Federal Register Vol. 83, No.124,
Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 124 (June 27, 2018)
Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 124 (June 27, 2018)
| Page Range | 30031-30284 | |
| FR Document |
Document Created: 2017-12-29 23:38:10
Document Modified: 2017-12-29 23:38:10
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 83 FR 30091 - Petitions for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding | |
| 83 FR 30194 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 83 FR 30035 - Occupational Safety and Health Standards | |
| 83 FR 30035 - The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 | |
| 83 FR 30035 - Federal Sector Equal Employment Opportunity | |
| 83 FR 30206 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
| 83 FR 30077 - Federal Travel Regulation (FTR); Removal of the Meals and Incidental Expenses (M&IE) Deduction Table, Allocation of M&IE Rates To Be Used in Making Deductions From the M&IE Allowance, and the Glossary of Acronyms | |
| 83 FR 30041 - Safety and Security Zones; New York Marine Inspection and Captain of the Port Zone | |
| 83 FR 30158 - Applications for New Awards; Training Program for Federal TRIO Programs | |
| 83 FR 30151 - Applications for New Awards; Native Hawaiian Career and Technical Education Program (NHCTEP) | |
| 83 FR 30164 - Town of Bedford; Notice of Intent To File License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, and Approving Use of the Traditional Licensing Process | |
| 83 FR 30162 - American Municipal Power, Inc.; Notice of Filing | |
| 83 FR 30166 - Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, LP; Notice of Request Under Blanket Authorization | |
| 83 FR 30165 - Midship Pipeline Company, LLC; Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Midcontinent Supply Header Interstate Pipeline Project | |
| 83 FR 30162 - CXA La Paloma, LLC v. California Independent System Operator Corporation; Notice of Complaint | |
| 83 FR 30161 - City of Falmouth, Kentucky; Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order | |
| 83 FR 30163 - Notice of Institution of Section 206 Proceedings and Refund Effective Date | |
| 83 FR 30162 - Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.; Notice of Request Under Blanket Authorization | |
| 83 FR 30164 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
| 83 FR 30165 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 83 FR 30186 - National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 83 FR 30183 - National Eye Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 83 FR 30091 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-day Findings for Three Species | |
| 83 FR 30184 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 83 FR 30185 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 83 FR 30213 - Notice of Release From Federal Grant Assurance Obligations for San Luis Obispo Airport (SBP), San Luis Obispo, California | |
| 83 FR 30149 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 30080 - Removing Outmoded Regulations Regarding the National Health Service Corps Program | |
| 83 FR 30081 - Removing Outmoded Regulations Regarding the Ricky Ray Hemophilia Relief Fund Program | |
| 83 FR 30079 - Removing Outmoded Regulations Regarding the Rural Physician Training Grant Program, Definition of “Underserved Rural Community” | |
| 83 FR 30054 - Mercury; Reporting Requirements for the TSCA Mercury Inventory | |
| 83 FR 30167 - Final Strategic Plan To Promote the Development and Implementation of Alternative Test Methods Supporting the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); Notice of Availability | |
| 83 FR 30173 - Guidance for Creating Generic Names for Confidential Chemical Substance Identity Reporting Under the Toxic Substances Control Act; Notice of Availability | |
| 83 FR 30180 - The Food and Drug Administration's Comprehensive, Multi-Year Nutrition Innovation Strategy; Public Meeting; Request for Comments | |
| 83 FR 30218 - Autocar Industries, LLC and Autocar, LLC, Grant of Petitions for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance | |
| 83 FR 30168 - TSCA Chemical Substances; Unique Identifier Assignment and Application Policy; Notice of Availability | |
| 83 FR 30171 - Guidance on Expanded Access to TSCA Confidential Business Information; Notice of Availability | |
| 83 FR 30095 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request-School Nutrition and Meal Cost Study-II | |
| 83 FR 30214 - Petition for Waiver of Compliance | |
| 83 FR 30150 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; The College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP) Annual Performance Report (APR) | |
| 83 FR 30150 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; High School Equivalency Program (HEP) Annual Performance Report | |
| 83 FR 30116 - Smart Grid Advisory Committee Charter Renewal | |
| 83 FR 30116 - Prospective Grant of Exclusive Patent License | |
| 83 FR 30116 - Judges Panel of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award | |
| 83 FR 30202 - New Postal Products | |
| 83 FR 30227 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: VBA Call Center Satisfaction Survey | |
| 83 FR 30226 - Agency Information Collection Activity: Request for Substitution of Claimant Upon Death of Claimant | |
| 83 FR 30226 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Application for Reimbursement of Licensing or Certification Test Fees | |
| 83 FR 30227 - Agency Information Collection Activity: Eating Disorders in Veterans: Prevalence, Comorbidity, Risk, and Healthcare Use | |
| 83 FR 30228 - Agency Information Collection Activity: VHA Homeless Programs Project CHALENG (Community Homelessness Assessment, Local Education and Networking Groups) for Veterans | |
| 83 FR 30182 - Meeting of the Tick-Borne Disease Working Group | |
| 83 FR 30180 - Availability of Program Application Instructions for Tribal MIPPA Program Funds | |
| 83 FR 30120 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 30119 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 30117 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 83 FR 30211 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Request for Department of State Personal Identification Card | |
| 83 FR 30120 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Pile Driving Activities for the Restoration of Pier 62, Seattle Waterfront, Elliott Bay | |
| 83 FR 30145 - Patent Cooperation Treaty Collaborative Search and Examination Pilot Project Between the IP5 Offices | |
| 83 FR 30191 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Availability of Proposed Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan for the Sand Skink, Lake, County, FL | |
| 83 FR 30214 - Notice of Funding Opportunity for America's Marine Highway Projects | |
| 83 FR 30192 - Filing of Plats of Survey: California | |
| 83 FR 30191 - Filing of Plats of Survey: Idaho | |
| 83 FR 30178 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations | |
| 83 FR 30101 - Revision of the Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho States | |
| 83 FR 30211 - CSX Transportation, Inc.-Abandonment Exemption-in Fulton County, Ga. | |
| 83 FR 30184 - National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 83 FR 30183 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 83 FR 30184 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 83 FR 30183 - National Center for Complementary & Integrative Health; Notice of Meeting | |
| 83 FR 30186 - Center for Scientific Review Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 83 FR 30147 - Manual for Courts-Martial; Proposed Amendments | |
| 83 FR 30224 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Multiple IRS Information Collection Requests | |
| 83 FR 30223 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Multiple Fiscal Service Information Collection Requests | |
| 83 FR 30195 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Planning and Procedures; Notice of Meeting | |
| 83 FR 30195 - 60-Day Notice for the “Final Descriptive Reports for Recipients of the National Endowment for the Arts Grant Awards” | |
| 83 FR 30193 - Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks From China; Scheduling of Expedited Five-Year Reviews | |
| 83 FR 30118 - Evaluation of State Coastal Management Programs | |
| 83 FR 30119 - Evaluation of Sapelo Island National Estuarine Research Reserve; Public Meeting | |
| 83 FR 30118 - Evaluation of Old Woman Creek National Estuarine Research Reserve; Public Meeting | |
| 83 FR 30212 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Tarrant County College | |
| 83 FR 30212 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received: PlaneSense, Inc. | |
| 83 FR 30113 - Request for Comments on the Cross-Agency Priority Goal: Leveraging Data as a Strategic Asset | |
| 83 FR 30205 - Joint Industry Plan; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of the Forty-Third Amendment to the Joint Self-Regulatory Organization Plan Governing the Collection, Consolidation and Dissemination of Quotation and Transaction Information for Nasdaq-Listed Securities Traded on Exchanges on an Unlisted Trading Privileges Basis | |
| 83 FR 30209 - Consolidated Tape Association; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of the Twenty-Ninth Substantive Amendment to the Second Restatement of the CTA Plan and the Twenty-First Amendment to the Restated CQ Plan | |
| 83 FR 30206 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Futures Association; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Technical Amendment to the Interpretive Notice to NFA Compliance Rule 2-9: Special Supervisory Requirements for Members Registered as Broker-Dealers Under Section 15(b)(11) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 | |
| 83 FR 30203 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Futures Association; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Change to the Interpretive Notice to NFA Compliance Rule 2-9: Enhanced Supervisory Requirements: Requiring NFA Members To Maintain a Record of All Electronic Written Communications | |
| 83 FR 30208 - Impact Shares Trust I, et al. | |
| 83 FR 30106 - Notice of Solicitation of Applications for Section 514 Farm Labor Housing Loans and Section 516 Farm Labor Housing Grants for Off-Farm Housing for Fiscal Year 2018 | |
| 83 FR 30036 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Technical Amendment; Removal of Obsolete Drawbridge Operating Regulations | |
| 83 FR 30036 - National Security Education Program (NSEP) Grants to Institutions of Higher Education | |
| 83 FR 30199 - Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.; Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4; Changes to Construction Fitness-for-Duty Commitments | |
| 83 FR 30174 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission | |
| 83 FR 30176 - Information Collections Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority | |
| 83 FR 30175 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission | |
| 83 FR 30082 - IP CTS Modernization and Reform | |
| 83 FR 30102 - Inviting Applications for the Rural Business Development Grant Program To Provide Technical Assistance for Rural Transportation Systems | |
| 83 FR 30095 - Plant Variety Protection Board; Open Teleconference Meeting | |
| 83 FR 30222 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation Project | |
| 83 FR 30222 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Forms 5310 and 6088 | |
| 83 FR 30221 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation Project | |
| 83 FR 30039 - Safety Zone; Lakewood Independence Day Fireworks; Lake Erie, Lakewood, OH | |
| 83 FR 30193 - Meeting of the Advisory Committee; Meeting | |
| 83 FR 30220 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Information Collection Renewal; Submission for OMB Review; Loans in Areas Having Special Flood Hazards | |
| 83 FR 30188 - Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 83 FR 30044 - Safety Zone; Town of Hamburg July 3rd Party, Lake Erie, Blasdell, NY | |
| 83 FR 30225 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Notice of Disagreement | |
| 83 FR 30187 - Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 83 FR 30032 - Modification of Air Traffic Service (ATS) Route in the Vicinity of Newberry, MI | |
| 83 FR 30031 - Modification of Air Traffic Service (ATS) Routes in the Vicinity of Richmond, IN | |
| 83 FR 30033 - Amendment of Restricted Area R-2302; Flagstaff, AZ | |
| 83 FR 30034 - Revocation of Restricted Area R-2530, Sierra Army Depot, CA | |
| 83 FR 30195 - Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.; Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Unit Nos. 3 and 4 | |
| 83 FR 30046 - Safety Zone; Boaters Against Cancer Fireworks Display; Lake Ontario, Kendall, NY | |
| 83 FR 30089 - Special Local Regulation; Ohio River, Owensboro, KY | |
| 83 FR 30178 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
| 83 FR 30031 - Temporary Extension of Applicability of Regulations Governing Conduct on Federal Property | |
| 83 FR 30048 - Air Plan Approval; Alaska; Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 | |
| 83 FR 30050 - Outer Continental Shelf Air Regulations Update To Include New Jersey State Requirements | |
| 83 FR 30194 - National Industrial Security Program Policy Advisory Committee (NISPPAC) | |
| 83 FR 30232 - Regulatory Relief: Aviation Training Devices; Pilot Certification, Training, and Pilot Schools; and Other Provisions |
Issue
Agricultural Marketing Service
Food and Nutrition Service
Forest Service
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
Rural Housing Service
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Patent and Trademark Office
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Community Living Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Wage and Hour Division
Information Security Oversight Office
National Endowment for the Arts
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Maritime Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Comptroller of the Currency
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.
Office of the Secretary, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Notification of temporary extension of the applicability of regulations.
This document announces that the Secretary of Homeland Security, pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002, has temporarily extended the applicability of certain regulations governing conduct on federal property to a certain area within the United States Border Patrol's El Centro Sector allowing for their enforcement. This temporary administrative extension enables DHS to protect and secure federal property at or near the project area for replacement border barrier near the city of Calexico, California, including but not limited to, project sites, staging areas, access roads, and buildings temporarily erected to support construction activities, and to carry out DHS's statutory obligations to protect and secure the nation's borders. The project area for border barrier replacement is situated within a geographic area that starts at the Calexico West Port of Entry, and extends approximately three miles west along the southern U.S. border.
Pursuant to 40 U.S.C. 1315(d), the extension began on May 20, 2018 and will continue for the duration of the construction activities related to the border barrier replacement project near the city of Calexico, California.
Joshua A. Vayer, Division Director, Protective Operations Division, Federal Protective Service,
Pursuant to section 1706 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (Nov. 25, 2002), as codified at 40 U.S.C. 1315, the Secretary of Homeland Security is responsible for protecting the buildings, grounds, and property owned, occupied, or secured by the federal government (including any agency, instrumentality, or wholly owned or mixed ownership corporation thereof) and the persons on the property. To carry out this mandate, the Department is authorized to enforce the applicable federal regulations for the protection of persons and property set forth in 41 CFR part 102-74, subpart C.
DHS is replacing existing border fence with bollard wall near the city of Calexico in the United States Border Patrol's El Centro Sector pursuant to several statutory and executive directives.
The regulations in 41 CFR part 102-74, subpart C, will remain applicable and enforceable at these locations for the duration of the construction related to the border barrier replacement near the city of Calexico, California.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule, correction.
This action corrects a final rule published in the
Effective date 0901 UTC September 13, 2018. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
Colby Abbott, Airspace Policy Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-8783.
The FAA published a final rule in the
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Modification of Air Traffic Service (ATS) Routes in the Vicinity of Richmond, IN, published in the
From Waterville, OH; to Detroit, MI.”
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action modifies VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal airway V-316 in the vicinity of Newberry, MI. The FAA is taking this action due to the planned decommissioning of the Newberry, MI, VOR/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME) navigation aid (NAVAID), which provides navigation guidance for portions of the above route. The Newberry VOR/DME is a non-federal NAVAID owned by the State of Michigan that is planned to be decommissioned in September 2018.
Effective date 0901 UTC, September 13, 2018. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Colby Abbott, Airspace Policy Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
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 the 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 modifies the route structure in the National Airspace System as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic.
The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) 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 VOR Federal airways listed in this document would be subsequently published 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
The FAA is amending Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to modify VOR Federal airway V-316 due to the planned decommissioning of the Newberry, MI, VOR/DME. The V-316 change is described below.
The radials in the route description below are unchanged and stated in True degrees.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (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 of modifying VOR Federal airway V-316 near Newberry, MI qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, Paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points). As such, this action is not expected to result in any potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this action for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis. The FAA has determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact study.
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.
From Ironwood, MI; to Sawyer, MI. From Sault Ste Marie, MI; thence via Sault Ste Marie 091° radial to Elliot Lake, ON, Canada, NDB; thence to Sudbury, ON, Canada, via the 259° radial to Sudbury. The airspace within Canada is excluded.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; technical amendment.
This action changes the time of designation and controlling agency of restricted area R-2302, Flagstaff AZ. The FAA is taking this administrative action in response to the United States Army's limited utilization of the airspace while updating the responsible controlling agency. There are no changes to the boundaries; designated altitudes; or activities conducted within the affected restricted area.
Kenneth Ready, Airspace Policy Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
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 the 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 administratively amends the time of designation and controlling agency for restricted area R-2302, Flagstaff, AZ.
The FAA evaluates utilization of special use airspace annually. For the past five years the utilization of restricted area R-2302 has declined steadily. The FAA in coordination with the United States Army, has concluded the restricted area is still needed, but at
This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 73 by revising the time of designation and controlling agency listed for restricted area R-2302, Flagstaff, AZ. The time of designation is changed from “active daily, 0800-2400 MST, Monday through Saturday;” to “intermittent by NOTAM only, 4 hours in advance, between 0800 to 2400 MST, Monday through Saturday”. Additionally, the controlling agency for R-2302 is changed from “Albuquerque ARTCC” to “Phoenix TRACON”. These are administrative changes and do not affect the boundaries, designated altitudes, or activities conducted within the restricted area; therefore, notice and public procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (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 of updating the time of designation and controlling agency for restricted area R-2302; Flagstaff, AZ, qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 5-6.5.d, “Modification of the technical description of special use airspace (SUA) that does not alter the dimensions, altitudes, or times of designation of the airspace (such as changes in designation of the controlling or using agency, or correction of typographical errors).” This airspace action is an administrative change to the description of restricted area R-2302; Flagstaff, AZ, to update the time of designation and controlling agency name. It does not alter the dimensions, altitudes, time of designation, or use of the airspace. Therefore, this airspace action is not expected to result in any significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, this action has been reviewed for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis, and it is determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted areas.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 73, 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.
By removing “Time of designation. Active daily, 0800-2400 MST, Monday through Saturday” and adding in their place “Time of designation. Intermittent by NOTAM only, 4 hours in advance, between 0800 to 2400 MST, Monday-Saturday.
By removing “Controlling agency. Albuquerque ARTCC,” and adding in their place “Controlling agency. FAA, Phoenix TRACON.”
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action removes restricted area R-2530 Sierra Army Depot, CA. This restricted area was originally established in 1963 for the purpose of neutralization of ammunition through a process known as burning. The United States Army has advised there are no future plans for this restricted area and has concurred with the FAA's plan for removal. Therefore, the FAA has determined that a valid requirement for the airspace no longer exists.
Kenneth Ready, Airspace Policy Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
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 the 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 returns restricted area R-2530 Sierra Army Depot, CA, as it is no longer needed for its designated purpose within the National Airspace System (NAS).
This action amends 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 73 by removing Restricted area R-2530 Sierra Army Depot, CA. The United States Army no longer has a use for the restricted area, which was originally established for neutralization of ammunition through a process known as burning. The process was considered a hazard to aircraft since an uncontrolled explosion may have occurred at any time during the burning operation. The FAA has determined that a valid requirement for the airspace no longer exists and the restricted area is being returned to the NAS.
Since this action reduces restricted airspace, the solicitation of comments would only delay the return of airspace to public use without offering any meaningful right or benefit to any segment of the public; therefore, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (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 of revoking of R-2530 Sierra Army Depot, CA, qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 5-6.5.c, “Actions to return all or part of special use airspace (SUA) to the National Airspace System (NAS), such as revocation of airspace, a decrease in dimensions, or a reduction in times of use (
Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted areas.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 73 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.
The additions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(4) * * * Circumstances may require that FMLA leave begin before the actual date of birth of a child. * * * For example, a pregnant employee may be unable to report to work because of severe morning sickness.
In Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 900 to 1899, revised as of July 1, 2017, on page 302, in § 1614.304, paragraph (b)(4) is reinstated to read as follows:
(b) * * *
(4) A copy of the decision issued by the MSPB; and
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, DoD.
Final rule.
This final rule will remove DoD's regulation that relates to the administration of the Boren grants program as sections pertinent to the public were incorporated into the revision of DoD's regulation titled “National Security Education Program (NSEP) and NSEP Service Agreement” on December 5, 2016. This rule has been superseded, is unnecessary, and can be removed.
This rule is effective on June 27, 2018.
Dr. Sam Eisen at 571-256-0760.
It has been determined that publication of this CFR part removal for public comment is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to public interest since its content was incorporated into another CFR part for which public comment was taken.
The removal of this part eliminates text which has been superseded at 32 CFR part 208, therefore, it will not change the regulatory impact on the public. This removal is administrative in nature and does not result in a burden reduction or cost savings to the public.
DoD internal guidance concerning the administration of the Boren grants program will continue to be published in DoD Instruction 1025.02 available at
This rule is not significant under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” therefore, E.O. 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs” does not apply.
Colleges and universities, Grant programs—education.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is removing the existing operation regulations for 33 drawbridges across various waterways and in various locations, across the east coast and western rivers of the United States. These drawbridges have either been replaced with a fixed bridge, removed from the waterway, altered with CG approval in such a manner that the drawspan is no longer moveable or the approaching rail lines or roadways have been removed with the drawspan open to navigation and inoperable. These 33 operating regulations are no longer applicable or necessary.
This rule is effective June 27, 2018.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Mr. Chris Jaufmann, Office of Bridge Programs; United States Coast Guard Headquarters; telephone 202-372-1512, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that notice and comment procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) due to the fact that the 33 drawbridges identified either do not exist or no longer function as a drawbridge. Therefore, their regulations are no longer applicable and need to be removed. It is unnecessary to publish a NPRM because drawbridge regulations are only used for bridges that have an operational span that is intended to be opened for the passage of waterway traffic. These bridges are no longer operational.
For the same reasons stated in the preceding paragraph, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective in less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority 33 U.S.C. 499.
The elimination of these drawbridges necessitates the removal of their corresponding drawbridge operation regulation in 33 CFR part 117 subpart B.
The Coast Guard is removing restrictions and the regulatory burdens related to the draw operations for these 33 bridges that no longer function as drawbridges. In the regulatory section of this final rule, the 33 bridges are presented numerically based on their section number and, if applicable, paragraph lettering under 33 CFR part 117 subpart B.
This final rule will update 33 CFR part 117 subpart B by removing language that governs the operating schedule of the aforementioned bridges, which in fact, in their current state, are no longer drawbridges. The removal of
The following bridges remain across their respective waterways and remain in use in their transportation function, however; have been converted to fixed bridges:
The following bridges are no longer functional drawbridges. These bridges have either had their operable drawspan removed or the bridge was removed in whole from the waterway:
The following bridges remain in the waterway and are open to navigation. However, the rail line, including the bridge, are no longer in use.
The following drawbridges have been removed from the waterway and replaced with fixed bridges:
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive Orders.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
As previously explained the above 33 listed bridges, have either been removed
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
For the reasons stated in section IV.A above this final rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a determination that this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule simply promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. This action is categorically excluded from further review, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.
A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration and a Memorandum for the Record are not required for this rule.
Bridges.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 117 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
The Union Pacific Railroad Bridge, mile 3.4 at Paoquet need not open for the passage of vessels.
(a) The draws of the St. Louis Southwestern railroad bridge, mile 98.9 at Clarendon, the Missouri Pacific railroad bridge, mile 196.3 at Augusta and the Missouri Pacific railroad bridge, mile 254.8 at Newport, shall open on signal if at least eight hours notice is given. The draws of any of these bridges need not be opened for a vessel that arrives later than two hours after the time specified in the notice, unless a second notice of at least eight hours is given.
The draw of the S99 Alford Street Bridge, mile 1.4, shall open on signal; except that, Monday through Saturday, excluding holidays, the draw need not open for the passage of vessel traffic from 7:45 a.m. to 9 a.m., 9:10 a.m. to 10 a.m., and 5 p.m. to 6 p.m., daily. From November 1 through March 31, between 3 p.m. and 7 a.m., at least an eight-hour advance notice is required for bridge openings by calling the number posted at the bridge.
(n) West Eighth Street Bridge, mile 15.3, at Garfield need not open for the passage of vessels.
The revisions read as follows:
(c) The draws of the twin, SR 529, highway bridges across the Snohomish River, mile 3.6, at Everett shall open on signal if notice is provided at least one hour in advance. Notice for openings shall be given by marine radio, telephone or other means to the drawtender at the twin, SR 529, Highway Bridges across the Snohomish River, mile 3.6. One signal opens both draws. During freshets, a drawtender shall be in constant attendance, and the draws shall open on signal when so ordered by the District Commander.
(f) The draws of the twin SR 529, highway bridges across Steamboat Slough, miles 1.1 and 1.2, near Marysville, shall open on signal if notice is provided at least four hours in advance. Notice for openings shall be given by marine radio or telephone to the drawtender at the twin, SR 529, Highway Bridges across the Snohomish River, mile 3.6. One signal opens both draws. During freshets, a drawtender shall be in constant attendance, and the draws shall open on signal when so ordered by the District Commander.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for navigable waters within a 420-foot radius of the launch site at Lakewood Park, Lakewood, OH. This safety zone is intended to restrict vessels from portions of Lake Erie during the Lakewood Independence Day fireworks display. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect mariners and vessels from the navigational hazards associated with a fireworks display. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Buffalo.
