite the growing investor interest in bitcoin, the primary means for investors to gain access to bitcoin exposure remains either through the Bitcoin Futures Contracts or direct investment through bitcoin exchanges or over-the-counter trading. For regular investors simply wishing to express an investment viewpoint in bitcoin, investment through the Bitcoin Futures Contracts is complex and requires active management and direct investment in bitcoin brings with it significant inconvenience, complexity, expense and risk. The Shares would therefore represent a significant innovation in the bitcoin market by providing an inexpensive and simple vehicle for investors to gain long or short exposure to bitcoin in a secure and easily accessible product that is familiar and transparent to investors. Such an innovation would help to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest by improving investor access to bitcoin exposure through efficient and transparent exchange-traded derivative products.
In addition to improved convenience, efficiency and transparency, the Funds will also help to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices by enhancing the security afforded to investors as compared to a direct investment in bitcoin. Despite the extensive security mechanisms built into the Bitcoin network, a remaining risk to owning bitcoin directly is the need for the holder to retain and protect the “private key” required to spend or sell bitcoin after purchase. If a holder's private key is compromised or simply lost, their bitcoin can be rendered unavailable—
The Funds expect that they will generally seek to remain fully exposed to Bitcoin Futures Contracts even during times of adverse market conditions. Under Normal Market Conditions, the Funds will generally hold only Bitcoin Futures Contracts and cash and Cash Equivalents (which are used to collateralize the Bitcoin Futures Contracts).
The proposed rule change is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade and to protect investors and the public interest in that the Exchange will obtain a representation from the issuer of the Shares that the NAV will be calculated daily and that the NAV and the Disclosed Portfolio will be made available to all market participants at the same time. In addition, a large amount of information is publicly available regarding the Funds and the Shares, thereby promoting market transparency. Moreover, the Intraday Indicative Value will be disseminated by one or more major market data vendors at least every 15 seconds during Regular Trading Hours. On each business day, before commencement of trading in Shares during Regular Trading Hours, each Fund will disclose on its website the Disclosed Portfolio that will form the basis for the Fund's calculation of NAV at the end of the
Intraday price quotations on Cash Equivalents of the type held by the Funds are available from major broker-dealer firms and from third-parties, which may provide prices free with a time delay, or “live” with a paid fee. For Bitcoin Futures Contracts and Listed Bitcoin Swaps, such intraday information is available directly from the applicable listing venue. Intraday price information is also available through subscription services, such as Bloomberg and Thomson Reuters, which can be accessed by authorized participants and other investors. Pricing information related to Cash Equivalents will be available through issuer websites and publicly available quotation services such as Bloomberg, Markit and Thomson Reuters.
The proposed rule change is designed to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest in that it will facilitate the listing and trading of additional types of actively-managed exchange-traded products that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace. As noted above, the Exchange has in place surveillance procedures relating to trading in the Shares and may obtain information via ISG from other exchanges that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has entered into a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement as well as trade information for certain fixed income instruments as reported to FINRA's TRACE. Not more than 10% of the net assets of a Fund in the aggregate invested in Bitcoin Futures Contracts shall consist of Bitcoin Futures Contracts whose principal market is not a member of the ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. In addition, as noted above, investors will have ready access to information regarding each Fund's holdings, the Intraday Indicative Value, the Disclosed Portfolio, and quotation and last sale information for the Shares.
For the above reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.
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 purpose of the Act. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change, rather will facilitate the listing and trading of additional actively-managed exchange-traded products that will enhance competition among both market participants and listing venues, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
A. By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
B. institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 8.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Florida (FEMA-4337-DR), dated 09/10/2017.
Issued on 01/10/2018.
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.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the State of Florida, dated 09/10/2017, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster:
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 1.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of California (FEMA-4353-DR), dated 01/02/2018.
Issued on 01/10/2018.
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.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of California, dated 01/02/2018, is hereby amended to expand the incident for this disaster to include flooding, mudflow, and debris flows directly related to the wildfires.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
The Department of State will conduct an open meeting at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, February 13, 2018, at the headquarters of the Radio Technical Commission for Maritime Services (RTCM) in Suite 705, 1621 N. Kent Street, Arlington, Virginia 22209. The primary purpose of the meeting is to prepare for the 5th session of the International Maritime Organization's (IMO) Sub-Committee on Navigation, Communication, and Search and Rescue to be held at the IMO Headquarters, United Kingdom, from February 19-23, 2018.
The agenda items to be considered include:
Members of the public may attend this meeting up to the seating capacity of the room. To facilitate the building security process, and to request reasonable accommodation, those who plan to attend should contact the meeting coordinator, George Detweiler, by email at
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Fourth RTCA SC-236 Wireless Airborne Intra Communications (WAIC) Joint Plenary with EUROCAE WG-96.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting of Fourth RTCA SC-236 Wireless Airborne Intra Communications (WAIC) Joint Plenary with EUROCAE WG-96.
The meeting will be held February 27-March 02, 2018, 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held at: RTCA Headquarters, 1150 18th Street NW, Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036.