This rule is effective from 9:45 p.m. until 10:45 p.m. on July 4, 2018.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email LT Ryan Junod, Chief of Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Cleveland; telephone 216-937-0124, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the event sponsor did not submit notice to the Coast Guard with sufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Delaying the effective date would be contrary to the rule's objectives of enhancing safety of life on the navigable waters and protection of persons and vessels in the vicinity of the fireworks display.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Buffalo (COTP) has determined that a fireworks display presents significant risks to the public
This rule establishes a safety zone on July 4, 2018, from 9:45 p.m. until 10:45 p.m. The safety zone will encompass all waters of Lake Erie; Lakewood, OH contained within 420-foot radius of: 41°29′50″ N, 081°47′52″ W.
Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the conclusion that this rule is not a significant regulatory action. We anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced for a relatively short time. Also, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit around it. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule establishes a temporary safety zone. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.
(3) The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port Buffalo is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act on his behalf.
(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone shall contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene representative.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is modifying the safety and security zone surrounding the bridge between Liberty State Park and Ellis Island in order to increase navigational safety in New York Harbor. This modification authorizes certain vessels to transit underneath the bridge, reducing vessel congestion in the adjacent Anchorage Channel. All other persons and vessels continue to be prohibited from accessing the zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port New York or a designated representative.
This rule is effective on June 27, 2018.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email MST1 Kristina Pundt, Waterways Management at U.S. Coast Guard Sector New York, telephone 718-354-4352, email
On November 27, 2002, the Coast Guard published a NPRM entitled, “Safety and Security Zones; New York Marine Inspection and Captain of the Port Zone” in the
On May 6, 2008, the Coast Guard published a NPRM entitled, “Safety and Security Zones; New York Marine Inspection Zone and Captain of the Port” in the
On November 3, 2016, the Coast Guard published an ANPRM entitled, “Safety and Security Zones; New York Marine Inspection and Captain of the Port Zone” in the
In response to the comments received on the above mentioned ANPRM, on April 20, 2018, the Coast Guard published a NPRM entitled, “Safety and Security Zones; New York Marine Inspection and Captain of the Port Zone” in the
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), the Coast Guard finds that an exception exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The COTP New York has determined that the vessel congestion in the Anchorage Channel presents a hazard to mariners within New York Harbor. The purpose of this safety and security zone modification is to increase navigational safety within New York Harbor. By permitting greater access for human powered vessels to transit underneath the bridge between Ellis Island and Liberty State Park, the vessel congestion in the adjacent Anchorage Channel will be reduced.
As noted above, we received 40 comments on our NPRM published April 20, 2018. Of the 40 comments received, 39 were in support of modifying the existing safety and security zone to allow transit underneath the Ellis Island Bridge, stating navigational safety will improve. The sole neutral comment addressed the United States' trade relations with China and is outside the purview of this rulemaking.
We received 25 comments recommending the 16 foot vessel length either be eliminated or increased. 10 comments noted that many kayaks are greater than 16 feet in length, with some of these comments specifically noting that many sea kayaks are 18 feet or longer. 4 comments discussed that many canoes or row gigs navigating this area are longer than 16 feet, ranging between 25 to 35 feet. We received other comments stating human powered vessels in New York Harbor can exceed 45 feet. Based on these comments, we are changing the regulatory text of the NPRM to reflect that human powered vessels with a length equal to or less than 25 feet may transit the zone. Increasing the permissible length to equal to or less than 25 feet balances the need for ensuring navigational safety and providing adequate security for Ellis and Liberty Islands. In addition, mariners with human powered vessels greater than 25 feet in length may request COTP permission to transit the zone and these requests will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
We received 15 comments regarding access to the safety and security zone during weekdays and throughout the year. These comments noted that the congestion in the Anchorage Channel poses a navigational safety concern to human powered vessels regardless of the day of the week or season of the year. Commenters further stated that many human powered vessel trips are based upon favorable tides and weather.
Due to agency resource constraints, pre-approved access to the zone cannot be extended to encompass all weekdays without compromising the required security posture necessary to protect these national symbols. Similarly, extending pre-approved access beyond the summer boating season poses an unacceptable risk due to the lack of sufficient resources to adequately maintain the required security presence such access demands. Vessel congestion in New York Harbor is greatest on weekend days during the summer months. Limiting pre-approval to certain vessels transiting the zone on weekends during the peak summer boating season, will help ensure adequate security for Ellis and Liberty Islands and well as increase navigational safety. Mariners may request COTP authorization to access the zone on weekdays and throughout the year and each request will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
We received 11 comments requesting an expansion of the time of day vessels are permitted to access the zone. Commenters requested vessels be permitted to transit from sunrise to sunset, one hour before sunrise and one hour after sunset, and 24 hour access to the zone. Commenters noted that many human powered vessel trips are based upon favorable tides, which do not necessary align with the times specified in the NRPM. The Coast Guard believes that security concerns warrant the need to limit the duration of time that transit is permissible. Visibility is greatly reduced outside of the times specified in the NPRM. Where there is reduced visibility the security threat is enhanced and necessitates limiting the pre-approved access of the zone during daylight hours. Also, due to Coast Guard and NPS resource constraints, adequate security is unable to be provided at all times. The most congested time of day in New York harbor is during the daytime. Providing pre-approved COTP access to the zone during the busiest time of day allows the Coast Guard to balance the navigational safety concerns faced by human powered vessel users with the security concerns of these historical landmarks.
We received 3 comments recommending there be a way to contact the agencies through use of a VHF radio, in addition to the phone number contact. The Coast Guard is changing the regulatory text of the NPRM to add VHF Channel 13 as an additional notification method.
Additional changes to the regulatory text between the NPRM and the Final Rule are incorporated below to improve understanding of the modification imposed by this rule. Based on the comments addressing concerns with the restriction on vessel length, weekday transit, and duration of time that transit is permissible, 33 CFR 165.169(b) provides that any person or vessel may request COTP authorization to access the zone throughout the year and each request will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The text in the NPRM referred to the zone as a “security
This rule modifies an existing safety and security zone. The modification allows certain vessels to transit underneath the Ellis Island Bridge on weekends and Federally Observed Holidays on a Friday or Monday, beginning on Memorial Day Weekend through October 1, between one hour after sunrise and one hour before sunset. Vessels making this transit (a) must be able to safely navigate underneath the bridge, (b) be human powered vessels with a length equal to or less than 25 feet and (c) meet the horizontal and vertical navigational bridge clearances. This rule allows for pre-approved COTP permission to transit the zone when meeting the conditions listed in the regulatory text. In accordance with 33 CFR 165.169(b), any person or vessel may still request COTP permission to access the Ellis Island Bridge security zone at any time and each request will be considered on a case-by-case basis. The modified regulatory text is at the end of this document.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the modification allowing increased access to a previously restricted area. While the current regulation allows vessels to transit under the Ellis Island Bridge with COTP authorization, this modification grants standing COTP approval for certain vessels to transit underneath the bridge during specific time periods. Thus, this modification lessens the regulatory burden on these vessels by allowing transit through the security zone without needing to seek prior COTP permission. Moreover, the Coast Guard will make the boating public aware of this modification through publication in the Local Notice to Mariners, enhancing public notice of the reduction of the regulatory burden on certain vessels.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the security zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A. above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule modifies a security zone surrounding the bridge between Liberty State Park and Ellis Island in order to permit greater vessel access. It is categorically excluded from
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a) * * *
(4)
(ii)
(A) Dates/Times: On weekends only, to include Federally Observed Holidays on a Friday or Monday, from Memorial Day Weekend through October 1 each year, between one hour after sunrise and one hour before sunset.
(B) Vessel types: Human powered vessels equal to or less than twenty five feet. Human powered vessels must be able to safely navigate under the bridge.
(C) Notification: Human powered vessels desiring to transit shall contact the United States Park Police Command Center at 212-363-3260 or VHF CH 13 regarding intentions of passage prior to entering the safety and security zone and transiting under the Ellis Island Bridge.
(D) Route: Transits through the safety and security zone and under the bridge shall occur only at the designated route marked with lights and signage.
(E) Passage: Vessels transiting under the Ellis Island Bridge shall make expeditious passage and not stop or loiter within the safety and security zone.
(iii)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for navigable waters within a 420-foot radius of the launch site located at Woodlawn Beach, Lake Erie, Blasdell, NY. This safety zone is intended to restrict vessels from portions of Lake Erie during Town of Hamburg July 3rd Party. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect mariners and vessels from the navigational hazards associated with a fireworks display. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo.
This rule is effective from 9:45 p.m. until 10:45 p.m. on July 3, 2018.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email LT Michael Collet, Chief Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 716-843-9322, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the event sponsor did not submit notice to the Coast Guard with sufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest by inhibiting the Coast Guard's ability to protect spectators and vessels form the hazards associated with a fireworks display.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Buffalo (COTP) has determined that a fireworks display presents significant risks to the public safety and property. Such hazards include premature and accidental detonations, dangerous projectiles, and falling or burning debris. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the fireworks display takes place.
This rule establishes a safety zone on July 3, 2018, from 9:45 p.m. until 10:45 p.m. The safety zone will encompass all waters of the Woodlawn Beach; Lake Erie, Blasdell, NY contained within 420-foot radius of: 42°47′27.34″ N, 078°51′19.67″ W.
Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the conclusion that this rule is not a significant regulatory action. We anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced for a relatively short time. Also, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit around it. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule establishes a temporary safety zone. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.
(3) The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port Buffalo is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act on his behalf.
(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene representative.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for navigable waters within a 210-foot radius of the launch site located at Bald Eagle Marina, Kendall, NY. This safety zone is intended to restrict vessels from portions of the Lake Ontario during Boaters Against Cancer fireworks display. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect mariners and vessels from the navigational hazards associated with a fireworks display. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo.
This rule is effective from 9:45 p.m. until 10:35 p.m. on June 30, 2018.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email LT Michael Collet, Chief Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 716-843-9322, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the event sponsor did not submit notice to the Coast Guard with sufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Delaying the effective date would be contrary to the rule's objectives of ensuring safety of life on the navigable waters and protection of persons and vessels in vicinity of the fireworks display.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Buffalo (COTP) has determined that a fireworks display presents significant risks to the public safety and property. Such hazards include premature and accidental detonations, dangerous projectiles, and falling or burning debris. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the fireworks display takes place.
This rule establishes a safety zone on June 30, 2018, from 9:45 p.m. until 10:35 p.m. The safety zone will encompass all waters of Lake Ontario; Kendall, NY contained within 210-foot radius of: 43°22′02.04″ N, 078°01′48.06″ W.
Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the conclusion that this rule is not a significant regulatory action. We anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced for a relatively short time. Also, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit around it. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule establishes a temporary safety zone. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.
(3) The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port Buffalo is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act on his behalf.
(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene representative.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Clean Air Act requires each State Implementation Plan (SIP) to contain adequate provisions prohibiting emissions that will have certain adverse air quality effects in other states. On March 10, 2016, the State of Alaska made a submission to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to address these requirements. The EPA is approving the submission as meeting the requirement that each SIP contain adequate provisions to prohibit emissions that will contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2012 annual fine particulate matter (PM
This final rule is effective July 27, 2018.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2017-0745. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Jeff Hunt at (206) 553-0256, or
On May 2, 2018, the EPA proposed to approve Alaska's submission as meeting the requirement that each SIP contain adequate provisions to prohibit emissions that will contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2012 PM
The EPA is approving Alaska's March 10, 2016, submission certifying that the current Alaska SIP is sufficient to meet the interstate transport requirements of Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2012 PM
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Clean Air Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because actions such as SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because this action does not involve technical standards; and
• does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land and is also not approved to apply in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 27, 2018. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (See section 307(b)(2)).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing the update of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Air Regulations proposed in the
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of July 27, 2018.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R02-OAR-2017-0723. The index to the docket is available electronically at
Viorica Petriman, Air Programs Branch, Permitting Section, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007, (212) 637-4021,
Throughout this document, the terms “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to the EPA.
On February 13, 2018 (83 FR 6136), EPA proposed to incorporate requirements into the OCS Air Regulations at 40 CFR part 55
To comply with the statutory mandate of Section 328(a)(1) of the CAA, the EPA must incorporate by reference all relevant state rules into part 55 so they can be applied to OCS sources located offshore. 40 CFR 55.12 specifies certain times at which part 55's incorporation by reference of a state's rules must be updated. One such time a consistency update must occur is when any OCS source applicant submits a Notice of Intent (NOI) under 40 CFR 55.4 for a new or a modified OCS source. 40 CFR 55.4(a) requires that any OCS source applicant must submit to EPA a NOI before performing any physical change or change in method of operation that results in an increase in emissions. EPA must conduct any necessary consistency update when it receives an NOI, and prior to receiving any application for a preconstruction permit from the OCS source applicant. 40 CFR 55.6(b)(2) and 55.12(f).
On December 21, 2017, the EPA received a NOI for a new OCS source off the coast of New Jersey. In today's action, the EPA is updating the “New Jersey” section of Appendix A to 40 CFR part 55 to incorporate by reference the relevant New Jersey air pollution control rules that are currently in effect.
EPA has evaluated the proposed regulations to ensure that they are rationally related to the attainment or maintenance of Federal or state ambient air quality standards (AAQS) or part C of title I of the Act, that they are not designed expressly to prevent exploration and development of the OCS, and that they are applicable to OCS sources. 40 CFR 55.1. The EPA has also evaluated the rules to ensure they are not arbitrary and capricious. 40 CFR 55.12(e). The EPA has excluded New Jersey's administrative or procedural rules,
To comply with the statutory mandate of Section 328(a) of the CAA, the EPA must incorporate by reference applicable rules in effect for onshore sources into part 55. This limits EPA's flexibility in deciding which requirements will be incorporated into 40 CFR part 55 and prevents EPA from making substantive changes to the requirements it incorporates. As a result, EPA may be incorporating rules into 40 CFR part 55 that do not conform to all of EPA's state implementation plan (SIP) guidance or certain requirements of the CAA. Inclusion in the OCS rule does not imply that a rule meets the requirements of the CAA for SIP approval, nor does it imply that the rule will be approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP.
EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period, which closed on March 15, 2018. During this period, we received 12 public comments. None of the comments are relevant to today's action, which simply incorporates by reference current New Jersey air pollution control rules into the OCS regulations applicable to all OCS sources and makes no findings regarding any specific OCS source. Thus, no EPA response to public comments is warranted.
In this document, EPA is taking final action to incorporate the proposed changes into 40 CFR part 55. EPA is approving this action under section 328(a)(1) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7627. Section 328(a) of the Act requires that EPA establish requirements to control air pollution from OCS sources located within 25 miles of States' seaward boundaries that are the same as onshore
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the NJDEP air rules that are applicable to OCS sources and which are described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 55 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents available through
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to establish requirements to control air pollution from OCS sources located within 25 miles of states' seaward boundaries that are the same as onshore air control requirements. To comply with this statutory mandate, the EPA must incorporate applicable onshore rules into part 55 as they exist onshore. 42 U.S.C. 7627(a)(1); 40 CFR 55.12. Thus, in promulgating OCS consistency updates, the EPA's role is to maintain consistency between OCS regulations and the regulations of onshore areas, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action simply updates the existing OCS requirements to make them consistent with requirements onshore, without the exercise of any policy discretion by the EPA. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993); and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 04-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this final rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, nor does it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 27, 2018. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Nitrogen oxides, Outer Continental Shelf, Ozone, Particulate matter, Permits, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 55, is amended as follows:
Section 328 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401,
(e) * * * Copies of rules pertaining to particular states or local areas may be inspected or obtained from the EPA Docket Center—Public Reading Room, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004 or the appropriate EPA regional offices: U.S. EPA, Region 1 (Massachusetts), One Congress Street, Boston, MA 02114-2023; U.S. EPA, Region 2 (New Jersey and New York), 290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866; U.S. EPA, Region 3 (Delaware), 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, (215) 814-5000; U.S. EPA, Region 4 (Florida and North Carolina), 61 Forsyth Street, Atlanta, GA 30303; U.S. EPA, Region 9 (California), 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105; and U.S. EPA, Region 10 (Alaska), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101. * * *
(15) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) State of New Jersey Requirements Applicable to OCS Sources, January 16, 2018.
(a) * * *
(1) The following State of New Jersey requirements are applicable to OCS Sources, as of January 16, 2018. New Jersey State Department of Environmental Protection—New Jersey Administrative Code. The following sections of Title 7:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
As required under section 8(b)(10)(D) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), EPA is finalizing reporting requirements for applicable persons to provide information to assist in the preparation of an “inventory of mercury supply, use, and trade in the United States,” where “mercury” is defined as “elemental mercury” and “a mercury compound.” The requirements apply to any person who manufactures (including imports) mercury or mercury-added products, or otherwise intentionally uses mercury in a manufacturing process. Based on the inventory of information collected, the Agency is directed to “identify any manufacturing processes or products that intentionally add mercury; and . . . recommend actions, including proposed revisions of Federal law or regulations, to achieve further reductions in mercury use.” At this time, EPA is not making such identifications or recommendations.
This final rule is effective August 27, 2018.
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0421, is available at
You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture (including import) mercury or mercury-added products, or if you otherwise intentionally use mercury in a manufacturing process. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include the following:
• Gold ore mining (NAICS code 212221).
• Lead ore and zinc ore mining (NAICS code 212231).
• All other metal ore mining (NAICS code 212299).
• Asphalt shingle and coating materials manufacturing (NAICS code 324122).
• Synthetic dye and pigment manufacturing (NAICS code 325130).
• Other basic inorganic chemical manufacturing (NAICS code 325180).
• All other basic organic chemical manufacturing (NAICS code 325199).
• Plastics material and resin manufacturing (NAICS code 325211).
• Pesticide and other agricultural chemical manufacturing (NAICS code 325320).
• Medicinal and botanical manufacturing (NAICS code 325411).
• Pharmaceutical preparation manufacturing (NAICS code 325412).
• Biological product (except diagnostic) manufacturing (NAICS code 325414).
• Paint and coating manufacturing (NAICS code 325510).
• Adhesive manufacturing (NAICS code 325520).
• Custom compounding of purchased resins (NAICS code 325991).
• Photographic film, paper, plate, and chemical manufacturing (NAICS code 325992).
• All other miscellaneous chemical product and preparation manufacturing (NAICS code 325998).
• Unlaminated plastics film and sheet (except packaging) manufacturing (NAICS code 326113).
• Unlaminated plastics profile shape manufacturing (NAICS code 326121).
• Urethane and other foam product (except polystyrene) manufacturing (NAICS code 326150).
• All other plastics product manufacturing (NAICS code 326199).
• Tire manufacturing (NAICS code 326211).
• All other rubber product manufacturing (NAICS code 326299).
• Iron and steel mills and ferroalloy manufacturing (NAICS code 331110).
• Rolled steel shape manufacturing (NAICS code 331221).
• Alumina refining and primary aluminum production (NAICS code 331313).
• Secondary smelting and alloying of aluminum (NAICS code 331314).
• Nonferrous metal (except aluminum) smelting and refining (NAICS code 331410).
• Secondary smelting, refining, and alloying of nonferrous metal (except copper and aluminum) (NAICS code 331492).
• Iron foundries (NAICS code 331511).
• Steel foundries (except investment) (NAICS code 331513).
• Fabricated structural metal manufacturing (NAICS code 332312).
• Industrial valve manufacturing (NAICS code 332911).
• Ammunition except small arms manufacturing (NAICS code 332993).
• Small arms, ordnance, and ordnance accessories manufacturing (NAICS code 332994).
• All other miscellaneous fabricated metal product manufacturing (NAICS code 332999).
• Food product machinery manufacturing (NAICS code 333294).
• Office machinery manufacturing (NAICS code 333313).
• Other commercial and service industry machinery manufacturing (NAICS code 333319).
• Heating equipment (except warm air furnaces) manufacturing (NAICS code 333414).
• Air-conditioning and warm air heating equipment and commercial and industrial refrigeration equipment manufacturing (NAICS code 333415).
• Pump and pumping equipment manufacturing (NAICS code 333911).
• Bare printed circuit board manufacturing (NAICS code 334412).
• Semiconductor and related device manufacturing (NAICS code 334413).
• Other electronic component manufacturing (NAICS code 334419).
• Electromedical and electrotherapeutic apparatus manufacturing (NAICS code 334510).
• Search, detection, navigation, guidance, aeronautical, and nautical system and instrument manufacturing (NAICS code 334511).
• Automatic environmental control manufacturing for residential, commercial, and appliance use (NAICS code 334512).
• Instruments and related products manufacturing for measuring, displaying, and controlling industrial process variables (NAICS code 334513).
• Totalizing fluid meter and counting device manufacturing (NAICS code 334514).
• Instrument manufacturing for measuring and testing electricity and electrical signals (NAICS code 334515).
• Analytical laboratory instrument manufacturing (NAICS code 334516).
• Watch, clock, and part manufacturing (NAICS code 334518).
• Other measuring and controlling device manufacturing (NAICS code 334519).
• Electric lamp bulb and part manufacturing (NAICS code 335110).
• Commercial, industrial, and institutional electric lighting fixture manufacturing (NAICS code 335122).
• Other lighting equipment manufacturing (NAICS code 335129).
• Electric house wares and household fan manufacturing (NAICS code 335211).
• Household vacuum cleaner manufacturing (NAICS code 335212).
• Household cooking appliance manufacturing (NAICS code 335221).
• Household refrigerator and home freezer manufacturing (NAICS code 335222).
• Household laundry equipment manufacturing (NAICS code 335224).
• Other major household appliance manufacturing (NAICS code 335228).
• Switchgear and switchboard apparatus manufacturing (NAICS code 335313).
• Relay and industrial control manufacturing (NAICS code 335314).
• Primary battery manufacturing (NAICS code 335912).
• Current-carrying wiring device manufacturing (NAICS code 335931).
• All other miscellaneous electrical equipment and component manufacturing (NAICS code 335999).
• Automobile manufacturing (NAICS code 336111).
• Light truck and utility vehicle manufacturing (NAICS code 336112).
• Heavy duty truck manufacturing (NAICS code 336120).
• Motor home manufacturing (NAICS code 336213).
• Travel trailer and camper manufacturing (NAICS code 336214).
• Other aircraft parts and auxiliary equipment manufacturing (NAICS code 336413).
• Boat building (NAICS code 336612).
• Motorcycles and parts manufacturing (NAICS code 336991).
• Surgical and medical instrument manufacturing (NAICS code 339112).
• Costume jewelry and novelty manufacturing (NAICS code 339914).
• Game, toy, and children's vehicle manufacturing (NAICS code 339932).
• Sign manufacturing (NAICS code 339950).
• Other chemical and allied products merchant wholesalers (NAICS code 424690).
• Research and development in the physical, engineering, and life sciences (except biotechnology) (NAICS code 541712).
• Hazardous waste treatment and disposal (NAICS code 562211).
• Other nonhazardous waste treatment and disposal (NAICS code 562219).
• Materials recovery facilities (NAICS code 562920).
• National security (NAICS code 928110).
EPA is issuing a final rule under TSCA section 8(b)(10) to require reporting to assist in the preparation of “an inventory of mercury supply, use, and trade in the United States,” where “mercury” is defined as “elemental mercury” and “a mercury compound.” Hereinafter “mercury” will refer to both elemental mercury and mercury compounds collectively, except where separately identified. This final rule requires reporting from any person who manufactures (including imports) mercury or mercury-added products, or otherwise intentionally uses mercury in a manufacturing process. EPA published its initial inventory report in the
In addition, this information could be used by the U.S. Government to assist in its national reporting regarding its implementation of the Minamata Convention on Mercury (Minamata Convention), to which the United States is a Party (Ref. 2). The Minamata Convention is an international environmental agreement that has as its objective the protection of human health and the environment from anthropogenic emissions and releases of elemental mercury and mercury compounds. Article 21 of the Convention requires Parties to include in their national reports, among other information, information demonstrating that the Party has met the requirements of Article 3 on Mercury Supply Sources and Trade and of Article 5 on Manufacturing Processes in Which Mercury or Mercury Compounds Are Used. EPA intends to use the collected information from the mercury inventory to implement TSCA and assist in its national reporting for the Minamata Convention as well as to shape the Agency's efforts to reduce the use of mercury in commerce. In so doing, the Agency will conduct a timely evaluation and refinement of these reporting requirements so that they are efficient and non-duplicative for reporters.
EPA issued the proposed rule for this action in the
The reporting requirements for supply, use, and trade of mercury include activities that are established TSCA terms: Manufacture, import, distribution in commerce, storage, and export. The reporting requirements also apply to otherwise intentional use of mercury in a manufacturing process. Persons who manufacture (including import) mercury or mercury-added products, or otherwise intentionally use mercury in a manufacturing process, are required to report amounts of mercury in pounds (lbs.) used in such activities during a designated reporting year. Reporters also are required to identify specific mercury compounds, mercury-added products, manufacturing processes, and how mercury is used in manufacturing processes, as applicable, from preselected lists. For certain activities, reporters are required to provide additional, contextual data (
The finalized reporting requirements do not apply to: (1) Persons who do not first manufacture, import, or otherwise intentionally use mercury; (2) persons who only generate, handle, or manage mercury-containing waste; (3) persons who only manufacture mercury as an impurity; and (4) persons engaged in activities involving mercury not with the purpose of obtaining an immediate or eventual commercial advantage (see Unit III.D.2.). Within the category of persons who must report, there are certain persons who are not required to provide specific data elements. To avoid reporting that is unnecessary or duplicative, the Agency is finalizing certain exemptions for persons who already report for mercury and mercury-added products to the TSCA section 8(a) Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule and the Interstate Mercury Education and Reduction Clearinghouse (IMERC) Mercury-added Products Database, respectively. Such reporters are not required to respond to certain data elements of the mercury reporting application that are comparable to data they also report in response to CDR and IMERC reporting requirements.
EPA is issuing this final rule under TSCA section 8(b)(10) to require reporting to assist in the preparation of the statutorily-required inventory of mercury supply, use, and trade in the United States. As indicated in the initial inventory report (Ref. 1), this final rule will support future triennial publications of the mercury inventory by establishing reporting requirements and an electronic application and database to collect, store, and analyze information provided by applicable respondents. In administering this mercury inventory, the Agency will “identify any manufacturing processes or products that intentionally add mercury; and . . . recommend actions, including proposed revisions of Federal law or regulations, to achieve further reductions in mercury use” (15 U.S.C. 2607(b)(10)(C)).
EPA is issuing this rule pursuant to TSCA section 8(b)(10)(D) to implement the direction at TSCA section 8(b)(10)(B) that “[n]ot later than April 1, 2017, and every 3 years thereafter, the Administrator shall carry out and publish in the
In addition, the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) requires Federal agencies to manage information resources to reduce information collection burdens on the public; increase program efficiency and effectiveness; and improve the integrity, quality, and utility of information to all users within and outside an agency, including capabilities for ensuring dissemination of public information, public access to Federal Government information, and protections for privacy and security (44 U.S.C. 3506).
TSCA section 2 expresses the intent of Congress that EPA carry out TSCA in a reasonable and prudent manner and in consideration of the impacts that any action taken under TSCA may have on the environment, the economy, and society. EPA will manage and leverage its information resources, including information technology, and the Agency is requiring the use of electronic reporting to implement the mercury inventory reporting requirements of TSCA section 8(b)(10)(D) in a reasonable and prudent manner.
EPA prepared an economic analysis of the potential impacts associated with this rulemaking (Ref. 6). The chief benefit of the final rule is the collection of detailed data on mercury, which will serve as a basis to recommend actions to further reduce mercury use in the United States, as required at TSCA section 8(b)(10)(C). Another benefit is the use of information collected under the final rule to help the United States implement its obligations under the Minamata Convention. While there are no quantified benefits for the final rule, the statutory mandate specifically calls for and authorizes a rule to support an inventory of mercury supply, use, and trade in the United States, to identify any manufacturing processes or products that intentionally add mercury, and to recommend actions to achieve further reductions in mercury use. As described in the Agency's economic analysis, unquantified benefits include providing increased information on mercury and assisting in the reduction of mercury use (Ref. 6). To the extent that the information gathered through this rule is used to reduce mercury use, benefits to society may result from a reduction in exposure.
The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Lautenberg Act) (Pub. L. 114-182, 130 Stat. 448), enacted on June 22, 2016, implemented reforms to TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2601
Prior to developing its initial inventory, EPA reviewed federal and state reports and databases, among other sources, to assemble a collection of available information on mercury, mercury-added products, and manufacturing processes involving mercury (Ref. 1). In reviewing data obtained, the Agency found that its baseline of data lacked the specificity and level of detail required to develop a mercury inventory responsive to TSCA section 8(b)(10)(D) or to be useful to inform mercury use reduction efforts for both the public and private sectors (Ref. 1). In 2015, to develop its understanding of domestic mercury supply and trade, the Agency collected information on the quantity of mercury sold in the United States for the years 2010 and 2013 from five companies identified as the primary recyclers and distributors of mercury in the United States (Ref. 7), which revealed a gap between available data on the amount of mercury within sold mercury-added products and the amount of bulk elemental mercury sold in the United States. Additional Agency research identified a data gap for the amount of mercury in exported mercury-added products. The Agency also is seeking to identify and differentiate between the amount of mercury in imported versus domestically manufactured mercury-added products. EPA is committed to further addressing such data gaps and considers the national mercury inventory mandated by Congress to be an instrumental means to establish the requisite body of information to support achievement of that goal.
In developing the proposed rule, the Agency coordinated with the Northeast Waste Management Officials' Association, which administers the IMERC database, as directed by TSCA section 8(b)(10)(D)(ii).
During the public comment period (October 26, 2017 to January 11, 2018) for the proposed rule, EPA received 89 comments. After careful review, the Agency determined that 27 of those comments were substantively or procedurally relevant to the proposed rule, while 55 comments were not applicable, germane, or responsive. EPA received six comments generally supportive of the proposed rule and one comment related to mercury use, but exceeded the Agency's understanding of the statutory scope of “mercury supply, use, and trade in the United States.” All comments received are identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0421 and available at
This final rule provides for the collection of information that allows EPA to implement statutory requirements at TSCA section 8(b)(10)(B), which directs that “[n]ot later than April 1, 2017, and every 3 years thereafter, the Administrator shall carry out and publish in the
TSCA section 8(b)(10)(A) states “notwithstanding [TSCA] section 3(2)(B), the term `mercury' means . . . elemental mercury; and . . . a mercury compound.” As such, the definition for mercury at TSCA section 8(b)(10)(A) supersedes the exclusions for “chemical substances” described in TSCA section 3(2)(B) that would otherwise apply to mercury, mercury-added products, or otherwise intentional uses of mercury in manufacturing processes. For example, any “drug, cosmetic, or device” as described in TSCA section 3(2)(B)(vi), should such items contain mercury, are not excluded from reporting under this final rule.
The Agency proposed that where EPA distinguishes between elemental mercury and mercury compounds, elemental mercury be limited to elemental mercury as described by its Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number (CASRN 7439-97-6) and mercury compounds be inclusive of all instances where elemental mercury or a mercury compound is reacted with another chemical substance. Examples of mercury compounds in the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory are listed in Table 2.
The Agency received a comment requesting an explanation for the Agency decision to not adopt the definition for “mercury compound” used by the Minamata Convention (“any substance consisting of atoms of mercury and one or more atoms of other chemical elements that can be separated into different components only by chemical reactions”) (Ref. 8). Another commenter requested that the Agency clarify whether there is a concentration limit for classifying a material as elemental mercury and if EPA intends to require parties to report the manufacture or use of all mercury compounds, or only those that are listed on the TSCA Inventory (Ref. 9).
Consistent with the discussion in the proposed rule, the Agency did not define specific terms for purposes of the mercury inventory in the regulatory text. Instead, the Agency considered and synthesized descriptions of applicable definitions found in TSCA and implementing regulations, as well as the Minamata Convention. To that end, EPA proposed that “elemental mercury be limited to elemental mercury (CASRN 7439-97-6) and mercury compounds be inclusive of all instances where elemental mercury or a mercury compound is reacted with another chemical substance” (Ref. 3). In regard to the definition of “mercury compound” set forth in the Minamata Convention, EPA finds the language in the proposed rule to be clear and comparable to the definition under the Minamata Convention. EPA is therefore retaining its proposed characterization. EPA also provides an extensive, though not comprehensive, list of compounds for which reporting is required based on CASRN. EPA's statutory obligations are to prepare the mercury inventory (15 U.S.C. 2607(b)(10)(B)) and to develop identifications and recommendations to reduce the use of mercury (15 U.S.C. 2607(b)(10)(C)); nonetheless, EPA believes the resulting reporting will assist the United States in implementing the Minamata Convention.
In regard to establishing a concentration limit for elemental mercury, the statutory text at TSCA section 8(b)(10)(A)(i) uses the term “elemental mercury” without qualification. Therefore, the Agency believes that it is appropriate to identify elemental mercury by use of its CASRN and without a concentration limit.
•
EPA agrees with the commenters that elemental mercury waste, whether generated from mining or another process, that is being stored (or accumulated on-site and destined for storage) for eventual transfer to the DOE long-term mercury storage facility, should not be subject to the reporting requirements because it is waste, which is exempt from this rule in accordance with TSCA section 8(10)(D)(iii). If any person manufactures elemental mercury, including recovery from waste or as a byproduct from mining or any other activity, and has not made the decision to store it for transfer to the DOE storage facility or to otherwise handle it as waste, then that person must report that mercury. The Agency considers such mercury to be a commodity, not waste, and, therefore, part of the U.S. mercury supply.
EPA partially agrees with the comment that any mercury available for sale or otherwise available for commercial use including incidentally produced mercury should be captured in the inventory. Mercury produced as a byproduct and sold or otherwise made available for commercial use, for example by mines, must be reported (unless managed as waste), even if it may be considered incidentally produced. However, mercury that is present after the production of a commodity (
EPA agrees with the same commenter that if mercury-containing materials or waste are imported into the United States and the mercury is then recovered from such materials/waste, then this mercury must be reported upon recovery unless the mercury is immediately managed as waste under RCRA. An importer of such material or waste would only report the mercury if it is the same entity that recovers the mercury.
•
In general, the Agency agrees with these comments. Notwithstanding differences in the statutory text (
•
In the proposed rule, the Agency described impurities in regard to whether “such chemical substances are intentionally generated and whether such substances are used for commercial purposes.” In order to clarify, EPA finds the definition of “impurity” at 40 CFR 704.3 to be instructive: “chemical substance which is unintentionally present with another chemical substance.” Thus, after reconsideration, the Agency determined that to require reporting of amounts of mercury unintentionally present in a final product would contradict the logic set forth by the Agency regarding the intentional addition of mercury where mercury remains present in the final product for a particular purpose (Ref. 3). EPA believes the quantity of mercury used in the manufacturing process, how the mercury is used and for what purpose, to which NAICS code a final product is distributed, and to which country(ies) the final product is exported provide adequate information about manufacturing processes that involve the intentional use of mercury to support the supply, use, and trade national inventory. Thus, the unintentional quantity of mercury in final products that result from such processes is not required. Should the Agency need additional information regarding any mercury present as an impurity, it may seek such information from the reporter, as necessary. Therefore, the Agency is not requiring the reporting of impurities for the mercury inventory and revised the regulatory text accordingly.
•
In the proposed rule, the Agency discussed its attempt to build on existing regulatory text applicable to TSCA section 8 reporting (Ref. 3). TSCA section 8(f) states “[f]or purposes of [TSCA section 8], the terms `manufacture' and `process' mean manufacture or process for commercial purposes.” Thus, EPA reads “for commercial purposes” to apply to the TSCA section 8(b)(10)(D)(i) terms “manufactures” (including imports) and “otherwise intentionally uses mercury in a manufacturing process” (
As used in 40 CFR 704.3, the terms defined with “for commercial purposes” incorporate “. . . with the purpose of obtaining an immediate or eventual commercial advantage . . .” for certain persons (
The Agency determined that the terms “with the purpose of obtaining an immediate or eventual commercial advantage” are more consistent with the statutory mandate at 15 U.S.C. 2607(b)(10)(C)(i) to “identify any manufacturing processes or products that
In the regulatory text of the final rule, therefore, the Agency omitted the use of “commercial purposes” and clarified how “with the purpose of obtaining an immediate or eventual commercial advantage” applies to activities for which reporting is required, as well as persons who must report.
•
In the proposed rule, EPA did not define “mercury-added product,” but provided examples of intentional addition of mercury to a product by persons who manufacture a mercury-added product: “inserting mercury into a switch or battery, or mixing a mercury compound with other substances to formulate a topical antiseptic” (Ref. 3). In addition to the definition of “mercury-added product” in Article 2 of the Minamata Convention (
In regard to a “component,” EPA views this term as being similar to the definition of “article” in 40 CFR 704.3. The Agency views the inclusion of a mercury-added product that is a component within an assembled product differently from the act of intentionally inserting mercury (
The example of the manufacture and use of Thimerosal illustrates when something is or is not a component. EPA agrees that only the domestic manufacturer who intentionally adds mercury to a product, or an importer who imports a product where mercury (
•
In the proposed rule, the Agency noted that the inventory would benefit from the recent totals of at least one cycle of reporting prior to the effective date of the prohibition for exporting mercury compounds subject to TSCA section 12(c)(7) to measure trends in supply, use, and trade and provide a baseline for comparison of the changes in the amounts of other mercury compounds exported after the 2020 effective date (Ref. 3). The Agency received comments supporting the collection of such data: (1) To fulfill the express Congressional mandate to provide data on trade; (2) to determine the precise impact of the mercury compound export ban and associated trends, which would allow EPA to recommend whether the export ban should be further expanded to other compounds; and (3) to uphold obligations of the United States under the Minamata Convention (Ref. 11; Ref. 12). Thus, the Agency requires one-time reporting for those five compounds. Conversely, reporting for exports of mercury compounds that are not prohibited from export by TSCA section 12(c)(7) is required for every collection period. EPA previously determined that mercury-added products (including those containing elemental mercury or mercury compounds prohibited from export) generally are not prohibited from export and, therefore, are subject to the reporting requirements set forth in this rule.
• Import of mercury;
• Manufacture (other than import) of mercury;
• Import of a mercury-added product;
• Manufacture (other than import) of a mercury-added product; or
• Intentional use of mercury in a manufacturing process.
In addition, the following activities are part of supply, use, and trade of mercury:
• Distribution in commerce, including domestic sale or transfer, of mercury;
• Distribution in commerce, including domestic sale or transfer, of mercury-added products or products that result from the intentional use of mercury in a manufacturing process;
• Storage of mercury;
• Export of a mercury compound (unless specifically prohibited); or
• Export of mercury-added products or products that result from the intentional use of mercury in a manufacturing process.
As described in greater detail in Unit III.D., persons must first engage in the manufacture (including import) of mercury or mercury-added products or otherwise intentionally use mercury in a manufacturing process to be required to report to the mercury inventory.
TSCA section 8(b)(10)(D)(ii) directs the Agency to “coordinate the reporting . . . with the Interstate Mercury Education and Reduction Clearinghouse” to avoid duplication. Furthermore, TSCA section 8(a)(5)(a) states “[i]n carrying out [TSCA section 8], the Administrator shall, to the extent feasible . . . not require reporting which is unnecessary or duplicative.” The Agency seeks to avoid collecting data on mercury that would duplicate information already reported to existing state and federal programs, and to coordinate with and complement those reporting programs as much as possible. While developing this rule (Ref. 3), EPA reviewed four data collection systems applicable to supply, use, and trade of mercury (including mercury-added products and mercury used in manufacturing processes):
• The IMERC Mercury-added Products Database, an online reporting database managed by the Northeast Waste Management Officials' Association (NEWMOA), which provides publicly available, national data on mercury used in products;
• The TSCA section 8(a) Chemical Data Reporting rule, which collects manufacturing, processing, and use information on certain chemical substances manufactured (including imported) in the United States;
• The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) program, which collects data on toxic chemical releases to air, water and land from industrial facilities and pollution prevention activities in the United States; and
• The U.S. International Trade Commission Interactive Trade DataWeb (USITC DataWeb), which provides U.S. international trade statistics and U.S. tariff data to the public.
After reviewing these reporting programs, EPA designed the reporting requirements in this rule to be least burdensome for reporters already familiar with IMERC, CDR, TRI, and USITC DataWeb protocols (Ref. 3). Therefore, the Agency is incorporating comparable reporting concepts and tools from each program, as well as not requiring reporting in certain instances to increase the efficacy while decreasing the burden to the greatest extent practicable for reporting to a national mercury inventory.
As discussed in the proposed rule, EPA cited TSCA section 8(a)(5)(A) as a basis for avoiding the collection of data that duplicated information already reported to the four data collection systems applicable to the supply, use, and trade of mercury: IMERC, CDR, TRI, and USITC DataWeb (Ref. 3). The Agency considered multiple, existing reporting systems that gather comparable data related to mercury pursuant to statutory text (15 U.S.C. 2607(a)(5)(A)). EPA also considered provisions of TSCA section 8(a)(5) that direct the Agency to “minimize the cost of compliance with this section and the rules issued thereunder on small manufacturers and processors; and . . . apply any reporting obligations to those persons likely to have information relevant to the effective implementation of this subchapter” (15 U.S.C. 2607(a)(5)(B) and (C)). In regard to comments arguing that requiring reporting for comparable data in two different systems is not duplicative if the reporting occurs in different years, the Agency maintains that this is a duplication of effort and EPA does not agree with the commenters' argument that the addition or avoidance of burden is not significant if it is relatively small. The language at TSCA section 8(a)(5) directs the Agency avoid duplicative reporting and reduce burden “to the extent feasible.” Because EPA is able to obtain comparable data via EPA's CDR program or in coordination with IMERC, the Agency finds not requiring the reporting of overlapping reporting to the mercury inventory to be a feasible approach. To the extent that data elements may not align per differences in reporting years and frequency, the Agency does not view such discrepancies to be prohibitive of its ability to carry out statutory obligations at TSCA sections 8(b)(10)(B) and (C).
Based on comments received, the Agency is clarifying that a person who currently reports to CDR or IMERC is not categorically exempt from the mercury inventory reporting requirements set forth in this rule. Instead, the bifurcated reporting structure is designed to omit only those quantitative data elements already collected by CDR and IMERC to avoid duplication in the collection, calculation, verification, review, certification, reporting, and maintenance of records pursuant to TSCA section 8(a)(5). The Agency's goal is to create a “comprehensive inventory such that existing data gaps would be eliminated, where feasible [and] . . . complement amounts of quantitative mercury data already collected by, but without overlapping with, reporting requirements,” as well as “decrease the burden of reporting to the greatest extent practicable” (Ref. 3). These goals are guided by statutory mandates not only in TSCA section 8(b)(10), but also in TSCA section 8(a)(5). Thus, while recognizing that there is a non-alignment of CDR and IMERC reporting years, the Agency believes supplementing data reported through this rule with data from CDR and IMERC creates a totality of available data that will provide an adequate basis to observe long-term trends in mercury supply, use, and trade. As such, the Agency determined that requiring reporting for comparable data to two systems would be duplicative even if the CDR and IMERC data represent information from different years. Therefore, requiring duplicative data to be reported from reporters who also report to CDR and IMERC would result in additional burden and is unnecessary.
Finally, EPA understands the interest in aligning with IMERC's submission deadline. However, the statutorily mandated publication date for the mercury inventory was April 1, 2017 and every three years thereafter, which falls on IMERC's data submission date. EPA has a legal responsibility to publish on or before the date set forth in TSCA section 8(b)(10)(B), which means that EPA must publish the inventory on or before the day IMERC reporters must submit data to IMERC. While mindful of incongruities in reporting frequency and years, EPA believes that the reporting schedule and achieve this goal to the greatest extent practicable. As a result, the reporting requirements, including efforts to incorporate data collected by CDR and IMERC while avoiding overlap among CDR and IMERC data elements, will enhance its ability to collect and publish robust data on mercury supply, use, and trade in the United States (15 U.S.C. 2607(b)(10)(B)) and to “identify any manufacturing processes or products that intentionally add mercury; and . . . recommend actions, including proposed revisions of Federal law or regulations, to achieve further reductions in mercury use” (15 U.S.C. 2607(b)(10)(C)).
The Agency disagrees. While these agencies may regulate mercury, they do not collect the data necessary to support the national inventory required by TSCA section 8(b)(10). As such, EPA does not view the reporting requirements to be duplicative of the requirements highlighted by the commenter and, therefore, is not exempting reporting of such uses of mercury.
TSCA section 8(b)(10)(D)(i) states “any person who manufactures mercury or mercury-added products or otherwise intentionally uses mercury in a manufacturing process shall make periodic reports to the Administrator.” As explained in Unit III.B., EPA interprets the statutory text at TSCA sections 8(b)(10)(B), 8(b)(10)(D)(i), and 8(b)(10)(D)(iii) as applying to intentional acts that introduce mercury into supply, use, and trade in the United States. EPA reads TSCA section 8(b)(10)(D)(i) to narrow potential reporters to persons who first manufacture mercury or mercury-added products or otherwise intentionally use mercury in a manufacturing process prior to other activities such as storage, distribution, and export. Descriptions of persons who must report under this rule and tables illustrating applicable reporting requirements are detailed in Unit III.D.1.
The Agency received comments related to instances where mercury is present in a product as a component that is a mercury-added product. Some commenters requested that the Agency require reporting for the manufacture (including import) of such products (Ref. 11; Ref. 12; Ref. 20; Ref. 23), while other commenters supported the proposed approach to not require such reporting (
The statutory text describes who must report to the mercury inventory: “any person who manufactures mercury or mercury-added products or otherwise intentionally uses mercury in a manufacturing process . . . at such time and including such information as the Administrator shall determine by rule” (15 U.S.C. 2607(b)(10)(D)(i)). In addition to the development of the inventory itself (15 U.S.C. 2607(b)(10)(B)), the Agency interprets the ultimate purpose of the inventory as identifying manufacturing processes or products that intentionally add mercury and recommending actions to achieve further reductions in mercury use (15 U.S.C. 2607(b)(10)(C)). When developing this rule, the Agency considered statutory requirements applicable to all of TSCA section 8:
TSCA section 8(b)(10)(C)(i) mandates that in carrying out the inventory, EPA must “identify any manufacturing processes or products that intentionally add mercury.” Some commenters suggested that the statute requires EPA to collect information on all products that contain mercury, including those that contain mercury only because they include a mercury-added product as a component. EPA interprets the statutory text to only require the identification of the
In identifying products where mercury is intentionally added, the Agency interprets the statute as giving it discretion over what information it may require to be reported, including from certain manufacturers and types of products. TSCA section 8(b)(10)(D)(i) requires periodic reports to assist in the preparation of the inventory “at such time and including such information as the Administrator shall determine by rule.” EPA has determined that fulfilling the mandate to identify products that intentionally add mercury and make recommendations to achieve reduction in mercury use does not require reporting for assembled products, as EPA is not convinced that all products that contain a component that is a mercury-added product should be viewed as “products that intentionally add mercury.” For example, a domestic automobile manufacturer may not know that a component of the car contains mercury and arguably, therefore, has not intentionally added mercury to the car for the purposes of TSCA section 8(b)(10)(C)(i). Similarly, an automobile importer may not know that a component of the car contains mercury. Since the import is the manufacture for purposes of TSCA, the product arguably is not a product to which mercury has intentionally been added per TSCA section 8(b)(1)(C)(i) for this reason as well.
The addition of a mercury-added product as a component to a more complex, assembled product does not change the nature or the quantity of mercury within the component, and, for a product assembled domestically, would result in the double counting of that specific quantity of mercury since EPA would receive reports both on the manufacture of the component and the manufacture of the assembled product. Even without receiving reports from manufacturers of assembled products, EPA can glean information about types of mercury-added products from the reports by manufacturers/importers of mercury-added products, which can be used as components. The information reported on NAICS codes by a person who manufactures (or imports) mercury-added products that can be used as components (
With respect to imports, based on the Agency's review of the information available in the IMERC database (Ref. 25) and its rationale set forth in the preceding paragraph, EPA believes that the reporting requirements similarly will enable it to identify the
The baseline direction from Congress was to identify products that intentionally add mercury. EPA concludes this is best done, at this stage, by requiring reporting only from the manufacturers who initially insert mercury into products and importers of mercury-added products that may be used as components in assembled products, but not assembled products themselves. EPA is not requiring a reporter who manufactures (including imports) mercury components to identify whether or how the mercury-added product is used as a component; instead, EPA intends to use NAICS codes to identify such uses. By design, the general reporting requirements first identify the total quantity of mercury in products manufactured (other than imported), distributed in commerce, or exported for a reporting year (
EPA is mindful that the global implementation of the Minamata Convention should result in a decrease in the manufacture, import, and export of many mercury-added products that are commonly used as components in products, discourage the use of such products as components, and generally increase the knowledge of manufacturers, importers, exporters, and consumers regarding the types of assembled products that contain components that are mercury-added products. EPA will evaluate whether this expected downward trend comes to fruition by monitoring trends in the importation of mercury components and its described approach to better understand the types of domestically-manufactured and imported assembled products that may contain mercury in a component part. As necessary, the Agency will use such data to consider modifying reporting requirements or to recommend appropriate actions to reduce the use of mercury.