Rebecca Morrison at
Pursuant to section 10(a) (2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is hereby given for a meeting of the Fourth RTCA SC-236 Wireless Airborne Intra Communications (WAIC) Joint Plenary with EUROCAE WG-96. The agenda will include the following:
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of a new task assignment for the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) and solicitation of membership applicants.
The FAA assigned the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) a new task to provide recommendations on ice crystal icing (ICI) requirements. Because more extensive ICI data is available today, the FAA needs to determine if current regulations accurately reflect the existing ICI environment. This notice informs the public of the new ARAC activity and solicits membership for the new Ice Crystal Icing Working Group (ICIWG).
Alan Strom, Federal Aviation Administration, Rulemaking and Policy Branch, AIR-6A1, Engine & Propeller Standards Branch, Aircraft Certification Service, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803-9997, email
At the September 14, 2017, ARAC meeting, the FAA assigned and ARAC accepted this task. ARAC designated the task to the Transport Airplane and Engine (TAE) Subcommittee to establish the ICIWG. The working group will support the ARAC, through the TAE Subcommittee, and provide advice and recommendations on the assigned task. The TAE Subcommittee will send the recommendation report to the ARAC for review and acceptance. After ARAC accepts the recommendation report, it will send the recommendation report to the FAA.
The FAA established the ARAC to provide information, advice, and recommendations on aviation related issues that could result in rulemaking to the FAA Administrator, through the Associate Administrator of Aviation Safety. This includes obtaining advice and recommendations on the FAA's commitments to harmonize Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) with the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA).
Amendment 33-34, published in the
The ICIWG will provide advice and recommendations to the ARAC through the TAE Subcommittee on appendix D to part 33, and harmonization of § 33.68
1. Evaluate recent ICI environment data obtained from both government and industry to determine whether flight testing data supports the existing appendix D envelope.
2. Evaluate the results carried out in task 1 and recommend changes to the existing appendix D envelope, as applicable.
3. Compare available service data on air data probes from both government and industry probes on appendix D, including any changes proposed in task 2. Determine whether engine or aircraft air data probe responses warrant the use of a different environmental envelope from those proposed in task 2, or to the existing appendix D envelope.
4. Evaluate the results from task 3 and recommend ICI boundaries relevant to aircraft and engine air data probes. If the working group proposes a different envelope for aircraft and engine air data probes, recommend if these should be included in the existing appendix D, or create a new appendix to part 33.
5. Identify non-harmonized FAA or EASA ICI regulations or guidance. If the working group finds significant differences that impact safety, propose changes to increase harmonization.
6. Recommend changes to the advisory circular, AC 20-147A,
7. Assist the FAA in determining the initial qualitative and quantitative costs, and benefits that may result from the working group's recommendations.
8. Develop a recommendations report containing the results of tasks 1 through 6. The report should document both majority and dissenting positions on the findings, the rationale for each position, and reasons for disagreement.
The recommendation report should be submitted to the FAA for review and acceptance no later than 24 months from the first ICIWG meeting. The ICIWG will remain in existence for 30 months from the first ICIWG meeting.
The ICIWG must comply with the procedures adopted by the ARAC as follows:
1. Conduct a review and analysis of the assigned tasks and any other related materials or documents.
2. Draft and submit a work plan for completion of the task, including the rationale supporting such a plan for consideration by the TAE Subcommittee.
3. Provide a status report at each TAE Subcommittee meeting.
4. Draft and submit the recommendation report based on the review and analysis of the assigned tasks.
5. Present the recommendation report at the TAE Subcommittee meeting.
The ICIWG will be comprised of technical experts having an interest in the assigned task. A working group member need not be a member representative of the ARAC or the TAE Subcommittee. The FAA would like a wide range of members to ensure all aspects of the tasks are considered in development of the recommendations. The provisions of the August 13, 2014, Office of Management and Budget guidance,
If you wish to become a member of the ICIWG, write the person listed under the caption
The members of the ICIWG must actively participate in the working group, attend all meetings, and provide written comments when requested. The members must devote the resources necessary to support the working group in meeting any assigned deadlines. Members must keep management and those they may represent advised of working group activities and decisions to ensure the proposed technical solutions do not conflict with the position of those represented. Once the working group has begun deliberations, members will not be added or substituted without the approval of the ARAC Chair, the TAE Subcommittee Chair, the Working Group Chair, and the FAA, including the Designated Federal Officer.
The Secretary of Transportation determined the formation and use of the ARAC is necessary and in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the FAA by law.
All final work products submitted to ARAC are public documents. Therefore,
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Fourteenth RTCA SC-229 406 MHz ELT Joint Plenary with EUROCAE WG-98.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting of the Fourteenth RTCA SC-229 406 MHz ELT Joint Plenary with EUROCAE WG-98.
The meeting will be held March 13-16, 2018 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held at: THALES ALENIA SPACE, 26 avenue J.F. Champollion, Toulouse, FRANCE. Registration is required to attend this event no later than February 2, 2018.
Rebecca Morrison at
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is hereby given for a meeting of the Fourteenth RTCA SC-229 406 MHz ELT Joint Plenary with EUROCAE WG-98. The agenda will include the following:
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. Registration is required to attend the event no later than February 2, 2018. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of a new task assignment for the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) and solicitation of membership applicants.
The FAA has assigned the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) a new task to provide recommendations regarding the agency's guidance on the certification and oversight of all part 145 repair stations. This notice informs the public of the new ARAC activity and solicits membership for the new Part 145 Working Group.
Paul M. Cloutier, Federal Aviation Administration, AFS-300, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591,
As a result of its December 14, 2017, ARAC meeting, the ARAC accepted this tasking to establish a Part 145 Working Group. The Part 145 Working Group will serve as staff to the ARAC and provide advice and recommendations on the assigned task. The ARAC will review and accept the initial and final recommendation reports and will submit them to the FAA.
The FAA established the ARAC to provide information, advice, and recommendations on aviation-related issues to the FAA Administrator, through the Associate Administrator of Aviation Safety.
The FAA recognizes the critical role that guidance documents play. Well-designed guidance documents serve many important functions both within an organization and externally to the regulatory programs they support. While guidance documents do not have the
Additionally, the agency's policies advocate performance-based oversight. However, guidance documents, particularly those directed at the agency's workforce are often prescription based. The Part 145 Working Group is asked to provide recommendations that will support the applicant's performance-based decision making and the agency's evaluation of those decisions.
The Working Group is tasked to:
(1) Perform a comprehensive review of internal and external guidance material, in relation to the current laws and regulations, that pertain to certificating and overseeing all part 145 repair stations. This review will include pertinent—
(a) FAA Orders, Notices, Advisory Circulars, Job Aids and Safety Assurance System (SAS) Data Collection Tools.
(b) Laws and executive orders, particularly those associated with inclusion of small business and paperwork reduction act requirements in agency policy and guidance.
(2) Develop recommendations on improvements to—
(a) Internal and external guidance material to ensure it is:
(i) Aligned and compliant with the aviation safety regulations, other laws and executive orders reviewed in (1)(b).
(ii) Annotated to the applicable rule, other law or executive order; and,
(iii) Consistently numbered to ensure a comprehensive relationship between the guidance document and the annotated rule, law or executive order.
(iv) Developed to communicate the agency's expectations for compliance to the public and the FAA workforce in a comprehensive and consistent manner, including the tools necessary to ensure the application and evaluation of compliance includes performance-based oversight.
(b) Oversight by the FAA's domestic and foreign workforce vis-à-vis the amount, type, scope, and complexity of work being performed and the certificate holders' size.
(3) Develop a preliminary and final report containing recommendations based on the analysis and findings. The reports should document both majority and dissenting positions on the recommendations and the rationale for each position. Disagreements should be documented, including the reason and rationale for each position.
The working group may be reinstated to assist the ARAC in responding to the FAA's questions or concerns after the recommendation report has been submitted.
The preliminary and final recommendation reports will be submitted to the ARAC for review, acceptance, and submission to the FAA. The preliminary report is to be submitted no later than 24 months from the first meeting of the Part 145 Working Group. The final report will be submitted no later than 12 months after the preliminary report is forwarded to the FAA by ARAC.
The Part 145 Working Group must comply with the procedures adopted by the ARAC, which are as follows:
1. Conduct a review and analysis of the assigned tasks and any other related materials or documents.
2. Draft and submit a work plan for completion of each task, including the rationale supporting such a plan, for consideration by the ARAC.
3. Provide a status report at each ARAC meeting.
4. Draft and submit the preliminary and final recommendation reports based on the review and analysis of the assigned tasks.
5. Present the preliminary and final recommendation reports to the ARAC at a scheduled meeting for public discussion.
The Working Group will be comprised of technical and regulatory experts having an interest in the assigned task. A working group member need not be a member representative of the ARAC. The FAA would like a wide range of stakeholders to ensure all aspects of the tasks are considered in development of the recommendations.
The provisions of the August 13, 2014, Office of Management and Budget guidance, “Revised Guidance on Appointment of Lobbyists to Federal Advisory Committees, Boards, and Commissions” (79 FR 47482), continues the ban on registered lobbyists participating on Agency Boards and Commissions if participating in their “individual capacity.” The revised guidance now allows registered lobbyists to participate on Agency Boards and Commissions in a “representative capacity” for the “express purpose of providing a committee with the views of a nongovernmental entity, a recognizable group of persons or nongovernmental entities (an industry, sector, labor unions, or environmental groups, etc.) or state or local government.” (For further information see Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 as amended, 2 U.S.C. 1603, 1604, and 1605.)
If you wish to become a member of the Part 145 Working Group, contact the person listed under the caption
The FAA must receive all requests by February 20, 2018. The ARAC and the FAA will review the requests and advise you whether or not your request is approved.
If you are chosen for membership on the working group, you must actively participate by attending all meetings, and providing written information when requested. You must devote the resources necessary to support the working group in meeting assigned deadlines. You must keep your management and those you may represent advised of working group activities and decisions to ensure the proposed solutions do not conflict with the position of those you represent. Once the working group has begun deliberations, members will not be added or substituted without the approval of the ARAC Chair, the FAA, including the Designated Federal Officer, and the Working Group Chair.
The Secretary of Transportation determined the formation and use of the ARAC is necessary and in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the FAA by law.