As described in Unit III.C., persons who report to IMERC identify the amount of mercury sold in mercury-added products that may be manufactured, distributed, or imported. The Agency considers the amount of mercury reported to IMERC as sold to be comparable to the amount of mercury to be reported under the rule as distributed in commerce. As such, EPA is not requiring persons who report to IMERC to report amounts of mercury distributed in commerce in mercury-added products. However, those persons must report quantitative and qualitative information for other applicable data elements (
i.
EPA interprets the statutory text on who should report at 15 U.S.C. 2607(b)(10)(D)(i) as applicable to “intentional acts that introduce mercury into supply, use, and trade in the United States.” EPA specified in the proposed rule that this applies to “persons who
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
The statutory text at TSCA section 8(b)(10) is silent on a reporting threshold; however, TSCA section 8(b)(10)(C) directs the Agency to “identify any manufacturing processes or products that intentionally add
The Agency received comments in support of the proposal to not establish a
EPA appreciates the suggestion to offer multiple/alternative units of measurement for reporting amounts of mercury. However, EPA believes that the pound (lb.) as a unit of measurement is the best choice based on it being a unit familiar to most potential reporters and consistent with the reporting provided by IMERC, CDR, and TRI. The reporting application is designed such that persons seeking to report amounts equal to or less than one pound during a reporting year would be directed to round amounts of mercury to “1 lb.”
In regard to a reporting threshold, EPA understands that certain persons may use small amounts of mercury over the course of a reporting year, but believes that it is not appropriate to establish a
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
EPA understands that certain persons may report for multiple activities associated with supply, use, and trade of mercury. For example, a person may import mercury and manufacture mercury-added products. As such, the Agency is designing the quantitative data elements for reporting requirements such that a person could report both as an “importer of mercury” and “manufacturer of mercury-added products,” but only report for the specific activity in which they engage. The Agency expects there may be certain persons engaged in the supply, use, and trade of mercury who might not be accounted for in the inventory, but EPA views this omission of prospective reporters as an opportunity to limit undue burden and avoid double counting. Thus, the Agency is limiting the persons who must report at TSCA section 8(b)(10)(D)(i) to only those persons described in Unit III.D.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Two commenters proposed revisions to specific information to be collected applicable to the intentional use of mercury in a manufacturing process (Ref. 15; Ref. 28). One commenter noted that in a mercury cell electrolyzer, the mercury serves solely as the cathode in the electrolysis process which breaks down the sodium chloride molecule and recommended that EPA should therefore add the term “cathode” to the Table 4 list as one of the selections (Ref. 15). Another commenter requested the removal of “[v]inyl chloride monomer production” as a specific manufacturing process because the vinyl chloride monomer (VCM) process is no longer used and is not expected to be used, by any manufacturer in the United States and that all VCM producers utilize ethylene, rather than acetylene, as the feedstock, which does not require any use of mercury (Ref. 28).
The Agency appreciates and agrees with these comments. EPA amended the regulatory text for reporting requirements for specific data to add the term “Cathode” as an option to identify how mercury is used in manufacturing processes and to remove the term “Vinyl chloride monomer production” from the options of categories of manufacturing processes for which mercury may be intentionally used.
The Agency determined that the combination of general, specific, and contextual reporting requirements provides for the body of information required to fulfill statutory mandates of TSCA sections 8(b)(10)(B) and (C). As much as possible, the Agency designed all requirements to be answered only where a reporter engages in the specific activity from the inclusive list of options. In fact, EPA believes that it is unlikely that the typical reporter would be engaged in and, as a result, be required to respond to all, or even many, of the reporting requirements.
Aside from issue-specific discussions of reporting requirements presented elsewhere in Unit III.D., commenters generally supported the Agency's proposed general, specific, and contextual reporting requirements, emphasized the utility requiring reporting of NAICS to help track mercury supply and use flows, and noted the consistency and comprehensiveness of EPA mercury-added product categories and subcategories. The Agency appreciates this feedback from potentially affected persons.
The Agency received a comment related to the EPA's estimation of costs and burdens for the proposed rule (Ref. 27), which expressed concerns that initial estimates may be low given the scope of products, processes, and other information that EPA proposed to
The Agency also received a comment related to the potential burden to small businesses (Ref. 30), which expressed concerns about how the estimated initial and subsequent annual costs may impose a major burden for a small manufacturer, particularly when added to other regulatory costs. EPA intends to minimize the burden on all respondents, including small entities, as much as possible. The Agency will develop reporting instructions tailored to small entities who will be required to comply with the reporting requirements. EPA expects to conduct outreach and webinars for small businesses to introduce the reporting database, explain requirements, and offer Q&A and other support. Those materials will be available on the EPA website six months prior to the reporting deadline. Under TSCA section 26(d), EPA also provides specialized assistance to respondents, particularly to small entities, including technical and other non-financial assistance to manufacturers (including importers) and processors of chemical substances. EPA's TSCA Hotline assists small businesses complying with TSCA rules and provides various materials such as copies of
TSCA section 8(b)(10)(B) sets the date for publication of initial and subsequent, triennial iterations of the mercury inventory to commence on April 1, 2017. Therefore, EPA expects to publish the first mercury inventory supported by the finalized reporting requirements by April 1, 2020 and every three years thereafter.
TSCA section 8(b)(10)(D) provides the authority to promulgate this rule to assist in the preparation of the triennial inventory publication, but TSCA offers no guidance on the frequency of collection or reporting deadline. To minimize reporting obligations, the Agency compared the respective collection frequencies and reporting deadlines for IMERC, the CDR rule, and the TRI program to when EPA is required to publish the mercury inventory. TSCA section 8(b)(10)(B) sets a publication date for the mercury inventory that falls on the reporting deadline for IMERC: April 1 in a triennial cycle starting in April 2017. Data collected under the CDR rule is submitted to the Agency on a quadrennial cycle; the next reporting cycle will occur from 2016-2019, with a reporting deadline of September 2020. The TRI program collects and publishes data on an annual cycle with a reporting deadline of July 1 of each year.
Based on such considerations, the Agency determined that coinciding with the triennial IMERC frequency of collection is appropriate given the mercury inventory publication schedule is also triennial. The Agency is setting the mercury inventory reporting deadline to coincide with the TRI program deadline to align with a date with which certain, potential reporters might already be familiar. Therefore, EPA is establishing a July 1st reporting deadline for 2019 and every three years thereafter. Data submitted should cover only the calendar year preceding the year in which the reporting deadline occurs (
Consistent with the triennial reporting and publication cycle for the mercury inventory, EPA is requiring that each person who is subject to the reporting requirements must retain records that document any information reported to EPA. Records relevant to a reporting year must be retained for a period of 3 years beginning on the last day of the reporting year. Submitters are encouraged to retain their records longer than 3 years to ensure that past records are available as a reference when new submissions are being generated.
Reporters to the information collection of this rule may claim that their submitted information is CBI per statutory provisions for CBI under TSCA section 14.
The Agency received several comments concerning CBI, including suggestions to allow reporting in ranges and not demarcating specific amounts of mercury in exports going to specific countries (Ref. 27), as well as limiting reporting to a total amount of mercury used in a year (as opposed to specific amounts in import, export, manufacture, and other activities) (Ref. 15; Ref. 24; Ref. 28) to obviate the potential for persons to elect to claim data as CBI. Commenters were particularly concerned where reporting by a few or only a single facility engaged in a particular manufacturing process could allow competitors to calculate proprietary information. Other commenters requested an allowance for trade associations to collectively submit information on behalf of their members, which expressed a preference for collective reporting to protect against the release of proprietary sales data and other CBI (Ref. 9; Ref. 18).
EPA's mercury reporting application will allow multiple roles in creating, certifying, and submitting data. However, to maintain the alignment of general, specific, and contextual reporting requirements, EPA requires that separate reports be filed for each person/company (
As set forth in the proposed rule, the Agency determined that mandatory electronic reporting would: (1) Streamline the reporting process and reduce the administrative costs associated with information submission and recordkeeping; (2) eliminate paper-based submissions as part of broader government efforts to move to modern, electronic methods of information gathering; (3) allow for more efficient data transmittal and a reduction in errors with the built-in validation procedures; and (4) reduce the reporting burden for submitters by reducing the cost and time required to review. EPA
The Agency received comments related to the proposal to require electronic reporting, which suggested that EPA should be prepared to provide additional assistance to companies that may be challenged by an electronic reporting system (Ref. 11; Ref. 23). The Agency appreciates these comments and will develop reporting instructions and support materials to assist with reporting to the mercury inventory. Those materials will be available on the EPA website six months prior to the reporting deadline. In addition, the EPA CDX maintains a helpdesk contract to provide support for CDX users.
The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically referenced in this document. The docket includes these documents and other information considered by EPA, including documents that are referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, even if the referenced document is not physically located in the docket. For assistance in locating these other documents, please consult the technical person listed under
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action.
This action is subject to the requirements for regulatory actions specified in Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017). EPA prepared an analysis of the estimated costs and benefits associated with this action. This analysis, “Economic Analysis for the Reporting Requirements for the TSCA Mercury Inventory” (Economic Analysis, Ref. 6), is available in the docket and is summarized in Unit I.E.
The information collection activities in this rule have been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
The reporting requirements identified in the final rule would provide EPA with information necessary to prepare and periodically update an inventory of mercury supply, use, and trade in the United States, as required by TSCA section 8(b)(10)(D). These reporting requirements would help the Agency to prepare subsequent, triennial
EPA estimated total burden and costs to industry associated with the information collection activities in the final rule over the first three years after its promulgation (Ref. 6). For the 750 companies anticipated to be subject to the reporting requirements, the average per respondent burden hours for Year 1 (of a triennial cycle for submitting information) was estimated to be 96.76 hours (Ref. 6). Years 2 and 3 are not data collection years, so there is no cost associated with the rule during these years (Ref. 6). Therefore, the average for total burden hours per the three-year reporting cycle is 32.25 hours per year (Ref. 6).
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified at the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via email to
Pursuant to section 605(b) of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601
The small entity analysis estimated that no parent company would incur an impact of 3 percent or greater, and 4 parent companies (1.85 percent of total entities) would incur an impact of 1 to 3 percent. Details of this analysis are included in the accompanying Economic Analysis for this rule (Ref. 6).
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531 through 1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. As such, the requirements of sections 202, 203, 204, or 205 of UMRA do not apply to this action.
This action does not have federalism implications, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). 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 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It will not have any effect on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in the Order. Thus, E.O. 13175 does not apply to this action.
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk, nor is this action economically significant as the impact of this action will be less than $100 million.
This final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not expected to affect energy supply, distribution, or use.
Since this action does not involve any technical standards, section 12(d) of NTTAA, 15 U.S.C. 272 note, does not apply to this section.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) because it does not establish an environmental health or safety standard. This action establishes an information requirement and does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment.
This action is subject to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Exports, Imports, Manufacturing, Mercury, Trade practices.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I, subchapter R, is amended by adding a new part 713 to read as follows:
15 U.S.C. 2607(b)(10)(D).
(a) This part specifies reporting and recordkeeping procedures under section 8(b)(10) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (15 U.S.C. 2607(b)(10)) for certain manufacturers (including importers) and processers of mercury as defined in section 8(b)(10)(A) to include elemental mercury and mercury compounds. Hereinafter “mercury” will refer to both elemental mercury and mercury compounds collectively, except where separately identified. Section 8(b)(10)(D) of TSCA authorizes the EPA Administrator to require reporting from any person who manufactures mercury or mercury-added products or otherwise intentionally uses mercury in a manufacturing process to carry out and publish in the
(b) This part applies to the activities associated with the periodic publication of information on mercury supply, use, and trade in the United States. Except as described at § 713.7, the reporting requirements for mercury supply, use, and trade apply to the following activities:
(1) Activities undertaken with the purpose of obtaining an immediate or eventual commercial advantage:
(i) Import of mercury;
(ii) Manufacture (other than import) of mercury;
(iii) Import of a mercury-added product;
(iv) Manufacture (other than import) of a mercury-added product; and
(v) Intentional use of mercury in a manufacturing process.
(2) Activities undertaken in relationship to those activities described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section:
(i) Distribution in commerce, including domestic sale or transfer, of mercury;
(ii) Distribution in commerce, including domestic sale or transfer, of a mercury-added product;
(iii) Storage of mercury (including import);
(iv) Export of a mercury compound (unless specifically prohibited); and
(v) Export of a mercury-added product.
(c) Section 15(3) of TSCA makes it unlawful for any person to fail or refuse to submit information required under this part. In addition, TSCA section 15(3) makes it unlawful for any person to fail to: Establish or maintain records, or permit access to records required by this part. Section 16 of TSCA provides that any person who violates a provision of TSCA section 15 is liable to the United States for a civil penalty and may be criminally prosecuted. Pursuant to TSCA section 17, the Federal Government may seek judicial relief to compel submission of TSCA section 8 information and to otherwise restrain any violation of TSCA section 15.
(d) Each person who reports under this part must certify the accuracy and maintain records of the information reported under this part and, in accordance with TSCA, permit access to, and the copying of, such records by EPA officials.
(a) Elemental mercury (Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number 7439-97-6); or
(b) A mercury compound, including but not limited to the mercury compounds listed in Table 1 of this part by Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number:
(a) Any person who manufactures (including imports) mercury, except:
(1) A person who does not manufacture (including import) mercury with the purpose of obtaining an immediate or eventual commercial advantage;
(2) A person who manufactures (including imports) mercury only as an impurity; or
(3) A person engaged only in the generation, handling, or management of mercury-containing waste, including recovered mercury that is discarded or elemental mercury that is managed for long-term storage and management under section 6939f(g)(2) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act;
(b) Any person who manufactures (including imports) a mercury-added product, except:
(1) A person who does not manufacture (including import) a mercury-added product with the purpose of obtaining an immediate or eventual commercial advantage;
(2) A person engaged only in the import of a product that contains a component that is a mercury-added product; or
(3) A person engaged only in the manufacture (other than import) of a product that contains a component that is a mercury-added product who did not first manufacture (including import) the component that is a mercury-added product; and
(c) Any person who otherwise intentionally uses mercury in a manufacturing process, except a person
Except as described at § 713.7:
(a) Persons who manufacture (including import) mercury in amounts greater than or equal to 2,500 pounds (lbs.) for elemental mercury or greater than or equal to 25,000 lbs. for mercury compounds for a specific reporting year must report, as applicable:
(1) Amount of mercury stored (lbs.); and
(2) Amount of mercury distributed in commerce (lbs.).
(b) All other persons who manufacture (including import) mercury must report, as applicable:
(1) Amount of mercury manufactured (other than imported) (lbs.);
(2) Amount of mercury imported (lbs.);
(3) Amount of mercury exported (lbs.), except mercury prohibited from export at 15 U.S.C. 2611(c)(1) and (7);
(4) Amount of mercury stored (lbs.); and
(5) Amount of mercury distributed in commerce (lbs.).
(c) Persons who report sales of mercury-added products to the Interstate Mercury Education and Reduction Clearinghouse (IMERC) must report, as applicable:
(1) Amount of mercury in manufactured (other than imported) products (lbs.);
(2) Amount of mercury in imported products (lbs.); and
(3) Amount of mercury in exported products (lbs.).
(d) All other persons who manufacture (including import) mercury-added products must report, as applicable:
(1) Amount of mercury in manufactured (other than imported) products (lbs.);
(2) Amount of mercury in imported products (lbs.);
(3) Amount of mercury in exported products (lbs.); and
(4) Amount of mercury in products distributed in commerce (lbs.).
(e) Persons who otherwise intentionally use mercury in a manufacturing process must report, as applicable:
(1) Amount of mercury otherwise intentionally used (lbs.) in a manufacturing process; and
(2) Amount of mercury stored (lbs.).
Except as described at § 713.7:
(a) Any person who manufactures (including imports) mercury must specify, as applicable, the specific mercury compound(s) from a pre-selected list (as listed in Table 1 of this part).
(b) Any person who manufactures (including imports) a mercury-added product must specify as applicable, the specific category(ies) and subcategory(ies) from a pre-selected list, as listed in Table 2 of this part:
(c) Any person who otherwise intentionally uses mercury in a manufacturing process, other than the manufacture of a mercury compound or a mercury-added product, must identify, as applicable:
(1) The specific manufacturing process for which mercury is otherwise intentionally used from a pre-selected list, as listed in Table 3 of this part:
(2) The specific use of mercury in a manufacturing process from a pre-selected list, as listed in Table 4 of this part:
Except as described at § 713.7:
(a) Persons who manufacture (including import) mercury in amounts greater than or equal to 2,500 lbs. for elemental mercury or greater than or equal to 25,000 lbs. for mercury compounds for a specific reporting year must report, as applicable:
(1) Country(ies) of origin for imported mercury;
(2) Country(ies) of destination for exported mercury; and
(3) NAICS code(s) for mercury distributed in commerce.
(b) All other persons who manufacture (including import) mercury must report, as applicable:
(1) Country(ies) of origin for imported mercury;
(2) Country(ies) of destination for exported mercury; and
(3) NAICS code(s) for mercury distributed in commerce.
(c) Persons who report sales of mercury-added products to IMERC must report, as applicable:
(1) Country(ies) of origin for imported products;
(2) Country(ies) of destination for exported products; and
(3) NAICS code(s) for products distributed in commerce.
(d) All other persons who manufacture (including import) mercury-added products must report, as applicable:
(1) Country(ies) of origin for imported products;
(2) Country(ies) of destination for exported products; and
(3) NAICS code(s) for products distributed in commerce.
(e) Persons who otherwise intentionally use mercury in a manufacturing process, other than the manufacture of a mercury compound or a mercury-added product, must report, as applicable:
(1) Country(ies) of destination for exported final product(s); and
(2) NAICS code(s) for mercury in final product(s) distributed in commerce.
Any person who must report under this part must report for the submission period described at § 713.17:
(a) Quantities of mercury in pounds per applicable activity listed under the general requirements for which information must be reported described at § 713.9;
(b) Specific requirements for which information must be reported described at § 713.11;
(c) Contextual requirements for which information must be reported described at § 713.13; and
(d) According to the procedures described at § 713.21.
(a) Any person who must report under this part must report for the reporting
(b) All information reported for an applicable reporting year must be submitted on or before the first day of July following the reporting year. The submission deadline for the 2018 reporting year is July 1, 2019. Subsequent submission deadlines are on or before the first day of July following the reporting year, in 3-year intervals, beginning in 2022.
(c) The data from the 2018 reporting year will be used for the 2020 mercury inventory, the data from the 2021 reporting year will be used for the 2023 mercury inventory, and so forth at three-year intervals.
Each person who is subject to the reporting requirements of this part must retain records that document any information reported to EPA. Records relevant to a reporting year must be retained for a period of 3 years beginning on the last day of the reporting year. Submitters are encouraged to retain their records longer than 3 years to ensure that past records are available as a reference when new submissions are being generated.
(a) You must use the Mercury Electronic Reporting (MER) application to complete and submit required information as set forth in § 713.17. Submissions may only be made as set forth in this section.
(b) Submissions must be sent electronically to EPA via CDX.
(c) Access MER and instructions, as follows:
(1) By website. Access MER via the CDX homepage at
(2) By phone or email. Contact the EPA TSCA Hotline at (202) 554-1404 or
Office of Government-wide Policy, U.S. General Services Administration (GSA).
Direct final rule.
GSA is amending the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR), to remove the meals and incidental expenses (M&IE) deduction table, Allocation of M&IE Rates To Be Used in Making Deductions From the M&IE Allowance, and the Glossary of Acronyms.
This rule is effective August 13, 2018 without further action, unless adverse comments are received by July 27, 2018. GSA will consider whether these comments are significant enough to publish a timely withdrawal in the
Submit comments in response to FTR Case 2018-301 by any of the following methods:
•
•
For clarification of content, contact Ms. Jill Denning, Program Analyst, Office of Government-wide Policy, at 202-208-7642 or
GSA is publishing this direct final rule without a prior proposed rule as this is a noncontroversial action, and GSA anticipates no significant adverse comments. A significant adverse comment is defined as one where the comment explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. In determining whether a significant adverse comment is sufficient to terminate a direct final rulemaking, GSA will consider whether the comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. GSA notes that comments that are frivolous, insubstantial, or outside the scope of the rule would not be considered adverse under this procedure. A comment recommending a rule change in addition to the rule would not be considered a significant adverse comment, unless the comment states why the rule would be ineffective without the additional change. In addition, if a significant adverse comment applies to part of a rule and that part can be severed from the remainder of the rule (
As part of a comprehensive review of the FTR, GSA is removing the M&IE deduction table from appendix B to chapter 301, Allocation of M&IE Rates To Be Used in Making Deductions From the M&IE Allowance; and all of appendix D to chapter 301, Glossary of Acronyms. The table in appendix B is publicly available on the internet at
With the exception of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Federal Housing Authority (FHA) and Free on Board (FOB), the acronyms in appendix D to chapter 301 are either defined in the Glossary of Terms section at FTR § 300-3.1, spelled out within the text of the regulations themselves, or are commonly known acronyms that can be found in sources outside the FTR, making appendix D duplicative. In accordance with this amendment the acronyms for FEMA, FHA and FOB are now spelled out within the text of the FTR where they appear. In addition, a website link has been updated in the section accompanying the FEMA acronym.
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives, and if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This final rule is not a significant regulatory action, and therefore, was not subject to review under Section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993.
This final rule is not an E.O. 13771 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.
This final rule was identified by GSA's Regulatory Reform Task Force as a rule that improves efficiency by reducing costs—in this case, printing fewer hardcopy pages of the FTR, but maintaining the same information online.
This direct final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the changes to the FTR do not impose recordkeeping or information collection requirements, or the collection of information from offerors, contractors, or members of the public that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501,
This direct final rule is also exempt from Congressional review prescribed under 5 U.S.C. 801 since it relates solely to agency management and personnel.
Government employees, Travel and transportation expenses.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, GSA amends 41 CFR parts 300-3 and 301-11, appendices B and D to chapter 301, and parts 302-9 and 302-11 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 5707; 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 49 U.S.C. 40118; 5 U.S.C. 5738; 5 U.S.C. 5741-5742; 20 U.S.C. 905(a); 31 U.S.C. 1353; E.O. 11609, as amended, 3 CFR, 1971-1975 Comp., p. 586, Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-126, Revised May 22, 1992.
5 U.S.C. 5707.
(a) Except as provided in § 301-11.17 or in paragraph (b) of this section, your M&IE allowance must be adjusted for meals furnished to you by the Government (including meals furnished under the authority of chapter 304 of this title) by deducting the appropriate amount shown at
For the meals and incidental expenses (M&IE) deduction amounts for localities in CONUS, non-foreign areas, and foreign areas, visit
5 U.S.C. 5737a; 5 U.S.C. 5738; 20 U.S.C. 905(a); E.O. 11609, as amended, 3 CFR, 1971-1975 Comp., p. 586.
(b) The POV is transported Free on Board (FOB)—shipping point, consigned to you and/or a member of your immediate family, or your agent; and
5 U.S.C. 5738 and 20 U.S.C. 905(c).
(f) * * *
(1) Federal Housing Administration (FHA) or VA fees for the loan application;
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), HHS.
Final rule.
This action removes the outmoded regulations for the Rural Physician Training Grant Program, Definition of “Underserved Rural Community.” Funding was authorized at section 749B(i) Public Health Service Act for fiscal years 2010-2013, but never appropriated for the Rural Physician Training Grant Program, and the program was not implemented. Therefore, this regulation is no longer relevant, and HRSA suggested the regulations defining underserved rural communities for the Rural Physician Training Grant Program be removed.
This action is effective July 27, 2018.
Sweta Maheshwari J.D., Legislative Analyst, Division of Policy and Shortage Designation, Bureau of Health Workforce, HRSA, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 11W21A, Rockville, MD 20857, by phone at (301) 945-3527, or by email at
In response to Executive Order 13563, Section 6(a), which urges agencies to repeal existing regulations that are outmoded from the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), HHS is removing 42 CFR part 5a. HHS believes that there is good cause to bypass notice and comment and proceed to a final rule, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). The action is non-controversial, as it merely removes an obsolete provision from the CFR. This rule poses no new substantive requirements on the public. Thus, we view notice and comment as unnecessary.
The Rural Physician Training Grant Program (Program), Definition of “Underserved Rural Community” regulation was issued via an interim final rule with request for comment on May 26, 2010 pursuant to Section 749B(f) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 293m(f)). The regulation has not been updated since it was issued.
Funding was authorized at section 749B(i) (42 U.S.C. 293m(i)) for fiscal years 2010-2013, but was never appropriated for the Program; therefore, it was not implemented. This rule defines “underserved rural communities,” including census track information, Health Professions Shortage Areas (HPSAs), and Medically Underserved Areas (MUAs) for Program purposes. If the Program were to be funded, HRSA would be able to define underserved rural communities for the purpose of the program through policy documents.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to categorize all impacts which generate or alleviate costs associated with regulatory burden and to determine the actions net incremental effect.
Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action that is likely to result in a rule: (1) Having an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more in any 1 year, or adversely and materially affecting a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or Tribal governments or communities (also referred to as “economically significant”); (2) creating a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfering with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raising novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
A regulatory impact analysis (RIA) must be prepared for major rules with economically significant effects ($100 million or more in any 1 year). HHS submits that this final rule is not “economically significant” as measured by the $100 million threshold, and hence not a major rule under the Congressional Review Act. This rule has not been designated as a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Executive Order 13771, titled “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” was issued on January 30, 2017. HHS identifies this final rule as a deregulatory action (removing an obsolete rule from the Code of Federal Regulations). For the purposes of Executive Order 13771, this final rule is not a substantive rule; rather it is administrative in nature and provides no cost savings.
Executive Order 13777, titled “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” was issued on February 24, 2017. As required by Section 3 of this Executive Order, HHS established a Regulatory Reform Task Force (HHS Task Force). Pursuant to Section 3(d)(ii), the HHS Task Force evaluated this rulemaking and determined that these regulations are “outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective.” Following this finding, the HHS Task Force advised the HRSA Administrator to initiate this rulemaking to remove the obsolete regulations from the Code of Federal Regulations.
This action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, the regulatory flexibility analysis provided for under the Regulatory Flexibility Act is not required.
This action does not affect any information collections.
Health care, Health care professionals, Public health, Rural health.
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), HHS.
Final rule.
This action removes outmoded regulations for the National Health Service Corps (NHSC) Program. The regulations were promulgated to implement Section 338G of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, relating to private practice loans. The regulations have not been updated since they were issued in 1986. The regulations are no longer relevant or needed as the NHSC has not made private practice loan opportunities available since the 1980s, and does not plan to do so in the foreseeable future. The removal of these regulations will not create any challenges for other programs, as the law and regulations apply solely to NHSC clinicians.
This action is effective July 27, 2018.
Sweta Maheshwari J.D., Legislative Analyst, Division of Policy and Shortage Designation, Bureau of Health Workforce, HRSA, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 11W21A, Rockville, MD 20857, by phone at (301) 945-3527, or by email at
In response to Executive Order 13777 and Executive Order 13563, Sec. 6(a), which direct agencies to repeal existing regulations that are “outmoded” from the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), HHS is removing 42 CFR part 23, subpart B (§§ 23.21 through 23.35) and subpart C (§ 23.41). Furthermore, HHS has determined that there is good cause to bypass notice and comment and proceed to a final rule, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). The action is non-controversial, as it merely removes certain provisions from the CFR that are obsolete. Given the length of time (approximately 30 years) since the private practice loan provision has been utilized, it is HHS's assessment that the agency is unlikely to receive any comments opposing the repeal of these regulations. Thus, a comment period prior to finalization of this rule is unnecessary. This rule poses no new substantive requirements or burdens on the public.
In 1986, HHS issued implementing regulations, as directed in Section 338G of the PHS Act, specifying the interest rate and loan repayment terms for private practice special loans to former Corps members and interest rate and loan repayment terms for private practice start-up loans to NHSC scholarship recipients.
The provision for Special Loans for Former Corps Members to Enter Private Practice authorized the Secretary to make a one-time loan up to $25,000 to a Corps member. In exchange, the Corps member reciprocated by committing to serve as a full-time private practice provider in a Health Professional Shortage Area (HPSA) for a minimum of two years. The intent of these regulations was to retain Corps members in HPSAs after the completion of their service obligation. The regulation is no longer relevant as the NHSC has not made such loan opportunities available since the 1980s and, therefore, no longer needs to set repayment terms for private practice start-up loans. HRSA does not intend to restart this loan program, as the NHSC program currently has a retention rate of 88%, making additional incentives unnecessary.
Section 338G also authorizes Private Start-Up Loans. At the time the statute was enacted, only the NHSC Scholarship Program existed. Scholars were able to apply for up to $25,000 to purchase or lease the equipment and supplies needed for providing health services in their private practices. The intention of the program was to offer further incentives to recruit health professions students into the program. The regulation is no longer relevant since the NHSC has not made such loan opportunities available since the 1980s and, therefore, no longer has need to set repayment terms for private practice start-up loans. Furthermore, the NHSC Scholarship Program is significantly oversubscribed, and no further incentives are necessary to recruit health professions students.
Removing these regulations will not have an impact on the NHSC program. There is no specific appropriations authority to support Section 338G of the PHS Act; the authorization of appropriation at 338H supports all the activities under Subpart III (which includes the NHSC Loan Repayment and Scholarship Programs). The repeal of these regulations will not create any challenges for other programs, as the law and regulations apply solely to NHSC clinicians.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to categorize all impacts which generate or alleviate costs associated with regulatory burden and to determine the actions net incremnatal effect.
Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action that is likely to result in a rule: (1) Having an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more in any 1 year, or adversely and materially affecting a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or Tribal governments or communities (also referred to as “economically significant”); (2) creating a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfering with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raising novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
A regulatory impact analysis (RIA) must be prepared for major rules with economically significant effects ($100 million or more in any 1 year). HHS submits that this final rule is not “economically significant” as measured by the $100 million threshold, and
Executive Order 13771, titled “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” was issued on January 30, 2017. HHS identifies this final rule as a deregulatory action (removing an obsolete rule from the Code of Federal Regulations). For the purposes of Executive Order 13771, this final rule is not a substantive rule; rather it is administrative in nature and provides no cost savings.
Executive Order 13777, titled “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” was issued on February 24, 2017. As required by Section 3 of this Executive Order, HHS established a Regulatory Reform Task Force (HHS Task Force). Pursuant to Section 3(d)(ii), the HHS Task Force evaluated this rulemaking and determined that these regulations are “outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective.” Following this finding, the HHS Task Force advised the HRSA Administrator to initiate this rulemaking to remove the obsolete regulations from the Code of Federal Regulations.
This action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, the regulatory flexibility analysis provided for under the Regulatory Flexibility Act is not required.
This action does not affect any information collections.
Health, Health professions.
For reasons set out in the preamble, and under the authority at 5 U.S.C. 301, HHS amends 42 CFR part 23 as follows:
Secs. 333, 338E(c), and 338C(e)(1), Public Health Service Act. 90 Stat. 2272, as amended, 95 Stat. 905, 97 Stat. 1345 (42 U.S.C. 254f
Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.
Final rule.
This action removes the outmoded regulations for the Ricky Ray Hemophilia Relief Fund Program. The program and its implementing regulation have been rendered obsolete by the statutory language in the authorizing legislation stating that the Fund should terminate on the expiration of the 5-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of the Act. The statute was enacted on November 12, 1998; thus, the fund expired on November 12, 2003.
This action is effective July 27, 2018.
Sweta Maheshwari J.D., Legislative Analyst, Division of Policy and Shortage Designation, Bureau of Health Workforce, HRSA, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 11W21A, Rockville, MD 20857, by phone at (301) 945-3527, or by email at
In response to Executive Order 13563, Sec. 6(a), which urges agencies to repeal existing regulations that are outmoded from the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), HHS is removing 42 CFR part 130. HHS believes that there is good cause to bypass notice and comment and proceed to a final rule, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). The action is non-controversial, as it merely removes a provision from the CFR that is obsolete. This rule poses no new substantive requirements on the public.
The Ricky Ray Hemophilia Relief Fund Act of 1998 (Pub. L. 105-369) established the Ricky Ray Hemophilia Relief Fund Program designed to provide payments to individuals with blood-clotting disorders, such as hemophilia, who contracted HIV through the use of antihemophilic factor administered between July 1, 1982, and December 31, 1987. The Act also provided for payments to certain persons who contracted HIV from an individual as described above and certain specified survivors.
HHS promulgated 42 CFR part 130 to establish the proper regulatory framework for program implementation. The regulation can be conceptualized as four parts: The process for payment, the documentation required to prove eligibility, the petition process, and the reconsideration process. The Ricky Ray Hemophilia Relief Fund was authorized with a directive to pay $100,000 in compensation to eligible individuals. At that time, however, no funds were appropriated to implement this statute. In FY 2000, Congress appropriated $75 million and, in FY 2001, Congress appropriated $580 million, for a total of $655 million. The appropriated amounts provided sufficient funding to make compassionate payments on all eligible petitions received by the program. The program received over 6,000 petitions resulting in approved payments over $550 million.
The statutory language in the authorizing legislation stated that the “Fund shall terminate upon the expiration of the 5-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.” The statute was enacted on November 12, 1998; thus, the fund expired on November 12, 2003. The program is no longer in effect or funded. The repeal of this regulation should not create any challenges for other programs, as the regulation was strictly for the implementation of the Ricky Ray Hemophilia Relief Fund program, which has not been in operation for almost 14 years.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to categorize all impacts which generate or alleviate costs associated with regulatory burden and to determine the actions net incremnatal effect.
Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action that is likely to result in a rule: (1) Having an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more in any 1 year, or adversely and materially affecting a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or Tribal governments or communities (also referred to as “economically significant”); (2) creating a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfering with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raising novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
A regulatory impact analysis (RIA) must be prepared for major rules with economically significant effects ($100 million or more in any 1 year). HHS submits that this final rule is not “economically significant” as measured by the $100 million threshold, and hence not a major rule under the Congressional Review Act. This rule has not been designated as a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Executive Order 13771, titled “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” was issued on January 30, 2017. HHS identifies this final rule as a deregulatory action (removing an obsolete rule from the Code of Federal Regulations). For the purposes of Executive Order 13771, this final rule is not a substantive rule; rather it is administrative in nature and provides no cost savings.
Executive Order 13777, titled “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” was issued on February 24, 2017. As required by Section 3 of this Executive Order, HHS established a Regulatory Reform Task Force (HHS Task Force). Pursuant to Section 3(d)(ii), the HHS Task Force evaluated this rulemaking and determined that these regulations are “outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective.” Following this finding, the HHS Task Force advised the HRSA Administrator to initiate this rulemaking to remove the obsolete regulations from the Code of Federal Regulations.
This action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, the regulatory flexibility analysis provided for under the Regulatory Flexibility Act is not required.
This action does not affect any information collections.
Health care, Hemophilia, HIV/AIDS.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule and clarification.
In this document, the Commission alters the methodology for setting provider compensation rates for internet Protocol Captioned Telephone Service (IP CTS) and establishes interim compensation rates for Fund Years 2018-19 and 2019-20. The Commission also adopts rules that address the provision of volume control on IP CTS devices, require the accuracy of IP CTS information disseminated by providers, and prohibit the provision of service to ineligible users. Finally, the Commission declares that speech-to-text automation, without the participation of a communications assistant (CA), may be used to generate IP CTS captions.
Michael Scott, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, FCC, at (202) 418-1264, or email
This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order and Declaratory Ruling in CG Docket Nos. 03-123 and 13-24; document FCC 18-79, adopted on June 7, 2018 and released on June 8, 2018. Document FCC 18-79 concerns the modernization and reform of the Commission's rules for IP CTS. The Commission previously sought comment on these issues in
The Commission sent a copy of document FCC 18-79 to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
The Report and Order in document FCC 18-79 contains modified information collection requirements, which are not effective until approval is obtained from OMB. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, will invite the general public to comment on these information collection requirements as required by the PRA. The Commission will publish a separate document in the
1. IP CTS, a form of telecommunications relay services (TRS) supported by the Interstate TRS Fund (TRS Fund), allows individuals with hearing loss to both read captions and use their residual hearing to understand a telephone conversation. IP CTS providers receive compensation from the TRS Fund on a per-minute basis. The compensation rate has been determined using a methodology known as the Multistate Average Rate Structure (MARS) Plan, which calculates the weighted average per-minute compensation paid by state TRS programs to providers of intrastate CTS for the prior calendar year.
2. The Commission's mandate in determining TRS compensation rates is to ensure that the rates correlate to actual reasonable costs. MARS is no longer an effective methodology to accomplish this. The Commission therefore terminates use of the MARS methodology.
3. The per-minute costs currently reported by IP CTS providers are not comparable to those for CTS—largely, it appears, because demand for IP CTS now greatly exceeds the demand for CTS. Specifically, from 2011 to 2017, annual CTS minutes declined from approximately 40 million to 19.9 million, while annual IP CTS minutes grew from approximately 29 million to 362 million—an amount that is more than 18 times greater than annual CTS minutes. Average per-minute expenses for IP CTS dropped from $2.0581 in 2011 to $1.2326 in 2017, while the MARS rate increased from $1.7630 to $1.9467 for the same period. The 2017-18 MARS rate exceeds the average 2017 IP CTS expenses by approximately 58 percent. This divergence invalidates the rationale for continuing to use a MARS-based rate to determine IP CTS compensation.
4.
5. The Commission concludes that the most recently filed cost and demand data are sufficiently reliable to serve as a basis for setting interim IP CTS rates. As with video relay service (VRS) compensation rates, a weighted average of the historical per-minute expenses reported by providers for 2017 and the projected per-minute expenses for 2018, which for IP CTS is approximately $1.28 per minute, provides a reasonable baseline for taking initial steps to move the IP CTS compensation rate toward actual cost. Further, the Commission finds it reasonable to allow an operating margin between 7.6% to 12.35% for IP CTS providers in the same “zone of reasonableness” that applies to VRS providers given the service sector similarities between VRS and IP CTS, and that the bulk of costs for both are attributable to labor rather than capital. Adding an operating margin within that reasonable range to the average IP CTS expenses of $1.28 results in a total average cost between approximately $1.38 and $1.44.
6. While the Commission's goal is to move the IP CTS rate to a cost-based level, immediately reducing the IP CTS compensation rate to this extent could produce a disruption in the IP CTS market and potentially negative consequences for both providers and consumers. Initial rate reductions of approximately 10 percent per year, over two years, will strike a reasonable balance between the need to bring IP CTS rates in line with costs and reduce the TRS Fund contribution burden, and avoiding rate shock for IP CTS providers and potential disruption of the provision and quality of service for consumers. This approach will allow a reasonable opportunity for higher-cost providers to adjust to average-cost-based compensation by reducing unnecessary expenses—and thereby encourage multiple providers to remain in the IP CTS market. Finally, allowing the compensation rate to stay, for the present, at levels well above average allowable costs allows IP CTS providers to continue participating in research and thus will “not discourage or impair the development of improved technology.” 47 U.S.C. 225(d)(2).
7. Applying these interim rates for a period of two years will allow the Commission to fully evaluate the appropriateness of some categories of allowable costs for this service, as well as the extent to which compensation for this service should be subject to price-cap-index adjustments. In addition, this period will afford the Commission an opportunity to determine how best a fully automated method of providing IP CTS should be compensated.
8. The Commission directs that the IP CTS compensation rate be reduced in two steps of approximately 10 percent each: First, a $0.19467 reduction from the $1.9467 per minute rate currently in effect, to a rate of $1.75 per minute for the 2018-19 Fund Year, from July 1, 2018, to June 30, 2019; and second, a further $0.17 reduction of the compensation rate from $1.75 to $1.58 per minute for the 2019-20 Fund Year, from July 1, 2019, to June 30, 2020. These reductions will save the TRS Fund a minimum of $399 million over two years, as compared to applying the MARS rate. If the Commission finds that actual costs are substantially below the interim rates, the Commission may adjust those rates accordingly.
9. While the use of provider cost data adds complexity, and may require detailed analysis, it would not be reasonable for the Commission, in order to avoid such complexity, to continue to rely on a proxy that does not bear a reasonable relationship to actual costs. Any burden arising from switching to a more complex rate methodology is outweighed by the benefits of having a more accurate compensation rate, including the benefit of savings to the Fund.
10. Setting interim rates for two years, rather than a single year, will provide a
11. The TRS Fund administrator's cost calculations used to establish the interim rates are based on the same categories of provider costs that generally have been deemed allowable in calculating rates for other forms of TRS. Provider objections to these categories raise no significant arguments that have not been addressed and previously resolved in the Commission's prior rulings.
12.
13. The Commission believes that its current authority to collect the above information is contained in rules that require TRS providers to provide the TRS Fund administrator “true and adequate data, and other historical, projected and state rate related information reasonably requested to determine the TRS Fund revenue requirements and payments,” and which authorize both the TRS Fund administrator and the Commission “to examine and verify TRS provider data as necessary to assure the accuracy and integrity of TRS Fund payments.” 47 CFR 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(D)(
14. The dramatic growth in IP CTS call volume appears to result in part from provider practices that promote over-use of IP CTS, including by people with hearing loss who may be able to achieve functionally equivalent telephone service using other forms of off-the-shelf or assistive technologies. The Commission concludes that the following steps are needed to minimize such unnecessary use, and the consequent waste of TRS Fund resources.
15.
16. The compliance deadline for making this change is December 8, 2018. IP CTS providers must ensure that all IP CTS devices—as well as user software for such devices—that they
17.
• IP captioned telephone service may use a live operator. The operator generates captions of what the other party to the call says. These captions are then sent to your phone.
• There is a cost for each minute of captions generated, paid from a federally administered fund.
The first part of the notification is not required from those IP CTS providers who do not use live CAs. In the case of websites, The Commission requires such language to be included on the home page, each page that provides consumer information about IP CTS, and each page that provides information on how to order IP CTS or IP CTS equipment.
18. Requiring these notifications will enhance the Commission's efforts to prevent casual or inadvertent use of IP CTS and will not impose a significant burden that outweighs their benefits. When captioning devices are turned on by default, it is critical to make potential users aware through “multiple and repeated sources of information” that IP CTS involves significant costs and must not be used by individuals who do not
19.
20. The Commission clarifies that “unauthorized use” of IP CTS, under clause (1) above, means use by an individual who is not registered with a provider. Further, a practice is prohibited where it artificially stimulates TRS usage, enables or encourages participation by unauthorized users, or uses financial incentives to attract new TRS users or to increase usage. However, the Commission allows IP CTS providers to be compensated for calls made by unregistered users when such calls are made from temporary, public IP CTS devices set up in emergency shelters. When service for such a device is initiated at the shelter, the IP CTS provider must notify the TRS Fund administrator of the date of such activation and termination.
21. In addition, an IP CTS provider shall not seek payment from the TRS Fund for any minutes of service that it knows or has reason to know are resulting from such prohibited practices. Any IP CTS provider that becomes aware of such practices being or having been committed by any person shall, as soon as practicable, report such practices to the Commission or the TRS Fund administrator. All monies paid from the TRS Fund to providers who are found by the Commission to be in violation of this new IP CTS rule shall be recoverable by the TRS Fund administrator, and such providers may also be subject to forfeitures and other enforcement actions.
22. In document FCC 18-79, the Commission determines that the provision of CTS and IP CTS using automated speech recognition (ASR) to generate captions without the involvement of a CA is a form of relay service eligible for compensation from the TRS Fund if provided in compliance with applicable TRS mandatory minimum standards. Specifically, the Commission concludes that such services are included within the statutory definition of TRS, as “telephone transmission services that provide the ability” to engage in communication by wire or radio “in a manner that is functionally equivalent” to voice communications service. 47 U.S.C. 225(a)(3).
23. The use of ASR to generate captions for CTS and IP CTS has several benefits. First, ASR can better achieve near simultaneous communication than is possible with CA-assisted captions. Second, the substantially lower costs of operation for ASR can allow for the provision of IP CTS with far greater efficiency. Finally, as a fully automated method of generating captions that is not dependent on human intervention, ASR can allow enhanced call privacy and ensure the seamless continuation of communications when exigent circumstances, such as severe weather events, threaten IP CTS call center operations.
24. Improvements in accuracy, coupled with ASR's advantages in speed and privacy, have made ASR a viable alternative to the use of human relay intermediaries for CTS and IP CTS. IP CTS providers and others have shown heightened interest in utilizing this method for the provision of captions, and the Commission has received two applications for certification to provide IP CTS using ASR. Additionally, ASR-only products are being trialed and adopted internationally as a means of generating captions from speech, for people with hearing and speech disabilities.
25. The Commission is not mandating ASR as the sole means of offering IP CTS. IP CTS providers will be able to choose among three methods of providing Fund-supported IP CTS: (1) IP CTS using fully automated ASR; (2) IP CTS using CA-assisted ASR; and (3) stenographic-supported IP CTS. Consumers will continue to be able to select an IP CTS provider based on the overall quality of service each provider offers by means of the available methods. As IP CTS providers begin offering fully automated ASR, the Commission will be able to gather data that can inform the Commission's adoption of further measures to improve its utility. Any provider offering ASR must ensure that its service complies with the mandatory minimum standards of § 64.604 of the Commission's rules in order to obtain and retain certification to provide IP CTS.
26. The use of ASR is consistent with the Commission's prior rulings authorizing CTS in both its analog and internet forms. The definition of IP CTS does not specify how captions must be generated, including whether they should be generated through automation or human-assisted methods. In this regard, the Commission already has approved a form of IP CTS that relies on automated speech recognition programs (assisted by CAs) to convert speech to captions during an IP CTS call. The only differences between ASR and CA-assisted ASR is that with CA-assisted ASR, CAs “train” speech recognition programs to understand their voices when they re-voice a caller's speech, and have a limited opportunity to make corrections to the captions that are produced. Advancements in ASR reduce the need for such training and human editing, and use of this technology for IP CTS without CA involvement does not fundamentally change the functional role of the service, which is to produce captions from a user's speech.
27. Using ASR for the provision of IP CTS is fully consistent with the Commission's statutory authority. The provision of IP CTS utilizing ASR will contribute to functional equivalence by enabling providers to enhance the privacy, ensure seamless communications, and reduce the latency of IP CTS offerings. Section 225 of the Act is neutral as to the technology and method used to achieve functional equivalency and expressly requires the Commission to encourage technological innovation in TRS. Further, offering an ASR option that will largely eliminate personnel costs associated with IP CTS will help fulfill Congress's directive to provide TRS in the most efficient manner.
28. The Commission authorizes the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (Bureau) to review and approve
29. Certifications for the provision of IP CTS using ASR may be granted on a conditional basis, to enable the Commission's assessment of an applicant's actual performance in meeting or exceeding the mandatory minimum standards. In addition, to the extent deemed necessary, certification of a provider may be conditioned on the submission of periodic data to help confirm whether ASR-driven IP CTS is providing functionally equivalent service.
30. If a currently operating IP CTS provider wishes to incorporate ASR in its offerings, it must first receive approval from the Bureau to provide IP CTS in this manner. In order to obtain approval, any provider operating under conditional certification or interim eligibility must update its application for permanent certification to describe the change, and may be asked to provide additional data—beyond what was submitted in its initial application for certification—to demonstrate how modifications to its service will ensure the provision of a relay service that is functionally equivalent to voice telephone service through compliance with the Commission's mandatory minimum standards.
31. The Commission reminds all providers that its rules require TRS providers seeking compensation from the TRS Fund to “provide the administrator with true and adequate data, and . . . information reasonably requested to determine the TRS Fund revenue requirements and payments.” 47 CFR 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(D)(
• A breakdown, in the provider's monthly call detail report, indicating minutes for which ASR is substituted for CA-assisted IP CTS;
• Estimates of the difference in the costs incurred to handle ASR and CA-assisted calls, with a detailed breakdown of the specific variable costs incurred for each type of call, as well as underlying assumptions and calculations; and
• Documentation of incremental costs incurred in providing ASR, including any incremental costs associated with engineering and technical implementation, marketing, administrative and management support (including oversight, evaluation, and recordkeeping) and, for hybrid forms of IP CTS, any costs associated with enabling transfers back and forth between ASR and CA-assisted IP CTS.
32. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended, the Commission incorporated an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) into the
33. Document FCC 18-79 adopts an interim rate for IP CTS reflecting a weighted, cost-of-service methodology based on an analysis of providers' actual and projected costs.
34. In addition, the Commission directs the TRS Fund administrator to require IP CTS providers that contract for the supply of services used in the provision of TRS to include information about payments under such contracts classified according to the substantive cost categories specified by the administrator.
35. Document FCC 18-79 also adopts three rule changes to facilitate the Commission's efforts to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse and improve its ability to efficiently manage the IP CTS program. First, the Commission prohibits linking volume control and captioning use on IP CTS devices. Second, the Commission requires IP CTS providers to include the following notifications in a clear and prominent location on their advertising brochures, websites, user manuals, and other informational materials and websites:
• IP captioned telephone service may use a live operator. The operator generates captions of what the other party to the call says. These captions are then sent to your phone.
• There is a cost for each minute of captions generated, paid from a federally administered fund.
The first part of the notification is not required from those IP CTS providers who do not use live CAs. Third, the Commission adopts a general prohibition against providing IP CTS to consumers who do not genuinely need the service. Providers that become aware of prohibited practices must report them to the Commission or the TRS Fund administrator.
36. No comments were filed in response to the IRFA.
37. The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration did not file any comments in response to the proposed rules in this proceeding.
38. The rules adopted in document FCC 18-79 will affect obligations of IP CTS providers. These services can be included within the broad economic category of All Other Telecommunications.
39. The rule implementing a general prohibition against providing IP CTS to consumers who do not genuinely need the service and the requirement to separate volume control and captioning functions on IP CTS devices do not create direct reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements on IP CTS providers.
40. In transitioning away from the MARS methodology for IP CTS, the Commission will require IP CTS providers to file annual cost and demand data reports with the TRS Fund administrator. There is no additional burden on IP CTS providers to file these reports, as IP CTS providers have been voluntarily submitting such reports to the TRS Fund administer since 2011. The Commission has received approval to require the collection of such
41. The adoption of a requirement for IP CTS providers to include a notice on IP CTS websites and informational materials to inform consumers about the process, cost, and source of funding will place only a minimal burden on IP CTS providers. It will be offset by the benefit to the TRS Fund and contributors to the Fund resulting from the reduction of casual or inadvertent use of IP CTS that such notice may provide by educating consumers via multiple sources of information.
42. The requirement for providers that become aware of prohibited practices to report them to the Commission or the TRS Fund administrator should not be burdensome and is needed to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse of the TRS Fund.
43. The interim rates for IP CTS will apply only to providers who are or may become certified by the Commission to offer IP CTS in accordance with its rules. The Commission adopts these interim rates to: (1) Ensure that rates compensate providers for their reasonable cost; (2) reduce waste of TRS Fund resources and the amounts that TRS Fund contributors pay to the fund; and (3) ensure that TRS is made available to the extent possible and in the most efficient manner. The requirement to file cost and demand data annually will not increase the burden on IP CTS providers because they have been submitting such data to the TRS Fund administrator since 2011. The Commission is requiring providers to supplement their cost data filings with information about payments made by providers to subcontractors for the provision of call centers, CA staffing, and other services by classifying such payments according to the substantive cost categories specified by the administrator. This requirement, which places minimal additional filing burdens on IP CTS providers, will be offset by the benefit to the TRS Fund and its contributors by the increased precision of calculating cost-based rates resulting from increased accuracy of TRS cost data submitted to the TRS Fund administrator.
44. Separating the volume control and captioning functions on IP CTS devices will place a minor burden on IP CTS providers and device manufacturers to reconfigure the functionality. Such costs will be offset from the likely decrease in waste and misuse of IP CTS, as individuals will be able to use a device's amplification features without also being required to use the device's captioning features. Providers have until December 8, 2018, to ensure that new and previously distributed devices are in compliance.
45. The general prohibition on practices resulting in IP CTS use by ineligible individuals, the requirement for providers that become aware of prohibited practices to report them to the Commission or the TRS Fund administrator, and the requirement for IP CTS providers to include notices on their informational materials and websites should not be burdensome and are necessary to combat waste, fraud, and abuse. These requirements will help ensure the efficiency of the TRS program, control the expenditure of public funds, reduce the amounts paid by contributors to the TRS Fund, and ensure the future viability of the TRS Fund and the provision of IP CTS.
46. None.
Pursuant to sections 1, 2, 201(b), and 225 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 201(b), 225, document FCC 18-79 is
The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center,
Individuals with disabilities, Telecommunications.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 64 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 202, 225, 251(e), 254(k), 403(b)(2)(B), (c), 616, 620, Pub. L. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56. Interpret or apply 47 U.S.C. 201, 202, 218, 222, 225, 226, 227, 228, 251(e), 254(k), 616, 620, and the Middle-Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112-96, unless otherwise noted.
(c) * * *
(5) * * *
(iii) * * *
(D)
(
(10)
(i) The device includes a button, key, icon, or other comparable feature that is easily operable and requires only one step for the consumer to turn on captioning; and
(ii) On or after December 8, 2018, any volume control or other amplification feature can be adjusted separately and independently of the caption feature.
(11) * * *
(v) IP CTS providers shall ensure that their informational materials and websites used to market, advertise, educate, or otherwise inform consumers and professionals about IP CTS include the following language in a prominent location in a clearly legible font: “FEDERAL LAW PROHIBITS ANYONE BUT REGISTERED USERS WITH HEARING LOSS FROM USING INTERNET PROTOCOL (IP) CAPTIONED TELEPHONES WITH THE CAPTIONS TURNED ON. IP Captioned Telephone Service may use a live operator. The operator generates captions of what the other party to the call says. These captions are then sent to your phone. There is a cost for each minute of captions generated, paid from a federally administered fund.” For IP CTS provider websites, the language shall be included on the website's home page, each page that provides consumer information about IP CTS, and each page that provides information on how to order IP CTS or IP CTS equipment. IP CTS providers that do not make any use of live CAs to generate captions may shorten the notice to leave out the second, third, and fourth sentences.
(13)
(A) False or unverified claims for TRS Fund compensation;
(B) Unauthorized use of VRS or IP CTS;
(C) The making of VRS or IP CTS calls that would not otherwise be made; or
(D) The use of VRS or IP CTS by persons who do not need the service in order to communicate in a functionally equivalent manner.
(ii) A VRS or IP CTS provider shall not seek payment from the TRS Fund for any minutes of service it knows or has reason to know are resulting from the practices listed in paragraph (c)(13)(i) of this section or from the use of IP CTS by an individual who does not need captions to communicate in a functionally equivalent manner.
(iii) Any VRS or IP CTS provider that becomes aware of any practices listed in paragraphs (c)(13)(i) or (ii) of this section being or having been committed by any person shall, as soon as practicable, report such practices to the Commission or the TRS Fund administrator.
(iv) An IP CTS provider may complete and request compensation for IP CTS calls to or from unregistered users at a temporary, public IP CTS device set up in an emergency shelter. The IP CTS provider shall notify the TRS Fund administrator of the dates of activation and termination for such device.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary special local regulation for all navigable waters of the Ohio River, extending the entire width of the river, from mile marker (MM) 754.0 to MM 760.0. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of persons, vessels, and the marine environment during the Owensboro Airshow. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from being in the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley or a designated representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before July 27, 2018.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2018-0548 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Petty Officer Riley Jackson, Sector Ohio Valley, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 502-779-5348, email
The City of Owensboro notified the Coast Guard that it would be conducting an airshow practice over the Ohio River from mile marker (MM) 754.0 to MM 760.0 from noon to 4 p.m. on September 13, 2018. Over the years, there have been unfortunate instances of aircraft mishaps that involve crashing during performances at various air shows around the world. Occasionally, these incidents result in a wide area of scattered debris in the water that can damage property or cause significant injury or death to the public observing the air shows. The Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley (COTP) has determined that a special local regulation is necessary to protect the public from potential hazards associated with the aerial flight demonstration.
This proposed rulemaking adds an extra day to the recurring special local regulation for the Owensboro Airshow listed in our regulation for marine events within the Eighth Coast Guard District, 33 CFR 100.801, Table 1, Line 43. The airshow is requiring another day of practice flights for the Blue Angels that will be participating in this year's event.
The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of persons, vessels, and the marine environment on the navigable waters of the Ohio River before, during, and after the Owensboro Airshow. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1233.
The COTP proposes to establish a temporary special local regulation for all navigable waters of the Ohio River from MM 754.0 to MM 760.0 from noon to 4 p.m. on September 13, 2018. The regulated area would cover all navigable waters of the Ohio River, extending the entire width of the river, between MM 754.0 and MM 760.0 in Owensboro, KY. The duration of the special local regulation is intended to ensure the safety of persons, vessels, and the marine environment on these navigable waters before, during, and after the Owensboro Airshow.
No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the regulated area without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the operational control of USCG Sector Ohio Valley. They may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16 or by telephone at 1-800-253-7465. A designated representative may be a Patrol Commander (PATCOM). The PATCOM would be aboard either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel. The PATCOM may be contacted on Channel 16 VHF-FM (156.8 MHz) by the call sign “PATCOM”. All persons and vessels not registered with the sponsor as participants or official patrol vessels are considered spectators. The “official patrol vessels” consist of any Coast Guard, state, or local law enforcement and sponsor provided vessels assigned or approved by the COTP to patrol the regulated area.
Spectator vessels desiring to transit the regulated area may do so only with prior approval of the PATCOM and, when so directed by that officer, would be operated at a minimum safe navigation speed in a manner which will not endanger any other vessels. No spectator vessel shall anchor, block, loiter, or impede the through transit of official patrol vessels in the regulated area during the effective dates and times, unless cleared for entry by or through an official patrol vessel. Any spectator vessel may anchor outside the regulated area, but may not anchor in, block, or loiter in a navigable channel. Spectator vessels may be moored to a waterfront facility within the regulated area in such a way that they shall not interfere with the progress of the air show.
The COTP or a designated representative may forbid and control the movement of all vessels in the regulated area. When hailed or signaled by an official patrol vessel, a vessel shall come to an immediate stop and comply with the directions given. Failure to do so may result in expulsion from the regulated area, citation for failure to comply, or both.
The COTP or a designated representative may terminate the operation of any vessel at any time it is deemed necessary for the protection of life or property. The COTP or a designated representative would terminate enforcement of the special local regulation at the conclusion of the air show. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public of the enforcement times and date for this regulated area through Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information Broadcasts (MSIBs) as appropriate.
The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the temporary special local regulation. This proposed special local regulation restricts transit on a four-mile stretch of the Ohio River for four hours on one day. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue Broadcast Notices to Mariners, Local Notices to Mariners, and Marine Safety Information Bulletins about this special local regulation so that waterway users may plan accordingly for this short restriction on transit, and the rule would allow vessels to request permission to enter the regulated area.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the temporary special local regulation may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Directive 023-01, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a special local regulation that would prohibit entry on a four-mile stretch of the Ohio River on one day. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1233; 33 CFR 1.05-1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) All persons and vessels not registered with the sponsor as participants or official patrol vessels are considered spectators. The “official patrol vessels” consist of any Coast Guard, state, or local law enforcement and sponsor provided vessels assigned or approved by the COTP to patrol the regulated area.
(3) Spectator vessels desiring to transit the regulated area may do so only with prior approval of the PATCOM and when so directed by that officer will be operated at a minimum safe navigation speed in a manner which will not endanger any other vessels.
(4) No spectator vessel shall anchor, block, loiter, or impede the through transit of official patrol vessels in the regulated area during the effective dates and times, unless cleared for entry by or through an official patrol vessel.
(5) Any spectator vessel may anchor outside the regulated area, but may not anchor in, block, or loiter in a navigable channel. Spectator vessels may be moored to a waterfront facility within the regulated area in such a way that they shall not interfere with the progress of the air show.
(6) The COTP or a designated representative may forbid and control the movement of all vessels in the regulated area. When hailed or signaled by an official patrol vessel, a vessel shall come to an immediate stop and comply with the directions given. Failure to do so may result in expulsion from the regulated area, citation for failure to comply, or both.
(7) The COTP or a designated representative may terminate the operation of any vessel at any time it is deemed necessary for the protection of life or property.
(8) The COTP or a designated representative will terminate enforcement of the special local regulation at the conclusion of the air show.
(d)
In proposed rule document 2018-12786, appearing on pages 27746-27747 in the Issue of Thursday, June 14, 2018, make the following correction:
On page 27746, in the third column, under the heading “
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of petition findings and initiation of status reviews.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce 90-day findings on three petitions to add or remove species from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
These findings were made on June 27, 2018. As we commence work on the status reviews, we seek any new information concerning the status of, or threats to, these species or their habitats. Any information received during our work on the status reviews will be considered.
(1)
(2)
We request that you send information only by the methods described above. We will post all information we receive on
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf, please call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for adding a species to, or removing a species from, the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists) in 50 CFR part 17. Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires that we make a finding on whether a petition to add a species to the Lists (
Our regulations establish that substantial scientific or commercial information with regard to a 90-day petition finding refers to “credible scientific or commercial information in support of the petition's claims such that a reasonable person conducting an impartial scientific review would conclude that the action proposed in the petition may be warranted” (50 CFR 424.14(h)(1)(i)).
A species may be determined to be an endangered species or a threatened species because of one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
(a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range (Factor A);
(b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes (Factor B);
(c) Disease or predation (Factor C);
(d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D); or
(e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence (Factor E).
These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative effects or may have positive effects.
We use the term “threat” to refer in general to actions or conditions that are known to, or are reasonably likely to, affect individuals of a species negatively. The term “threat” includes actions or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term “threat” may encompass—either together or separately—the source of the action or condition or the action or condition itself. However, the mere identification of any threat(s) may not be sufficient to compel a finding that the information in the petition is substantial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. The information presented in the petition must include evidence sufficient to suggest that these threats may be affecting the species to the point that the species may meet the definition of an endangered species or threatened species under the Act.
If we find that a petition presents such information, our subsequent status review will evaluate all identified threats by considering the individual-, population-, and species-level effects and the expected response by the species. We will evaluate individual threats and their expected effects on the species, then analyze the cumulative effect of the threats on the species as a
If we find that a petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted, the Act requires us to promptly commence a review of the status of the species, and we will subsequently complete a status review in accordance with our prioritization methodology for 12-month findings (81 FR 49248; July 27, 2016).
The petition findings contained in this document are listed in the table below and the bases for the findings, along with supporting information, are available on
The Dixie Valley toad (
On September 18, 2017, we received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity requesting that the Dixie Valley toad be listed as threatened or endangered under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.
Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating the petitioned action may be warranted for the Dixie Valley toad due to potential threats associated with the following: Development of geothermal energy and difficulty in associated mitigation, decrease in spring discharge, changes in water temperature, and groundwater extraction (Factor A); and chytridiomycosis disease and predation by the invasive American bullfrog (Factors C and E). However, during our status review we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species, including the extent to which any protections or other conservation efforts have reduced those threats. Thus, for this species, the Service requests any information relevant to whether the species falls within the definition of either endangered species under section 3(6) of the Act or threatened species under section 3(20) of the Act, including information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) (see Request for Information for Status Reviews, below).
The basis for our finding on this petition, and other information regarding our review of the petition, can be found as an appendix at
The Oregon vesper sparrow (
On November 8, 2017, we received a petition from the American Bird Conservancy requesting that the Oregon vesper sparrow be listed as endangered or threatened and critical habitat be designated for this species under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at former 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.
Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the Oregon vesper sparrow due to potential threats associated with the following: Habitat loss and degradation (Factor A); land use/management impacts to nesting birds (Factor E); and existing regulatory mechanisms that may be inadequate to address impacts of these threats (Factor D) (for information about these factors, see Background, above). However, during our status review, we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species, including the extent to which any protections or other conservation efforts have reduced those threats. Thus, for this species, the Service requests any information relevant to whether the species falls within the definition of either endangered species under section 3(6) of the Act or threatened species under section 3(20) of the Act, including information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) (see Request for Information for Status Reviews, below).
The basis for our finding on this petition, and other information regarding our review of the petition, can be found as an appendix at
The yellow-billed cuckoo (
On May 4, 2017, we received a petition from the American Stewards of Liberty, Arizona Cattlemen's Association, Arizona Mining Association, Hereford Natural Resource Conservation District, Jim Chilton, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, Public Lands Council, WestLand Resources, Inc., and Winkelman Natural Resource Conservation District, requesting that the western DPS of the yellow-billed cuckoo be removed from the List due to an error in our DPS analysis. They also provided information in their petition indicating the species should be delisted as a result of its utilization of additional habitat. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioners, required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). This finding addresses the petition.
Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that delisting the western DPS of the yellow-billed cuckoo may be warranted due to information on additional habitat being used by the species (Factor A). While we did not find the petition provided substantial information indicating the entity may warrant delisting due to an error in our DPS analysis, because the petitioners did provide substantial information regarding additional habitat use by the species, we will review the DPS as part of our status review of the species. During our status review we will thoroughly evaluate all potential threats to the species, as well as revisit our DPS determination. Thus, for this species, the Service requests information on the five listing factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, including the factors identified in this finding as well as information pertaining to the DPS (see Request for Information for Status Reviews, below).
The basis for our finding on this petition, and other information regarding our review of the petition, can be found as an appendix at
When we make a finding that a petition presents substantial information indicating that listing, reclassification, or delisting of a species may be warranted, we are required to review the status of the species (a status review). For the status review to be complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we request information on these species from governmental agencies, Native American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, and any other interested parties. We seek information on:
(1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:
(a) Habitat requirements;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns; and
(d) Historical and current population levels and current and projected trends.
(2) The five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act (see Background, above) that are the basis for making a listing, reclassification, or delisting determination for a species under section 4(a) of the Act, including past and ongoing conservation measures that could decrease the extent to which one or more of the factors affect the species, its habitat, or both.
(3) The potential effects of climate change on the species and its habitat, and the extent to which it affects the habitat or range of the species.
Submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the actions under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in making a determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or threatened species must be made solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.
You may submit your information concerning these status reviews by one of the methods listed in
It is important to note that the standard for a 90-day finding differs from the Act's standard that applies to a status review to determine whether a petitioned action is warranted. In making a 90-day finding, we consider information in the petition and sources cited in the petition, as well as information that is readily available, and we evaluate merely whether that information constitutes “substantial information” indicating that the petitioned action “may be warranted.” In a 12-month finding, we must complete a thorough status review of the species and evaluate the best scientific and commercial data available to determine whether a petitioned action “is warranted.” Because the Act's standards for 90-day and 12-month findings are different, a substantial 90-day finding does not mean that the 12-month finding will result in a “warranted” finding.
On the basis of our evaluation of the information presented in the petitions under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we have determined that the petitions summarized above for the Dixie Valley toad, Oregon vesper sparrow, and yellow-billed cuckoo present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned actions may be warranted. Therefore, we are initiating status reviews to determine whether these actions are warranted under the Act. At the conclusion of each status review, we will issue a finding, in accordance with section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act, as to whether the petitioned action is not warranted, warranted, or warranted but precluded by pending proposals to determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened species.
The primary authors of this document are staff members of the Ecological Services Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The authority for these actions is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is announcing a meeting of the Plant Variety Protection Board (Board). The meeting is being held to discuss a variety of topics including, but not limited to, work and outreach plans, subcommittee activities, and program activities. The meeting is open to the public. This notice sets forth the schedule and location for the meeting.
Tuesday, August 14, 2018, 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Room 3543, South Building, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC, 20250.
Jeffery Haynes, Acting Commissioner, Plant Variety Protection Office, USDA, AMS, Science and Technology Programs, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250. Telephone: (202) 720-1066; Fax: (202) 260-8976, or Email:
Pursuant to the provisions of section 10(a) of the FACA (5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), this notice informs the public that the Plant Variety Protection Office (PVPO) is sponsoring a meeting of the Board on August 14, 2018. The Plant Variety Protection Act (PVPA) (7 U.S.C. 2321
Determinations for reasonable accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis. Minutes of the meeting will be available for public review 30 days following the meeting on the internet at
Food and Nutrition Service, USDA.
Notice of Information Collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) invites the general public and other public agencies to comment on this proposed information collection. This collection is a new collection for the School Nutrition and Meal Cost Study-II (SNMCS-II). The purpose of SNMCS-II is to provide a comprehensive picture of school food service operations and the nutritional quality, cost, and acceptability of meals served in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and School Breakfast Program (SBP).
Written comments on this notice must be received on or before August 27, 2018.
Comments may be sent to: John Endahl, Office of Policy Support, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 1004, Alexandria, VA 22302. Comments may also be submitted via fax to the attention of John Endahl at 703-305-2576 or via email to
All written comments will be open for public inspection at the office of the Food and Nutrition Service during regular business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday) at 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, Virginia 22302.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request
Requests for additional information or copies of this information collection should be directed to John Endahl at 703-305-2127.
The sample frame of SFAs is divided into four groups, including the outlying areas. Samples in Groups 1, 2, and 3 are limited to the contiguous 48 States and DC. The outlying areas sample includes SFAs and schools in Alaska, Guam, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Data collected from the Group 1 sample will provide the precision required for national estimates of SFA-level characteristics and food service operations. Data collected from the Group 2 sample will be used to address study objectives related to the school nutrition environment and food service operations; the food and nutrient content of school meals; student participation in the NSLP and SBP; student/parent satisfaction with the school meal programs; and students' characteristics and dietary intakes. Data collected from the Group 3 sample will be used to address study objectives related to the school nutrition environment and food service operations; the food and nutrient content of school meals; the costs to produce reimbursable school lunches and breakfasts, including indirect and local administrative costs, and the ratios of revenues to costs; and plate waste in the school meals programs. Data collected from the outlying areas sample will be used to estimate the costs of producing reimbursable school meals and the ratios of revenues to costs.
There is pre-testing burden that is associated with this collection. This burden was reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget on March 19, 2018 under OMB# 0584-0606 FNS Generic Clearance for Pre-Testing, Pilot, and Field Test Studies (School Nutrition and Meal Cost Study-II, Outlying Areas Cost Study Feasibility Assessment). This burden is not included in the burden estimates for this collection.
The Group 1 completed sample includes 125 SFAs but no schools. Group 1 SFA directors will participate in the SFA Director Survey.
The Group 2 completed sample comprises 125 SFAs, 250 schools, and 2,000 students and their parents/guardians. SFA and school staff will participate in the SFA Director and School Planning Interviews; SFA Director, SNM, and Principal Surveys; the Basic Menu Survey, A la Carte Foods Checklist, and Meal Pattern Crediting Report; and Cafeteria Observation Guide and Competitive Foods Checklists. Students and parents/guardians will complete the Student Interview, including height and weight measurement; 24-dietary recall; and Parent Interview.
The Group 3 completed sample includes 250 SFAs and 750 schools. SFA and school staff will participate in the SFA Director and School Planning Interviews; SFA Cost Interview and Food Cost Worksheet; SFA Follow-Up Web Survey and Cost Interview; SNM Cost Interview; Principal Cost Interview; SFA Director, SNM, and Principal Surveys; the Expanded Menu Survey, A la Carte Foods Checklist, and Meal Pattern Crediting Report; and Cafeteria Observation Guide and Competitive Foods Checklists. Forty State Education Agency finance officers will complete the State Agency Indirect Cost Survey. Plate waste will be observed for 3,900 reimbursable lunches and 2,000 reimbursable breakfasts at a subsample of 130 schools among this Group 3 sample.
In the outlying areas, following recruitment, SFA and school staff in 33 SFAs and 216 schools will complete the SFA Director and School Planning Interviews; SFA Cost Interview and
USDA Forest Service.
Notice of the opportunity to object to the Revised Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests.