All final work products submitted to ARAC are public documents. Therefore, it should not contain any non-public proprietary, privileged, business, commercial, and other sensitive information (collectively, Confidential Information) that the working group members would not want to be publicly available. With respect to working groups, there may be instances where members will share Commercial Information within the working group
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of a new task assignment for the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) and solicitation of membership applicants.
The FAA assigned the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) a new task to identify and develop recommendations on low energy alerting requirements to supplement previous work accomplished on low speed alerting in new transport category airplanes. This notice informs the public of the new ARAC activity.
Joe Jacobsen, Airplane & Flight Crew Interface Branch, Transport Airplane Directorate, Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Ave. SW, Renton, Washington 98057; telephone (425) 227-2011, facsimile (425) 227-1149; email
At the September 14, 2017, ARAC meeting, the FAA assigned and ARAC accepted this task. ARAC designated the task to the Transport Airplane and Engine (TAE) Subcommittee, which will assign the task to the existing Avionics Systems Harmonization Working Group (ASHWG). The ASHWG will support the ARAC, through the TAE Subcommittee, and will provide advice and recommendations on the assigned task. The TAE Subcommittee will send the recommendation report to the ARAC for review and acceptance. After ARAC accepts the recommendation report, it will submit the recommendation report to the FAA.
The FAA established the ARAC to provide information, advice, and recommendations on aviation related issues that could result in rulemaking to the FAA Administrator, through the Associate Administrator of Aviation Safety.
The FAA previously examined low speed alerting requirements and tasked the ARAC to provide information to develop standards and guidance material for low speed alerting systems. The information from that tasking may result in additional standards that complement existing low speed alerting requirements. However, as a result of the Asiana Flight 214 accident, the FAA needs additional recommendations related to context-dependent low energy safeguards with respect to low speed protection and alerting.
Following the Asiana Flight 214 accident investigation, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) issued the following recommendation to the FAA:
Task a panel of human factors, aviation operations, and aircraft design specialists, such as the Avionics Systems Harmonization Working Group, to develop design requirements for context-dependent low energy alerting systems for airplanes engaged in commercial operations (NTSB Safety Recommendation A-14-043).
The ASHWG will provide advice and recommendations to the ARAC through the TAE Subcommittee in a report that addresses the following questions relative to new airplane designs. The report should include rationale for the responses.
1. Do you recommend any changes to the existing low speed alerting requirements to provide additional pilot reaction time in cases where the airplane is both slow and close to the ground?
2. Do you recommend any new or revised guidance material to define an acceptable low energy alert?
3. After reviewing airworthiness, safety, cost, and other relevant factors, including recent certification and fleet experience, are there any additional considerations that the FAA should take into account regarding avoidance of low energy conditions?
4. Is coordination necessary with other harmonization working groups (
5. Develop a report containing recommendations on the findings and results of the tasks explained above.
a. The recommendation report should document both majority and dissenting positions on the findings and the rationale for each position.
b. Any disagreements should be documented, including the rationale for each position and the reasons for the disagreement.
ARAC should submit the recommendation report to the FAA for review and acceptance no later than thirty (30) months from the first ASHWG meeting.
The ASHWG must comply with the procedures adopted by the ARAC. As part of the procedures, the working group must:
1. Conduct a review and analysis of the assigned tasks and any other related materials or documents.
2. Draft and submit a work plan for completion of the task, including the rationale supporting such a plan, for consideration by the TAE Subcommittee.
3. Provide a status report at each TAE Subcommittee meeting.
4. Draft and submit the recommendation report based on the review and analysis of the assigned tasks.
5. Present the recommendation report at the TAE Subcommittee meeting.
The ASHWG comprises technical experts having an interest in the assigned task. A working group member need not be a member representative of the ARAC TAE Subcommittee.
In accordance with the provisions of the August 13, 2014, Office of Management and Budget guidance, “Revised Guidance on Appointment of Lobbyists to Federal Advisory Committees, Boards, and Commissions” (79 FR 47482), continues the ban on registered lobbyists participating on Agency Boards and Commissions if participating in their “individual capacity.” The revised guidance now allows registered lobbyists to participate
If you wish to become a member of the ASHWG, write the person listed under the caption
All members of the ASHWG who wish to participate in this task must actively participate in the working group, attend all meetings, and provide written comments when requested. Members must devote the resources necessary to support the working group in meeting any assigned deadlines. Each member must keep their management and those they may represent advised of working group activities and decisions to ensure the proposed technical solutions do not conflict with the position of those represented. Once the working group has begun deliberations, members will not be added or substituted without the approval of the TAE Subcommittee Chair, the FAA Subcommittee member, and the Working Group Chair.
The Secretary of Transportation determined the formation and use of the ARAC is necessary and in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the FAA by law.
All final work products submitted to ARAC are public documents. Therefore, it should not contain any non-public proprietary, privileged, business, commercial, and other sensitive information (collectively, Confidential Information) that the working group members would not want to be publicly available. With respect to working groups, there may be instances where members will share Commercial Information within the working group for purposes of completing an assigned tasked. Members must not disclose to any third party, or use for any purposes other than the assigned task, any and all Confidential Information disclosed to one party by the other party, without the prior written consent of the party whose Confidential Information is being disclosed. All parties must treat the Confidential Information of the disclosing party as it would treat its own Confidential Information, but in no event shall it use less than a reasonable degree of care. If any Confidential Information is shared with the FAA representative on a working group, it must be properly marked in accordance with the Office of Rulemaking Committee Manual, ARM-001-15.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Twenty Sixth RTCA SC-223 IPS and AeroMACS Plenary.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting of Twenty Sixth RTCA SC-223 IPS and AeroMACS Plenary.