The USDA Forest Service has prepared Revised Land Management Plans (Forest Plans) for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests (also termed the Blue Mountains Forests). The Forest Service has also prepared a single Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and a combined Draft Record of Decision. This notice is to inform the public that a 60-day objections period is being initiated for individuals or entities who have submitted substantive formal comments related to the revision of the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman Forest Plans during the opportunities for public comment provided during the planning process for that decision. Objections must be based on previously submitted substantive formal comments attributed to the objector unless the objection concerns an issue that arose after the opportunities for formal comment.
The Revised Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman Forest Plans, FEIS, Draft Record of Decision, and other supporting documentation are available on the following web page:
A legal notice of the initiation of the 60-day objection period is being published in
Electronic objections must be submitted to the Objection Reviewing Officer via email to
Faxed objections must be sent and addressed to “Chris French, Objection Reviewing Officer” at (202) 649-1172 and must include a subject line stating: “Objection regarding the Revised Blue Mountains Forest Plans.” The fax coversheet should specify the number of pages being submitted.
Hardcopy objections may be submitted by regular mail, private carrier, or hand delivery to the following address: USDA Forest Service, Attn: Chris French, Objection Reviewing Officer, 1400 Independence Ave. SW, EMC-PEEARS, Mailstop 1104, Washington, DC 20250. Office hours are Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. Hardcopy submissions must include a subject line on page one stating: “Objection regarding the Revised Blue Mountains Forest Plans.”
Individuals who need to use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) to transmit objections may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
Team Leader, Peter Fargo, 1550 Dewey Ave., Suite A, Baker City, OR 97814, (541) 523-1231.
The decision to approve the Revised Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman Forest Plans will be subject to the objection process identified in 36 CFR part 219 subpart B (219.50 to 219.62). Individuals and entities who have submitted substantive formal comments related to the revision of the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman Forest Plans during the opportunities for public comment, as provided in 36 CFR part 219 subpart A, during the planning process for that decision may file an objection. Objections must be based on previously submitted substantive formal comments attributed to the objector unless the objection concerns an issue that arose after the opportunities for formal comment. The burden is on the objector to demonstrate compliance with requirements for objection. All objections must be filed, in writing, with the reviewing officer for the Revised Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman Forest Plans. Objections received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who object, will be considered part of the public record on these proposed actions and will be available for public inspection. At a minimum, an objection must include the following (36 CFR 219.54(c)):
(1) The objector's name and address along with a telephone number or email address if available. In cases where no identifiable name is attached to an objection, the Forest Service will attempt to verify the identity of the objector to confirm objection eligibility;
(2) Signature or other verification of authorship upon request (a scanned signature for electronic mail may be filed with the objection);
(3) Identification of the lead objector, when multiple names are listed on an objection. The Forest Service will communicate to all parties to an objection through the lead objector. Verification of the identity of the lead objector must also be provided if requested;
(4) The name of the Plan Revision(s) being objected to, and the name and title of the responsible official;
(5) A statement of the issues and/or parts of the Plan Revision(s) to which the objection applies;
(6) A concise statement explaining the objection and suggesting how the proposed plan decision may be improved. If the objector believes that the plan revision is inconsistent with law, regulation, or policy, an explanation should be included;
(7) A statement that demonstrates the link between the objector's prior substantive formal comments and the content of the objection, unless the objection concerns an issue that arose after the opportunities for formal comment; and
(8) All documents referenced in the objection (a bibliography is not sufficient), except that the following need not be provided:
a. All or any part of a Federal law or regulation,
b. Forest Service Directive System documents and land management Plans or other published Forest Service documents,
c. Documents referenced by the Forest Service in the planning documentation related to the proposal subject to objection, and
d. Formal comments previously provided to the Forest Service by the objector during the plan revision comment period.
Prior to the issuance of the reviewing officer's written response, either the reviewing officer or the objector may request to meet to discuss issues raised in the objection. Interested persons who wish to participate in meetings to discuss issues raised by objectors must have previously submitted substantive formal comments related to the objection issues. Interested persons
The Regional Forester for the Pacific Northwest Region (1220 SW 3rd Avenue, Portland, OR 97204, (503) 808-2200) is the responsible official who will approve the final Records of Decision for the Revised Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman Forest Plans.
The Associate Deputy Chief for the National Forest System is the delegated reviewing officer for the Chief of the Forest Service (36 CFR 219.56(e)(2)).
Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA.
Notice.
This notice is to invite applications for grants to provide Technical Assistance for Rural Transportation (RT) systems under the Rural Business Development Grant (RBDG) to provide Technical Assistance for RT systems and for RT systems to Federally Recognized Native American Tribes' (FRNAT) (collectively “Programs”) and the terms provided in such funding. Successful applications will be selected by the Agency for funding and subsequently awarded from funds appropriated for the RBDG program.
See under
Submit applications in paper format to the USDA Rural Development State Office for the State where the Project is located. A list of the USDA Rural Development State Office contacts can be found at:
Cindy Mason at (202) 690-1433,
The Agency encourages applications that will support recommendations made in the Rural Prosperity Task Force report to help improve life in rural America.
All applicants are responsible for any expenses incurred in developing their applications.
1.
2.
Awards under the RBDG passenger transportation program will be made on a competitive basis using specific selection criteria contained in 7 CFR part 4280, subpart E, and in accordance with section 310B(c) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1932(c)). Information required to be in the application package includes Standard Form (SF) 424, “Application for Federal Assistance;” environmental documentation in accordance with 7 CFR part 1970, “Environmental Policies and Procedures;” Scope of Work Narrative; Income Statement; Balance Sheet or Audit for previous 3 years; AD-1047, “Debarment/Suspension Certification;” AD-1048, “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion;” AD-1049, “Certification Regarding Drug-Free Workplace Requirements;” SF LLL, “Disclosure of Lobbying Activities;” RD 400-1, “Equal Opportunity Agreement;” RD 400-4, “Assurance Agreement;” and a letter providing Board authorization to obtain assistance. For the FRNAT grant, which must benefit FRNATs, at least 75 percent of the benefits of the Project must be received by members of FRNATs. The Project that scores the greatest number of points based on the RBDG selection criteria and the discretionary points will be selected for each grant.
For the funding for Technical Assistance for RT systems, applicants must be qualified national organizations with experience in providing Technical Assistance and training to rural communities nationwide for the purpose of improving passenger
3.
4.
1.
To be considered eligible, an entity must be a qualified national organization serving Rural Areas as evidenced in its organizational documents and demonstrated experience, per 7 CFR part 4280, subpart E. Grants will be competitively awarded to qualified national organizations.
The Agency requires the following information to make an eligibility determination that an applicant is a national organization. These applications must include, but are not limited to, the following:
(a) An original and one copy of SF 424, “Application for Federal Assistance (for non-construction);”
(b) Copies of applicant's organizational documents showing the applicant's legal existence and authority to perform the activities under the grant;
(c) A proposed scope of work, including a description of the proposed Project, details of the proposed activities to be accomplished and timeframes for completion of each task, the number of months for the duration of the Project, and the estimated time it will take from grant approval to beginning of Project implementation;
(d) A written narrative that includes, at a minimum, the following items:
(i) An explanation of why the Project is needed, the benefits of the proposed Project, and how the Project meets the grant eligible purposes;
(ii) Area to be served, identifying each governmental unit,
(iii) Description of how the Project will coordinate Economic Development activities with other Economic Development activities within the Project area;
(iv) Businesses to be assisted, if appropriate, and economic development to be accomplished;
(v) An explanation of how the proposed Project will result in newly created, increased, or supported jobs in the area and the number of projected new and supported jobs within the next 3 years;
(vi) A description of the applicant's demonstrated capability and experience in providing the proposed Project assistance, including experience of key staff members and persons who will be providing the proposed Project activities and managing the Project;
(vii) The method and rationale used to select the areas and businesses that will receive the service;
(viii) A brief description of how the work will be performed, including whether organizational staff or consultants or contractors will be used; and
(ix) Other information the Agency may request to assist it in making a grant award determination.
(e) The latest 3 years of financial information to show the applicant's financial capacity to carry out the proposed work. If the applicant is less than 3 years old, at a minimum, the information should include all balance sheet(s), income statement(s), and cash flow statement(s). A current audited report is required if available;
(f) Documentation regarding the availability and amount of other funds to be used in conjunction with the funds from RBDG;
(g) A budget which includes salaries, fringe benefits, consultant costs, indirect costs, and other appropriate direct costs for the Project.
2.
3.
Applications will only be accepted from qualified national organizations to provide Technical Assistance for RT. There are no “responsiveness,” or “threshold” eligibility criteria for these grants. There is no limit on the number of applications an applicant may submit under this announcement. In addition to the forms listed under program description, Form AD-3030 “Representations Regarding Felony Conviction and Tax Delinquent Status for Corporate Applicants,” must be completed in the affirmative.
None of the funds made available may be used to enter into a contract, memorandum of understanding, or cooperative agreement with, make a grant to, or provide a loan or loan guarantee to, any corporation that has any unpaid Federal tax liability that has been assessed, for which all judicial and administrative remedies have been exhausted or have lapsed, and that is not being paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the authority responsible for collecting the tax liability, where the awarding agency is aware of the unpaid tax liability, unless a Federal agency has considered suspension or debarment of the corporation and has made a determination that this further action is not necessary to protect the interests of the Government.
None of the funds made available may be used to enter into a contract, memorandum of understanding, or cooperative agreement with, make a grant to, or provide a loan or loan guarantee to, any corporation that was convicted of a felony criminal violation under any Federal law within the
4.
Applications will not be considered for funding if they do not provide sufficient information to determine eligibility or are missing required elements.
1.
For further information, entities wishing to apply for assistance should contact the USDA Rural Development State Office provided in the
Prior to official submission of grant applications, applicants may request technical assistance or other application guidance from the Agency, as long as such requests are made prior to August 16, 2018. Technical assistance is not meant to be an analysis or assessment of the quality of the materials submitted, a substitute for agency review of completed applications, nor a determination of eligibility, if such determination requires in-depth analysis. The Agency will not solicit or consider scoring or eligibility information that is submitted after the application deadline. The Agency reserves the right to contact applicants to seek clarification information on materials contained in the submitted application.
Applications must be submitted in paper format. Applications submitted to a USDA Rural Development State Office must be received by the closing date and local time.
2.
An application must contain all of the required elements. Each application received in a USDA Rural Development State Office will be reviewed to determine if it is consistent with the eligible purposes contained in section 310B(c) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1932(c)). Each selection priority criterion outlined in 7 CFR 4280.435 must be addressed in the application. Failure to address any of the criterion will result in a zero-point score for that criterion and will impact the overall evaluation of the application. Copies of 7 CFR part 4280, subpart E, will be provided to any interested applicant making a request to a USDA Rural Development State Office.
All Projects to receive Technical Assistance through these passenger transportation grant funds are to be identified when the applications are submitted to the USDA Rural Development State Office. Multiple Project applications must identify each individual Project, indicate the amount of funding requested for each individual Project, and address the criteria as stated above for each individual Project.
For multiple-Project applications, the average of the individual Project scores will be the score for that application.
The applicant documentation and forms needed for a complete application are located in the Program Description section of this notice, and 7 CFR part 4280, subpart E.
(a) There are no specific formats, specific limitations on number of pages, font size and type face, margins, paper size, number of copies, and the sequence or assembly requirements.
(b) The component pieces of this application should contain original signatures on the original application.
(c) Since these grants are for Technical Assistance for transportation purposes, no additional information requirements other than those described in this notice and 7 CFR part 4280, subpart E are required.
3.
All applicants must have a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number which can be obtained at no cost via a toll-free request line at (866) 705-5711 or at
4.
(a) Application Deadline Date: No later than 4:30 p.m. (local time) on September 25, 2018.
Explanation of Deadlines: Applications must be in the USDA Rural Development State Office by the local deadline date and time as indicated above. If the due date falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday, the application is due the next business day.
(b) The deadline date means that the completed application package must be received in the USDA Rural Development State Office by the deadline date established above. All application documents identified in this notice are required.
(c) If complete applications are not received by the deadline established above, the application will neither be reviewed nor considered under any circumstances.
(d) The Agency will determine the application receipt date based on the actual date postmarked.
(e) This notice is for RT Technical Assistance grants only and therefore, intergovernmental reviews are not required.
(f) These grants are for RT Technical Assistance grants only, no construction or equipment purchases are permitted. If the grantee has a previously approved indirect cost rate, it is permissible, otherwise, the applicant may elect to charge the 10 percent indirect cost permitted under 2 CFR 200.414(f) or request a determination of its Indirect Cost Rate. Due to the time required to evaluate Indirect Cost Rates, it is likely that all funds will be awarded by the time the Indirect Cost Rate is determined. No foreign travel is permitted. Pre-Federal award costs will only be permitted with prior written approval by the Agency.
(g) Applicants must submit applications in hard copy format as previously indicated in the Application and Submission Information section of this notice. If the applicant wishes to hand deliver its application, the addresses for these deliveries can be located in the
(h) If you require alternative means of communication for program information (
1.
All eligible and complete applications will be evaluated and scored based on the selection criteria and weights contained in 7 CFR 4280.435 and will select grantees subject to the grantees' satisfactory submission of the additional items required by 7 CFR part 4280, subpart E and the USDA Rural Development Letter of Conditions. Failure to address any one of the criteria in 7 CFR 4280.435 by the application deadline will result in the application being determined ineligible, and the application will not be considered for funding. The amount of an RT grant may be adjusted, at the Agency's discretion, to enable the Agency to award RT grants to the applications with the highest priority scores in each category.
2.
The State Offices will review applications to determine if they are eligible for assistance based on requirements contained in 7 CFR 4280.416 and 4280.417. If determined eligible, your application will be submitted to the National Office. Funding of Projects is subject to the applicant's satisfactory submission of the additional items required by that subpart and the USDA Rural Development Letter of Conditions. The Agency reserves the right to award additional discretionary points under 7 CFR 4280.435(k).
In awarding discretionary points, the Agency scoring criteria regularly assigns points to applications that direct loans or grants to Projects based in or serving census tracts with poverty rates greater than or equal to 20 percent. This emphasis will support Rural Development's mission of improving the quality of life for Rural Americans and commitment to directing resources to those who most need them.
1.
Successful applicants will receive notification for funding from their USDA Rural Development State Office. Applicants must comply with all applicable statutes and regulations before the grant award will be approved. Unsuccessful applications will receive notification by mail.
2.
Additional requirements that apply to grantees selected for this program can be found in 7 CFR 4280.408, 4280.410, and 4280.439. Awards are subject to USDA Departmental Grant Regulations at 2 CFR Chapter IV which incorporates the new Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 2 CFR part 200.
All successful applicants will be notified by letter, which will include a Letter of Conditions, and a Letter of Intent to Meet Conditions. This letter is not an authorization to begin performance. If the applicant wishes to consider beginning performance prior to the grant being officially closed, all pre-award costs must be approved in writing and in advance by the Agency. The grant will be considered officially awarded when all conditions in the Letter of Conditions have been met and the Agency obligates the funding for the Project.
Additional requirements that apply to grantees selected for this program can be found in 7 CFR part 4280, subpart E; the Grants and Agreements regulations of the U.S. Department of Agriculture codified in 2 CFR Chapter IV, and successor regulations.
In addition, all recipients of Federal financial assistance are required to report information about first-tier sub-awards and executive compensation (see 2 CFR part 170). You will be required to have the necessary processes and systems in place to comply with the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-282) reporting requirements (see 2 CFR 170.200(b), unless you are exempt under 2 CFR 170.110(b)).
The following additional requirements apply to grantees selected for this program:
(a) Form RD 4280-2 “Rural Business-Cooperative Service Financial Assistance Agreement.”
(b) Letter of Conditions.
(c) Form RD 1940-1, “Request for Obligation of Funds.”
(d) Form RD 1942-46, “Letter of Intent to Meet Conditions.”
(e) Form AD-1047, “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters-Primary Covered Transactions.”
(f) Form AD-1048, “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion-Lower Tier Covered Transactions.”
(g) Form AD-1049, “Certification Regarding a Drug-Free Workplace Requirement (Grants).”
(h) Form AD-3030, “Assurance Regarding Felony Conviction or Tax Delinquent Status for Corporate Applicants.” Must be signed by corporate applicants who receive an award under this notice.
(i) Form RD 400-4, “Assurance Agreement.” Each prospective recipient must sign Form RD 400-4, Assurance Agreement, which assures USDA that the recipient is in compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 7 CFR part 15, and other Agency regulations. That no person will be discriminated against based on race, color or national origin, in regard to any program or activity for which the recipient receives Federal financial assistance. That nondiscrimination statements are in advertisements and brochures.
Collect and maintain data provided by recipients on race, sex, and national origin and ensure recipients collect and maintain this data. Race and ethnicity data will be collected in accordance with OMB
The applicant and the ultimate recipient must comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Executive Order 12250, Executive Order 13166 Limited English Proficiency (LEP), and 7 CFR part 1901, subpart E.
(j) SF LLL, “Disclosure of Lobbying Activities,” if applicable.
(k) Form SF 270, “Request for Advance or Reimbursement.”
3.
(a) A Financial Status Report and a Project performance activity report will be required of all grantees on a quarterly basis until initial funds are expended and yearly thereafter, if applicable, based on the Federal fiscal year. The grantee will complete the Project within the total time available to it in accordance with the Scope of Work and any necessary modifications thereof prepared by the grantee and approved by the Agency. A final Project performance report will be required with the final Financial Status Report. The final report may serve as the last quarterly report. The final report must provide complete information regarding the jobs created and supported as a result of the grant if applicable. Grantees must continuously monitor performance to ensure that time schedules are being met, projected work by time periods is being accomplished, and other performance objectives are being achieved. Grantees must submit an original of each report to the Agency no later than 30 days after the end of the quarter. The Project performance reports must include, but not be limited to, the following:
(1) A comparison of actual accomplishments to the objectives established for that period;
(2) Problems, delays, or adverse conditions, if any, which have affected or will affect attainment of overall Project objectives, prevent meeting time schedules or objectives, or preclude the attainment of particular Project work elements during established time periods. This disclosure shall be accompanied by a statement of the action taken or planned to resolve the situation;
(3) Objectives and timetable established for the next reporting period;
(4) Any special reporting requirements, such as jobs supported and created, businesses assisted, or Economic Development which results in improvements in median household incomes, and any other specific requirements, should be placed in the reporting section in the Letter of Conditions; and
(5) Within 90 days after the conclusion of the Project, the grantee will provide a final Project evaluation report. The last quarterly payment will be withheld until the final report is received and approved by the Agency. Even though the grantee may request reimbursement on a monthly basis, the last 3 months of reimbursements will be withheld until a final Project, Project performance, and financial status report are received and approved by the Agency.
For general questions about this announcement, please contact your USDA Rural Development State Office provided in the
All grants made under this notice are subject to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as required by the USDA (7 CFR part 15, subpart A) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, Title IX, Executive Order 13166 (Limited English Proficiency), Executive Order 11246, and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the information collection requirement contained in this notice is approved by OMB under OMB Control Number 0570-0070.
All applicants, in accordance with 2 CFR part 25, must have a DUNS number, which can be obtained at no cost via a toll-free request line at (866) 705-5711 or online at
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (
To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD 3027, found online at
(1)
(2)
(3)
Rural Housing Service, USDA.
Notice.
The Rural Housing Service (RHS) announces the timeframe to submit pre-applications for Section 514 Farm Labor Housing (FLH) loans and Section 516 FLH grants for the construction of new off-farm FLH units and related facilities for domestic farm laborers and for the purchase and substantial rehabilitation of non-FLH property. The intended purpose of the loans and grants are to increase the number of available housing units for domestic farm laborers. This Notice describes the method used to distribute funds, the application process, and submission requirements.
The Agency will publish the amount of funding received from the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (Pub. L. 115-141, March 23, 2018) on its website at:
Pursuant to section 759 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (Pub. L. 115-141, March 23, 2018), the Agency will set aside 10 percent of the FLH funds for project proposals in persistent poverty counties. The Agency will also assign additional points to pre-applications for projects based in or serving census tracts with poverty rates equal to or greater than 20 percent over the last 30 years. This emphasis will support Rural Development's mission of improving the quality of life for rural Americans and commitment to directing resources to those who most need them.
The deadline for receipt of all applications in response to this Notice is 5:00 p.m., local time to the appropriate Rural Development State
Applicants wishing to submit an application in response to this Notice must contact the Rural Development State Office serving the State of the proposed off-farm FLH project in order to receive further information and copies of the application package. You may find the addresses and contact information for each State Office at,
Mirna Reyes-Bible, Senior Finance and Loan Analyst, Preservation and Direct Loan Division, STOP 0781 (Room 1263-S), USDA Rural Development, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-0781, telephone: (202) 720-1753 (this is not a toll free number), or via email:
The Agency encourages applications that will support recommendations made in the Rural Prosperity Task Force report to help improve life in rural America at:
Pre-applications will only be accepted through the date and time listed in this Notice. All awards are subject to availability of funding. Individual requests may not exceed $3 million (total loan and grant). A State Office may not receive more than 30 percent of FLH funding available in FY 2018.
If there are insufficient applications from around the country to exhaust the Section 514 and Section 516 funds available, the Agency may then exceed the 30 percent cap per State. Section 516 off-farm FLH grants may not exceed 90 percent of the total development cost (TDC) of the housing as defined in 7 CFR 3560.11.
If leveraged funds are going to be used and are in the form of tax credits, the applicant must include in its pre-application written evidence that a tax credit application has been submitted and accepted by the Housing Finance Agency (HFA). All applications that receive any leveraged funds must have firm commitments in place within 12 months of the issuance of a “Notice of Pre-Application Review Action,” Handbook Letter 106 (3560). Applicants without written evidence that a tax credit application has been submitted and accepted by HFA must certify in writing they will apply for tax credits to HFA and obtain a firm commitment within 12 months of the issuance of a “Notice of Pre-Application Review Action.”
Rental Assistance (RA) and operating assistance will be available for new construction in FY 2018. Operating assistance is explained at 7 CFR 3560.574 and may be used in lieu of tenant-specific RA in off-farm FLH projects that serve migrant farm workers as defined in 7 CFR 3560.11, that are financed under Section 514 or Section 516 (h) of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1484 and 1486(h) respectively), and otherwise meet the requirements of 7 CFR 3560.574.
In order to maximize the use of our limited supply of FLH funds, we may contact eligible Notice of Solicitation Applications (NOSA) responses selected for an award in point score order starting with the higher scores, with proposals to modify the transaction's proportions of grant and loan funds. In addition, if funds remain after the highest scoring eligible NOSA responses are selected for awards, we may contact those eligible responses not selected for awards, in point score order starting with the highest scores, to ascertain whether those respondents will accept those remaining funds.
Housing Eligibility—housing that is constructed with FLH loans and/or grants must meet Rural Development's design and construction standards contained in 7 CFR part 1924, subparts A and C. Once constructed, off-farm FLH must be managed in accordance with 7 CFR part 3560. In addition, off-farm FLH must be operated on a non-profit basis and tenancy must be open to all qualified domestic farm laborers, regardless at which farm they work. Section 514(f)(3) of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1484(f)(3)) defines domestic farm laborers to include any person regardless of the person's source of employment, who receives a substantial portion of his/her income from the primary production of agricultural or aqua cultural commodities in the unprocessed or processed stage, and also includes the person's family.
Tenant Eligibility—tenant eligibility is limited to persons who meet the definition of a “disabled domestic farm laborer,” or a “domestic farm laborer,” or “retired domestic farm laborer,” as defined in Section 514(f)(3) of the Housing Act of 1949, as further amended through the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018. See 42 U.S.C. 1484(f)(3).
Applicant Eligibility—
(a) To be eligible to receive a Section 516 grant for off-farm FLH, the applicant must be a broad-based non-profit organization, including community and Faith-Based organizations, a non-profit organization of farm workers, a Federally recognized Indian tribe, an agency or political subdivision of a State or local Government, or a public agency (such as a housing authority). The applicant must be able to contribute at least one-tenth of the TDC from non-Rural Development resources which can include leveraged funds.
(b) To be eligible to receive a Section 514 loan for off-farm FLH, the applicant must be a broad-based non-profit organization, including community and Faith-Based organizations, a non-profit organization of farm workers, a Federally recognized Indian tribe, an agency or political subdivision of a State or local Government, a public agency
(i) Be unable to provide the necessary housing from its own resources;
(ii) Except for State or local public agencies and Indian tribes, be unable to obtain similar credit elsewhere at rates that would allow for rents within the payment ability of eligible residents.