The meeting will be held March 05-09, 2018 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held at: Hosted by Rockwell Collins, Inc at, Hilton Melbourne Rialto Place, 200 Rialto Place, Melbourne, FL 32901.
Rebecca Morrison at
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is hereby given for a meeting of the Twenty Sixth RTCA SC-223 IPS and AeroMACS Plenary. The agenda will include the following:
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of Limitation on Claims for Judicial Review of Actions by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327.
The FHWA, on behalf of Caltrans, is issuing this notice to announce actions taken by Caltrans. The actions relate to the proposed widening project on State Route 138 (SR-138) between 5th Street East and 10th Street East from two lanes to three lanes in each direction, a distance of approximately 0.5 mile. Additionally, the project proposes to widen Sierra Highway from two lanes to three lanes in each direction between Avenue R and a point 500 feet south of Avenue Q, a distance of approximately 0.9 mil, in the City of Palmdale within the County of Los Angeles, State of California. Those actions grant licenses, permits, and approvals for the project.
By this notice, the FHWA, on behalf of Caltrans, is advising the public of final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1). A claim seeking judicial review of the Federal Agency Actions on the highway project will be barred unless the claim is filed on or before June 18, 2018. If the Federal law that authorizes judicial review of a claim provides a time period of less than 150 days for filing such claim, then that shorter time period still applies.
For Caltrans: Lourdes Ortega, Branch Chief, Environmental Planning Division, California Department of Transportation—District 7, 100 South Main Street, Los Angeles, California, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., 213-897-9572,
Effective July 1, 2007, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) assigned, and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) assumed, environmental responsibilities for this project pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327. Notice is hereby given that Caltrans, has taken final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1) by issuing licenses, permits, and approvals for the following highway project in the State of California: Caltrans proposes to widen State Route (SR) 138 (Palmdale Boulevard) between 5th Street East and 10th Street East in downtown Palmdale from two lanes to three lanes in each direction. Additionally, Caltrans proposes to widen Sierra Highway from two lanes to three lanes in each direction between Avenue R and a point 500 feet south of Avenue Q, a distance of approximately 0.9 mile. Double left-turn lanes and a right-turn lane are proposed in the northbound and southbound directions of Sierra Highway and SR-138 (Palmdale Boulevard) intersection. The existing on-street parking along northbound Sierra Highway between SR-138 and Avenue Q6 would be maintained. Additionally, the project proposes to extend the existing Class I bicycle path, which runs along the west side of Sierra Highway, southerly to provide connectivity to Avenue R. The actions by the Federal agencies, and the laws under which such actions were taken, are described in the Final Initial Study (IS) with Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)/Environmental Assessment (EA) with Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), approved on December 29, 2017, and in other documents in the FHWA project records. The Final IS/EA with MND/FONSI, and other project records are available by contacting Caltrans at the addresses provided above. The Caltrans Final IS/EA with MND/FONSI can be viewed and downloaded from the project website at:
(1) Council on Environmental Quality regulations;
(2) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA);
(3) Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21);
(4) Department of Transportation Act of 1966;
(5) Federal Aid Highway Act of 1970;
(6) Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990;
(7) Noise Control Act of 1970;
(8) 23 CFR part 772 FHWA Noise Standards, Policies and Procedures;
(9) Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Section 4(f);
(10) Clean Water Act of 1977 and 1987;
(11) Endangered Species Act of 1973;
(12) Migratory Bird Treaty Act;
(13) National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended;
(14) Historic Sites Act of 1935; and,
(15) Executive Order 13112, Invasive Species.
(16) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Request for Information (RFI).
Automated Driving Systems (ADS) are increasingly being tested and introduced onto the public roadways. The FHWA is interested in hearing from the public, including stakeholders (
Comments must be received on or before March 5, 2018.
To ensure that you do not duplicate your docket submissions, please submit all comments by only one of the following means:
•
•
•
•
For questions about this notice, contact Martin C. Knopp, Associate Administrator for Operations, Federal Highway Administration, (202) 366-9210, or via email at
A copy of this document is available for download and public inspection under the docket number noted above at the Federal eRulemaking portal at:
An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded from Office of the Federal Register's home page at:
Automated Driving Systems are increasingly being tested and introduced onto the public roadways. Many road owners and operators are trying to determine whether, and which, modifications or enhancements to the infrastructure are needed to eliminate barriers to ADS technology or to further accelerate its adoption, as well as to ensure highway safety. Some vehicle manufacturers have expressed an interest in greater uniformity of lane markings, signage, and other traffic control devices as being helpful for ADS operation. Infrastructure providers have expressed an interest in understanding which traffic control device materials and other characteristics present challenges for ADS, specifically the machine vision technologies' ability to interpret some roadway markings over others.
The FHWA is interested in hearing from the public, including stakeholders (
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) recently released the “Automated Driving Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety” document. It replaces the 2016 Federal Automated Vehicles Policy. This new document focuses on two sections: Voluntary guidance for ADS and technical assistance to States. The FHWA aims to complement NHTSA's guidance and will continue to coordinate across the U.S. Department of Transportation in its automation activities. For information about the recent guidance, please visit the Department's website at:
The FHWA seeks information directly from the public and stakeholders to better understand FHWA's role in automation and inform future Agency research and activities. In addition, FHWA seeks comments more broadly on planning, development, maintenance, and operations of the roadway infrastructure necessary for supporting ADS, including any information detailing the costs associated with implementation.
Comments are requested on the following questions:
1. What roadway characteristics are important for influencing the safety, efficiency, and performance of ADS? Are there certain physical infrastructure elements (
2. What challenges do non-uniform traffic control devices present for ADS technologies and how does this affect the costs of ADS systems?
3. How does the state of good repair (
4. How should FHWA engage with industry and automation technology developers to understand potential infrastructure requirements? Are there specific issues that FHWA should engage with industry directly?
5. What is the role of digital infrastructure and data in enabling needed information exchange between ADS and roadside infrastructure? What types of data transmission between ADS and roadside infrastructure could enhance safe and efficient ADS operations? What type of infrastructure and operations data, if available, would help accelerate safe and efficient deployment of the ADS on our Nation's public roadways? How might the interface between ADS and digital infrastructure best be defined to facilitate nationwide interoperability while still maximizing flexibility and cost effectiveness for ADS technology developers and transportation agencies and minimizing threats to cybersecurity or privacy?
6. What concerns do State and local agencies have regarding infrastructure investment and planning for ADS, given the level of uncertainty around the timing and development of this technology? How should FHWA engage with its State and local partners as they consider impacts on infrastructure, transportation funding, finance, and revenue? Are changes to any of the programs that comprise the Federal-aid Highway Program needed to enable State and local agencies to more effectively make infrastructure investments to support deployment of ADS?
7. Are there existing activities and research in the area of assessing infrastructure-ADS interface needs and/or associated standards? What is the current thinking on where potential revisions may be necessary? How should FHWA work with existing research partners (
8. What are the priority issues that road owners and operators need to consider in terms of infrastructure requirements, modifications, investment, and planning, to accommodate integration of ADS and to derive maximum system efficiency benefits from ADS additional capabilities?
9. What variable information or data would ADS benefit from obtaining and how should that data be best obtained? Examples might include information about zone locations, incidents, special event routing, bottleneck locations, weather conditions, and speed recommendations.
10. What issues do road owners and operators need to consider in terms of
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of intent.
The FHWA is issuing this notice to advise the public that a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) will be prepared to re-evaluate a reasonable range of transportation alternatives associated with the General Sullivan Bridge (GSB) for maintaining access for pedestrians and bicyclists across Little Bay in Newington and Dover, New Hampshire, thereby retaining this regional connectivity in northern coastal New Hampshire.
Mr. Jamie Sikora, New Hampshire Division, Federal Highway Administration, 53 Pleasant Street, Suite 2200, Concord, New Hampshire 03301, Telephone: (603) 410-4870. Mr. Kevin Nyhan, Administrator, Bureau of Environment, New Hampshire Department of Transportation, 7 Hazen Drive, JOM Building Room 160, Concord, New Hampshire 03302-0483, Telephone: (603) 271-3226.
FHWA, in cooperation with the New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT), prepared a Draft EIS and Final EIS [NHS-027-1(37), 11238, December 2007] for proposed improvements to a 3.5-mile section of the Spaulding Turnpike extending north from the Gosling Road/Pease Boulevard Interchange (Exit 1) in the Town of Newington, across the Little Bay Bridges, to a point just south of the existing Toll Plaza in the City of Dover. Consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Coast Guard, Federal Aviation Administration, N.H. Department of Environmental Services, N.H. Fish and Game Department, N.H. Office of Energy and Planning, and N.H. Division of Historical Resources were cooperating agencies in preparing the Draft EIS and Final EIS.
In October 2008, FHWA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) (FHWA-NH-EIS-06-01-F) following the Final EIS for the Spaulding Turnpike Improvements Project (known as Newington-Dover Project). The ROD proposed to rehabilitate the GSB so that it could continue to serve as a connection for pedestrians and bicyclists across Little Bay and to provide recreational access for fishing. Following the ROD, NHDOT prepared a Type, Size and Location Study which, in part, provided additional information on the condition of the GSB and evaluated the feasibility of rehabilitating the bridge. Based upon the results of the study, NHDOT determined that it was necessary and reasonable to consider alternatives to the proposed rehabilitation.
On August 17, 2017, NHDOT requested that FHWA reopen the FEIS for a specific review of alternatives for the GSB and, on September 5, 2017, FHWA responded in support of NHDOT's request to re-evaluate the reasonable range of transportation alternatives associated with the GSB for maintaining access for pedestrians and bicyclists across Little Bay.
FHWA is initiating a limited scope SEIS pursuant to 23 CFR 771.130 and 40 CFR 1502.9 to evaluate additional alternatives for the Newington-Dover Project; specifically, evaluating the social, economic and environmental effects of reasonable transportation alternatives for maintaining access for pedestrians and bicyclists across the Little Bay in Newington and Dover, New Hampshire, thereby retaining a regional connection in northeastern coastal New Hampshire. Since issues and concerns related to the broader Newington-Dover Project are well known and reported in the Draft and Final EIS, formal scoping will not be conducted.
FHWA will be inviting agencies to become cooperating or participating agencies for the SEIS, including agencies that may have not been cooperating or participating agencies for the Draft and Final EIS. In addition, FHWA and NHDOT will invite participation from tribes, organizations and individuals on the SEIS. Written and verbal comments on the Draft SEIS will be taken by email, through the project website
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
Notice of actions on special permit applications.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations, notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the application described herein.
Comments must be received on or before February 20, 2018.
Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Washington, DC 20590.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.
Ryan Paquet, Director, Office of
Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC or at
This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
List of applications for modification of special permits.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations, notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the application described herein. Each mode of transportation for which a particular special permit is requested is indicated by a number in the “Nature of Application” portion of the table below as follows: 1—Motor vehicle, 2—Rail freight, 3—Cargo vessel, 4—Cargo aircraft only, 5—Passenger-carrying aircraft.
Comments must be received on or before February 2, 2018.
Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.
Ryan Paquet, Director, Office of Hazardous Materials Approvals and Permits Division, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4535.
Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC or at
This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
List of applications for special permits.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations, notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the application described
Comments must be received on or before February 20, 2018.
Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.
Ryan Paquet, Director, Office of Hazardous Materials Approvals and Permits Division, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4535.
Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC or at
This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
Notice of change to Guarantee Application deadline.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 21.011.
On November 2, 2017, the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund (CDFI Fund) published a Notice of Guarantee Availability (NOGA) under the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program in the
Capitalized terms used in this NOGA and not defined elsewhere are defined in the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program regulations (12 CFR 1808.102) and the CDFI Program Regulations (12 CFR 1805.104).
All other information and requirements set forth in the NOGA published on November 2, 2017, shall remain effective, as published.
A.
B.
C.
Pub. L. 111-240; 12 U.S.C. 4701,
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Toll-Free Phone Line Project 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 Thursday, February 15, 2018 and Friday, February 16, 2018.
Rosalind Matherne at 1-888-912-1227 or 202-317-4115.
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 Toll-Free Phone Line Project Committee will be held Thursday, February 15, 2018, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time and Friday, February 16, 2018, from 8:00 a.m. until 12:00 p.m. Eastern Time at the IRS Office, Jacksonville, Florida. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited time and structure of meeting, notification of intent to participate must be made with Rosalind Matherne. For more information please contact Rosalind Matherne at 1-888-912-1227 or 202-317-4115, or write TAP Office, 1111 Constitution Ave. NW, Room 1509, Washington, DC 20224 or contact us at the website:
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Special Projects 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 Monday, February 12, 2018 and Tuesday, February 13, 2018.
Matthew O'Sullivan at 1-888-912-1227 or (510) 907-5274.
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's Special Projects Committee will be held Monday, February 12, 2018, from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Central Time and Tuesday, February 13, 2018, from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Central Time at the IRS Office in Dallas, Texas. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited time and structure of meeting, notification of intent to participate must be made with Matthew O'Sullivan. For more information please contact Matthew O'Sullivan at 1-888-912-1227 or (510) 907-5274, or write TAP Office, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612-5217 or contact us at the website:
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Notices and Correspondence Project 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 Monday, February 12, 2018 and Tuesday, February 13, 2018.
Otis Simpson at 1-888-912-1227 or 202-317-3332.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that a meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Notices and Correspondence Project Committee will be held Monday, February 12, 2018, from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time and Tuesday, February 13, 2018, from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time at the IRS Office, Jacksonville, Florida. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to
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 continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The IRS is soliciting comments concerning information collection requirements related to simplified employee pension-individual retirement accounts contribution agreement.
Written comments should be received on or before March 19, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to L. Brimmer, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6529, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form should be directed to Kerry Dennis, at (202) 317-5751 or Internal Revenue Service, Room 6529, 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's Tax Forms and Publications Project 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 Thursday, February 15, 2018 and Friday, February 16, 2018.
Robert Rosalia at 1-888-912-1227 or (718) 834-2203.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that a meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Tax Forms and Publications Project Committee will be held Thursday, February 15, 2018, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Mountain time and Friday, February 16, 2018, from 1:00 p.m. until 5:00 p.m. Mountain Time at the IRS Office, Albuquerque, New Mexico. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited time and structure of meeting, notification of intent to participate must be made with Robert Rosalia. For more information please contact Robert Rosalia at 1-888-912-1227 or (718) 834-2203, or write TAP Office, 2 Metrotech Center, 100 Myrtle Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11201 or contact us at the website:
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Taxpayer Assistance Center Project 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 Thursday, February 15, 2018 and Friday, February 16, 2018.
Gilbert Martinez at 1-888-912-1227 or (737) 800-4060.
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's Taxpayer Assistance Center Project Committee will be held Thursday, February 15, 2018, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Central Time and Friday, February 16, 2018, from 8:00 a.m. until 12:00 p.m. Central Time at the IRS Office in Dallas, Texas. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited time and structure of meeting, notification of intent to participate must be made with Gilbert Martinez. For more information please contact Gilbert Martinez at 1-888-912-1227 or 214-413-6523, or write TAP Office 3651 S. IH-35, STOP 1005 AUSC, Austin, TX 78741, or post comments to the website:
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Taxpayer Communications Project 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 Monday, February 12, 2018 and Tuesday, February 13, 2018.
Antoinette Ross at 1-888-912-1227 or 202-317-4110.
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's Taxpayer Communications Project Committee will be held Monday, February 12, 2018, from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Mountain Time and Tuesday, February 13, 2018, from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Mountain Time at the IRS Office in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited time and structure of meeting, notification of intent to participate must be made with Antoinette Ross. For more information please contact Antoinette Ross at 1-888-912-1227 or 202-317-4110, or write TAP Office, 1111 Constitution Ave. NW, Room 1509, Washington, DC 20224 or contact us at the website:
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 continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. IRS is soliciting comments concerning the reporting and/or record-keeping requirements regarding The Health Coverage Tax Credit (HCTC) Reimbursement Request Form.
Written comments should be received on or before March 19, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to L. Brimmer, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224.
Please send separate comments for each specific information collection listed below. You must reference the information collection's title, form number, reporting or record-keeping requirement number, and OMB number (if any) in your comment. Requests for additional information, or copies of the information collection and instructions, or copies of any comments received, contact E. Christophe, at (202) 317-5745, 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.
Notice.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), National Cemetery Administration (NCA), is seeking nominations of qualified candidates to be considered for appointment as a member of the Advisory Committee on Cemeteries and Memorials (herein-after in this section referred to as “the Committee”). The Committee was established to advise the Secretary of VA with respect to the administration of VA national cemeteries, soldiers' lots and plots, which are the responsibility of the Secretary, the erection of appropriate memorials and the adequacy of Federal burial benefits.
Nominations of qualified candidates are being sought to fill upcoming vacancies on the Committee. Nominations for membership on the Committee must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. EST on January 31, 2018.
All nominations should be mailed to National Cemetery Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave. NW, (40A1), Washington, DC 20420, or faxed to (202) 273-6709.
Ms. Christine Hamilton, National Cemetery Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave. NW, (40A1), Washington, DC 20420, telephone (202) 461-5681. A copy of Committee charter and list of the current membership can be obtained by contacting Ms. Hamilton or by accessing the website managed by NCA at:
The Advisory Committee on Cemeteries and Memorials (ACCM) was established to advise the Secretary of VA with respect to the administration of VA national cemeteries, soldiers' lots and plots, which are the responsibility of the Secretary, the erection of appropriate memorials and the adequacy of Federal burial benefits. The Committee responsibilities include:
(1) Advising the Secretary on VA's administration of burial benefits and the selection of cemetery sites, the erection of appropriate memorials, and the adequacy of Federal burial benefits;
(2) Providing to the Secretary and Congress periodic reports outlining recommendations, concerns, and observations on VA's delivery of these benefits and services to Veterans;
(3) Meeting with VA officials, Veteran Service Organizations, and other stakeholders to assess the Department's efforts in providing burial benefits and outreach on these benefits to Veterans and their dependents;
(4) Undertaking assignments to conduct research and assess existing burial and memorial programs; to examine potential revisions or expansion of burial and memorial programs and services; and to provide advice and recommendations to the Secretary based on this research.
The members of the Committee are appointed by the Secretary of Veteran Affairs from the general public, including but not limited to:
(1) Veterans or other individuals who are recognized authorities in fields pertinent to the needs of Veterans;
(2) Veterans who have experience in a military theater of operations;
(3) Recently separated service members;
(4) Officials from Government, non-Government organizations (NGOs) and industry partners in the provision of memorial benefits and services, and outreach information to VA beneficiaries.
The Secretary shall determine the number, terms of service, and pay and allowances of members of the Committee appointed by the Secretary, except that a term of service of any such member may not exceed three years. The Secretary may reappoint any such member for additional terms of service.
To the extent possible, the Secretary seeks members who have diverse professional and personal qualifications, including but not limited to prior military experience and military deployments, experience working with Veterans, and experience in large and complex organizations, and subject matter expertise in the areas described above. We ask that nominations include information of this type so that VA can ensure diverse Committee membership.
(1) A letter of nomination that clearly states the name and affiliation of the nominee, the basis for the nomination (
(2) The nominee's contact information, including name, mailing address, telephone numbers, and email address;
(3) The nominee's curriculum vitae; and
(4) A summary of the nominee's experience and qualifications relative to the membership considerations described above.
Individuals selected for appointment to the Committee shall be invited to serve a two-year term. Committee members will receive a stipend for attending Committee meetings, including per diem and reimbursement for travel expenses incurred.
The Department makes every effort to ensure that the membership of VA federal advisory committees is diverse in terms of points of view represented and the committee's capabilities. Appointments to this Committee shall be made without discrimination because of a person's race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identify, national origin, age, disability, or genetic information. Nominations must state that the nominee is willing to serve as a member of the Committee and appears to have no conflict of interest that would preclude membership. An ethics review is conducted for each selected nominee.
| 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 |