(iii) Broad-based non-profit organizations must have a membership that reflects a variety of interests in the area where the housing will be located.
2.
3.
(a) 7 CFR part 1901, subpart E, regarding equal opportunity requirements;
(b) For grants only, 2 CFR parts 200 and 400, which establishes the uniform administrative and audit requirements for grants and cooperative agreements to State and local Governments and to non-profit organizations;
(c) 7 CFR part 1901, subpart F, regarding historical and archaeological properties;
(d) 7 CFR part 1970, regarding environmental review and documentation requirements;
(e) 7 CFR part 3560, subpart L, regarding the loan and grant authorities of the off-farm FLH program;
(f) 7 CFR part 1924, subpart A, regarding planning and performing construction and other development;
(g) 7 CFR part 1924, subpart C, regarding the planning and performing of site development work;
(h) For construction financed with a Section 516 grant, the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. 276(a)-276(a)-5) and implementing regulations published at 29 CFR parts 1, 3, and 5;
(i) All other requirements contained in 7 CFR part 3560, regarding the Sections 514/516 off-farm FLH programs; and
(j) Please note that grant applicants must obtain a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and maintain registration in the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) prior to submitting a pre-application pursuant to 2 CFR 25.200(b). In addition, an entity applicant must maintain registration in the CCR database at all times during which it has an active Federal award or an application or plan under consideration by the Agency. Similarly, all recipients of Federal financial assistance are required to report information about first-tier sub-awards and executive compensation in accordance with 2 CFR part 170. So long as an entity applicant does not have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b), the applicant must have the necessary processes and systems in place to comply with the reporting requirements should the applicant receive funding. See 2 CFR 170.200(b).
The application process will be in two phases: The initial pre-application (or proposal) and the submission of a final application. Only those pre-applications or proposals that are selected for further processing will be invited to submit final applications. In the event that a proposal is selected for further processing and the applicant declines, the next highest ranked unfunded pre-application may be selected for further processing. All pre-applications for Sections 514 and 516 funds must be filed with the appropriate Rural Development State Office and must meet the requirements of this Notice. Incomplete pre-applications will not be reviewed and will be returned to the applicant. No pre-application will be accepted after the deadline unless date and time are extended by another Notice published in the
Pre-applications can be submitted either electronically using the FLH Pre-Application form found at:
Submission of the electronic Section 514 Loan Proposal form
(a) Electronic Media Option. Submit all forms and documents as read-only Adobe Acrobat files on electronic media such as CDs, DVDs or USB drives. For each electronic device submitted, the applicant should include a Table of Contents of all documents and forms on that device. The electronic media should be submitted to the Rural Development State Office listed in this Notice where the property is located. Any forms and documents that are not sent electronically, including the check for credit reports, must be mailed to the Rural Development State Office.
(b) Email Option. On the Loan Proposal form you will be asked for a submission email address. This email address will be used to establish a folder on the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) server with your unique email address. Once the Loan Proposal form is processed, you will receive an additional email notifying you of the email address that you can use to email your forms and documents.
(c) Hard Copy Submission to the Rural Development State Office. If you are unable to send the proposal package electronically using either of the options listed above, you may send a hard copy of all forms and documents to the Rural Development State Office where the property is located. Hard copy pre-applications received on or before the deadline will receive the close of business time of the day received as the receipt time. Assistance for filing electronic and hard copy pre-applications can be obtained from any Rural Development State Office.
For electronic submissions, there is a time delay between the time it is sent and the time it is received depending on network traffic. As a result, last-minute submissions sent before the deadline
If a pre-application is accepted for further processing, the applicant must submit a complete, final application, acceptable to Rural Development prior to the obligation of Rural Development funds. If the pre-application is not accepted for further processing the applicant will be notified of appeal rights under 7 CFR part 11.
(a) The pre-application must contain the following:
(1) A summary page listing the following items. This information should be double-spaced between items and not be in narrative form.
i. Applicant's name.
ii. Applicant's Taxpayer Identification Number.
iii. Applicant's address.
iv. Applicant's telephone number.
v. Name of applicant's contact person, telephone number, and address.
vi. Amount of loan and/or grant requested.
vii. For grants of Federal financial assistance (including loans and grants, cooperative agreements, etc.), the applicant's DUNS number and registration in the CCR database in accordance with 2 CFR part 25. As required by OMB, all grant applicants must provide a DUNS number when applying for Federal grants, on or after October 1, 2003. Organizations can receive a DUNS number at no cost by calling the dedicated toll-free number at (866) 705-5711 or via the internet at:
(2) Awards made under this Notice are subject to the provisions contained in Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (Pub. L. 115-141, March 23, 2018) sections 745 and 746 regarding corporate felony convictions and corporate Federal tax delinquencies.
(3) A narrative verifying the applicant's ability to meet the eligibility requirements stated earlier in this Notice. If an applicant is selected for further processing, Rural Development will require additional documentation as set forth in a Conditional Commitment in order to verify the entity has the legal and financial capability to carry out the obligation of the loan.
(4) Standard Form 424, “Application for Federal Assistance,” can be obtained at:
(5) For loan pre-applications, current (within 6 months of pre-application date) financial statements with the following paragraph certified by the applicant's designated and legally authorized signer:
“I/we certify the above is a true and accurate reflection of our financial condition as of the date stated herein. This statement is given for the purpose of inducing the United States of America to make a loan or to enable the United States of America to make a determination of continued eligibility of the applicant for a loan as requested in the loan application of which this statement is a part.”
(6) For loan pre-applications, a check for $24 from applicants made out to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. This will be used to pay for credit reports obtained by Rural Development.
(7) Evidence that the applicant is unable to obtain credit from other sources. Letters from credit institutions which normally provide real estate loans in the area should be obtained and these letters should indicate the rates and terms upon which a loan might be provided. (Note: Not required from State or local public agencies or Indian tribes.)
(8) If an FLH grant is desired, a statement concerning the need for an FLH grant. The statement should include preliminary estimates of the rents required with and without a grant.
(9) A statement of the applicant's experience in operating labor housing or other rental housing. If the applicant's experience is limited, additional information should be provided to indicate how the applicant plans to compensate for this limited experience (
(10) A brief statement explaining the applicant's proposed method of operation and management (
(11) Provide your entity's projected Return on Investment (ROI) for the requested funds to demonstrate the effectiveness and efficiency of your proposal. Please include the methodology and assumptions you used in the ROI calculation. Also include a detailed examination of outputs and outcomes.
(12) Applicants must also provide:
(i) A copy of, or an accurate citation to, the special provisions of State or Tribal law under which they are organized, a copy of the applicant's charter, Articles of Incorporation, and by-laws;
(ii) The names, occupations, and addresses of the applicant's members, directors, and officers; and
(iii) If a member or subsidiary of another organization, the organization's name, address, and nature of business.
(13) A preliminary market survey or market study to identify the supply and demand for farm labor housing in the market area. The market area must be clearly identified and may include only the area from which tenants can reasonably be drawn for the proposed project. Documentation must be provided to justify a need within the intended market area for the housing of domestic farm laborers. The documentation must take into account disabled and retired farm workers. The preliminary survey should address or include the following items:
(i) The annual income level of farmworker families in the area and the probable income of the farm workers who will likely occupy the proposed housing;
(ii) A realistic estimate of the number of farm workers who remain in the area where they harvest and the number of farm workers who normally migrate into the area. Information on migratory workers should indicate the average number of months the migrants reside in the area and an indication of what type of family groups are represented by the migrants (
(iii) General information concerning the type of labor intensive crops grown in the area and prospects for continued demand for farm laborers;
(iv) The overall occupancy rate for comparable rental units in the area and the rents charged and customary rental practices for these units (
(v) The number, condition, adequacy, rental rates and ownership of units currently used or available to farm workers;
(vi) A description of the units proposed, including the number, type, size, rental rates, amenities such as carpets and drapes, related facilities
(vii) The applicant must also identify all other sources of funds, including the dollar amount, source, and commitment status. (Note: A Section 516 grant may not exceed 90 percent of the TDC of the housing.)
(14) The applicant must submit a checklist, certification, and signed affidavit by the project architect or engineer, as applicable, for any energy programs the applicant intends to participate in.
(15) The following forms are required:
(i) A prepared HUD Form 935.2A, “Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan (AFHM) Multi-Family Housing,” in accordance with 7 CFR 1901.203(c). The plan will reflect that occupancy is open to all qualified “domestic farm laborers,” regardless of which farming operation they work and that they will not discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex, age, disability, marital or familial status or National origin in regard to the occupancy or use of the units. The form can be found at:
(ii) A proposed operating budget utilizing Form RD 3560-7, “
(iii) An estimate of development cost utilizing Form RD 1924-13, “
(iv) Form RD 3560-30, “
(v) Form HUD 2530, “Previous Participation Certification,” can be found at:
(vi) If requesting RA or Operating Assistance, Form RD 3560-25, “
(vii) Form RD 400-4, “
(viii) Evidence of compliance with Executive Order 12372. The applicant must send a copy of Form SF-424, “Application for Federal Assistance,” to the applicant's State clearinghouse for intergovernmental review. If the applicant is located in a State that does not have a clearinghouse, the applicant is not required to submit the form. Applications from Federally recognized Indian tribes are not subject to this requirement.
(16) Evidence of site control, such as an option contract or sales contract. In addition, a map and description of the proposed site, including the availability of water, sewer, and utilities and the proximity to community facilities and services such as shopping, schools, transportation, doctors, dentists, and hospitals.
(17) Preliminary plans and specifications, including plot plans, building layouts, and type of construction and materials. The housing must meet Rural Development's design and construction standards contained in 7 CFR part 1924, subparts A and C and must also meet all applicable Federal, State, and local accessibility standards.
(18) A supportive services plan, which describes services that will be provided on-site or made available to tenants through cooperative agreements with service providers in the community, such as a health clinic or day care facility. Off-site services must be accessible and affordable to farm workers and their families. Letters of intent from service providers are acceptable documentation at the pre-application stage.
(19) A Sources and Uses Statement which shows all sources of funding included in the proposed project. The terms and schedules of all sources included in the project should be included in the Sources and Uses Statement.
(20) A separate one-page information sheet listing each of the “Pre-Application Scoring Criteria,” contained in this Notice, followed by a reference to the page numbers of all relevant material and documentation that is contained in the proposal that supports the criteria.
(21) Applicants are encouraged, but not required, to include a checklist of all of the pre-application requirements and to have their pre-application indexed and tabbed to facilitate the review process;
(22) Evidence of compliance with the requirements of the applicable State Housing Preservation Office (SHPO), and/or Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO). A letter from SHPO and/or THPO where the off-farm FLH project is located, signed by their designee will serve as evidence of compliance.
(23) Environmental information pursuant to the requirements in 7 CFR 1970.
1.
(a) Rural Development State Office will accept, review, and score pre-applications in accordance with this Notice. The scoring factors are:
(1) The presence of construction cost savings, including donated land and construction leverage assistance, for the units that will serve program-eligible tenants. The savings will be calculated as a percentage of the Rural Development TDC. The percentage calculation excludes any costs prohibited by Rural Development as loan expenses, such as a developer's fee. Construction cost savings includes, but is not limited to, funds for hard construction costs, and State or Federal funds which are applicable to construction costs. A minimum of 10 percent cost savings is required to earn points; however, if the total percentage of cost savings is less than 10 percent and the proposal includes donated land, 2 points will be awarded for the donated land. To count as cost savings for purposes of the selection criteria, the applicant must submit written evidence from the third-party funder that an application for those funds has been submitted and accepted points will be awarded in accordance with the following table using rounding to the nearest whole number.
(2) The presence of operational cost savings, such as tax abatements, non-Rural Development tenant subsidies or donated services are calculated on a per-unit cost savings for the sum of the savings. Savings must be available for at least 5 years and documentation must be provided with the application demonstrating the availability of savings for 5 years. To calculate the savings, take the total amount of savings and divide it by the number of units in the project that will benefit from the savings to obtain the per-unit cost savings. For non-Rural Development tenant subsidy, if the value changes during the 5-year calculation, the applicant must use the lower of the non-Rural Development tenant subsidy to calculate per-unit cost savings. For example, a 10-unit property with 100 percent designated farm labor housing units receiving $20,000 per year non-Rural Development subsidy yields a cost savings of $100,000 ($20,000 × 5 years); resulting to a $10,000 per-unit cost savings ($100,000/10 units).
Use the following table to apply points:
(3) 10 points will be awarded to projects in persistent poverty counties. A county is considered persistently poor if 20 percent or more of its population was living in poverty over the last 30 years (measured by the 1990, 2000 and 2010 decennial censuses and 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5-year estimates).
(4) Presence of tenant services.
Two points will be awarded for each resident service included in the tenant services plan up to a maximum of 10 points. Plans must detail how the services are to be administered, who will administer them, and where they will be administered. All tenant service plans must include letters of intent that clearly state the service that will be provided at the project for the benefit of the residents from any party administering each service, including the applicant. These services may include, but are not limited to, transportation related services, on-site English as a Second Language (ESL) classes, move-in funds, emergency assistance funds, homeownership counseling, food pantries, after school tutoring, and computer learning centers.
(5) Energy Initiative Scoring Points (the aggregate points for all the Energy Initiative categories may not exceed 20 points).
Properties may receive points for energy initiatives in the categories of energy conservation, energy generation, water conservation and green property management. Depending on the scope of work (SOW), properties may earn “energy initiative” points in either one of two categories: (1) New Construction or (2) Purchase and Rehabilitation of an Existing Non-Farm Labor Housing Building. Projects will be eligible for one category of the two, but not both.
Energy programs including LEED for Homes, Green Communities, etc., will each have an initial checklist indicating prerequisites for participation in its energy program. The applicable energy program checklist will establish whether prerequisites for the energy program's participation will be met. All checklists must be accompanied by a signed affidavit by the project architect or engineer stating that the goals are achievable and the project has been enrolled in these programs if enrollment is applicable to that program. In addition, projects that apply for points under the energy generation category must include calculations of savings of energy. Compare property energy usage of three scenarios: (1) Property built to required code of State with no renewables, to (2) property as-designed with commitments to stated energy conservation programs without the use of renewables and (3) property as-designed with commitments to stated energy conservation programs and the use of proposed renewables. Use local average metrics for weather and utility costs and detail savings in kilowatts and dollars. Provide payback calculations. These calculations must be done by a licensed engineer or credentialed renewable energy provider. Include with application, the provider/engineer's credentials including qualifications, recommendations, and proof of previous work. The checklist, affidavit, calculations and qualifications of engineer/energy provider must be submitted together with the loan application.
Enrollment in the EPA Portfolio Manager Program. All projects awarded scoring points for energy initiatives must enroll the project in the EPA Portfolio Manager Program to track post-construction energy consumption data. More information about this program may be found at:
(ii) Energy Conservation for New Construction or Purchase and Rehabilitation of an Existing Non-Farm Labor Housing Building. Projects may be eligible for scoring points when the pre-application includes a written certification by the applicant to participate and achieve certification in the following energy efficiency programs. The points will be allocated as follows:
• Participation in the EPA's Energy Star for Homes V3 program. (2 points)
• Participation in the Green Communities program by the Enterprise Community Partners. (4 points)
• Participation in one of the following programs will be awarded points for certification.
Each program has four levels of certification. State the level of certification that the applicant plans will achieve in their certification:
• LEED for Homes program by the United States Green Building Council (USGBC):
Applicant must state the level of certification that the applicant's plans will achieve in their certification in its pre-application.
• Home Innovation's and The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) ICC 700 National Green Building Standard TM:
Applicant must state the level of certification that the applicant's plans will achieve in their certification in its pre-application.
• Participation in the Department of Energy's Zero Energy Ready program. (2 points)
• Participation in local green/energy efficient building standards. Applicants who participate in a city, county, or municipality program (2 points).
(iii) Energy Conservation for Rehabilitation. Pre-applications for the purchase and rehabilitation of non-program MFH and related facilities in rural areas may be eligible for scoring points when the pre-application includes a written certification by the applicant to participate in one of the following energy efficiency programs. Again, the certification must be accompanied by a signed affidavit by the project architect or engineer stating that the goals are achievable. Points will be awarded as follows:
• Participation in the Green Communities program by the Enterprise Community Partners (3 points)
• Participation in local green/energy efficient building standards. Applicants who participate in a city, county or municipality program (2 points). The applicant should be aware of and look for additional requirements that are sometimes embedded in the third-party program's rating and verification systems.
(iv) Energy Generation. Pre-applications for new construction or purchase and rehabilitation of non-program multi-family projects which participate in the above-mentioned programs and receive scoring points for installation of on-site renewable energy sources. Energy analysis of preliminary building plans using industry-recognized simulation software must document the projected total energy consumption of all of the building components and building site usage. Projects with an energy analysis of the preliminary or rehabilitation building plans that propose a 10 percent to 100 percent energy generation commitment (where generation is considered to be the total amount of energy needed to be generated on-site to make the building a net-zero consumer of energy) will be awarded points as follows:
Projects may participate in Power Purchase Agreements or Solar Leases to achieve their on-site renewable energy generation goals provided that the financial obligations of the lease/purchase agreements are clearly documented and included in the application, and qualifying ratios continue to be achieved.
An additional 1 point will be awarded for off-grid systems, or elements of systems, provided that at least 5 percent of on-site renewable system is off-grid. See
(v) Water Conservation in Irrigation Measures. Projects may be awarded 1 point for the use of an engineered recycled water (gray water or storm water) for landscape irrigation covering 50 percent or more of the property's site landscaping needs.
(vi) Property Management Credentials. Projects may be awarded 1 point if the designated property management company or individuals that will assume maintenance and operations responsibilities upon completion of construction work have a Credential for Green Property Management. Credentialing can be obtained from the National Apartment Association (NAA), National Affordable Housing Management Association, The Institute for Real Estate Management, U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for Operations and Maintenance (LEED OM), or another source with a certifiable credentialing program. Credentialing must be illustrated in the resume(s) of the property management team and included with the pre-application.
The National Office will rank all pre-applications nationwide and distribute funds to States in rank order, within funding and RA limits. When proposals have an equal score, preference will be given first to Indian tribes as defined in § 3560.11 and then local non-profit organizations or public bodies whose principal purposes include low-income housing that meet the conditions of § 3560.55(c) and the following conditions:
• Is exempt from Federal income taxes under section 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Service code;
• Is not wholly or partially owned or controlled by a for-profit or limited-profit type entity;
• Whose members, or the entity, do not share an identity of interest with a for-profit or limited-profit type entity;
• Is not co-venturing with another entity; and
• The entity or its members will not be receiving any direct or indirect benefits pursuant to Low Income Housing Tax Credits.
If there are two or more applications that have the same score and both cannot be funded, a lottery in accordance with 7 CFR 3560.56(c)(2) will be used to break the tie. If insufficient funds or RA remain for the next ranked proposal, that applicant will be given a chance to modify their pre-application to bring it within remaining funding levels. This will be repeated for each next ranked eligible proposal until an award can be made or the list is exhausted.
Rural Development will notify all applicants whether their applications have been accepted or rejected and provide appeal rights under 7 CFR part 11, as appropriate.
Applicants must submit their initial applications by the due date specified in this Notice. Once the applications have been scored and ranked by the National Office, the National Office will advise State Offices of the proposals selected for further processing, State Offices will respond to applicants by letter.
If the application is not accepted for further processing, the applicant will be notified of appeal rights under 7 CFR part 11.
All FLH loans and grants are subject to the Restrictive-Use Provisions contained in 7 CFR 3560.72(a)(2).
Borrowers must maintain separate financial records for the operation and maintenance of the project and for tenant services. Tenant services will not be funded by Rural Development. Funds allocated to the operation and maintenance of the project may not be used to supplement the cost of tenant services, nor may tenant service funds be used to supplement the project operation and maintenance. Detailed financial reports regarding tenant services will not be required unless specifically requested by Rural Development, and then only to the extent necessary for Rural Development and the borrower to discuss the affordability (and competitiveness) of the service provided to the tenant. The project audit, or verification of accounts on Form RD 3560-10, “
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program. Political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (
To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at:
(1)
(2)
(3)
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
Department of Commerce.
Notice and request for comments.
In March 2018, the Trump Administration launched the President's Management Agenda (PMA). It lays out a long-term vision for modernizing the Federal Government in key areas that will improve the ability of agencies to deliver mission outcomes, provide excellent service, and effectively steward taxpayer dollars on behalf of the American people. The PMA established a Cross-Agency Priority (CAP) goal of
In addition to this request, two additional future requests for comment in September and December will inform draft federal data practices and a year-1 action plan.
Comments on this notice must be received by July 27, 2018.
Submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal. We will not accept comments by fax or paper delivery. Include the Docket ID and the phrase “Leveraging Data as a Strategic Asset Phase 1 Comments” at the beginning of your comments. Also indicate which questions described in the
•
•
William Hawk, Economist, U.S. Department of Commerce,
The Under Secretary for Economic Affairs, performing the nonexclusive duties and functions of the Deputy Secretary of the U.S. Department of Commerce, along with the Federal Chief Information Officer, the Chief Statistician of the United States, and executives from the U.S. Small Business Administration and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, is charged with developing a comprehensive Federal Data Strategy under the PMA CAP goal of
1. Manage government data as a strategic asset;
2. enable the American public, businesses, and researchers to effectively and efficiently access and use data;
3. improve the use of data for federal decision-making and accountability, including for policy-making, innovation, oversight, and learning; and
4. facilitate the use of federal data by interested parties to enhance the accessibility and usefulness of that data through commercial ventures, or innovation, or for additional public uses.
This is a general solicitation of comments from the public that offers businesses, academic institutions, non-profit organizations, government entities, and other interested parties the opportunity to offer best practices and use cases to support the Federal Data Strategy. Comments also are sought on draft Principles for a Comprehensive Federal Data Strategy. Finally, commenters are invited to list additional mechanisms that the Federal Government should use to seek interested parties' input on the data strategy. It is for information-gathering and fact-finding purposes only, and should not be construed as a request for proposals or as an obligation on the part of the U.S. Department of Commerce or federal agencies to agree with submitted comments or to incorporate recommendations identified in public comments regarding specific work products.
The U.S. Department of Commerce requests that respondents briefly address the following questions, where possible and applicable. Respondents are encouraged to focus on questions informed by relevant expertise or perspectives. Clearly indicate which question(s) you address in your response and any evidence to support assertions, where practicable.
1. Enterprise Data Governance. Briefly describe which best practices the Federal Government should consider as it sets priorities for managing government data as a strategic asset, including establishing data policies, specifying roles and responsibilities for data privacy, security, and confidentiality protection, and monitoring compliance with standards and policies throughout the information lifecycle.
2. Access, Use, and Augmentation. List a few best practices that the Federal Government should consider as it develops policies and practices to enable interested parties to effectively and efficiently access and use data assets by: (1) Making data available more quickly and in more useful formats; (2) maximizing the amount of non-sensitive data shared with the public; and (3) leveraging new technologies and best practices to increase access to sensitive or restricted data while protecting privacy, security, and confidentiality, and the interests of data providers.
3. Decision-Making and Accountability. Which best practices should the Federal Government consider to improve the use of data assets for decision-making and accountability? Specifically, list best practices for:
• Providing high quality and timely information to inform decision-making and learning;
• facilitating external research on the effectiveness of government programs and policies which will inform future policymaking; and
• fostering public accountability and transparency by providing accurate and timely spending information, performance metrics, and other administrative data.
4. Commercialization, Innovation, and Public Use. Outline best practices that the Federal Government should consider to facilitate the use of Federal Government data interested parties to enhance the accessibility and usefulness of the data through commercial ventures, or innovation, or for additional public uses. Of particular interest are examples of how the Federal Government can promote data use by the private sector and scientific and research communities, by state and local governments for public policy purposes, for education, and in enabling civic engagement. Please include up to four examples of:
• How enabling external users to access and use government data for commercial or additional public purposes spurs innovative technological solutions and fills gaps in government capacity and knowledge; and
• how supporting the production and dissemination of comprehensive, accurate, and objective statistics on the state of the nation helps businesses and markets operate more efficiently.
5. Principles. The interagency team on
The following broad principles are intended to guide the development of a comprehensive data strategy that encompasses the breadth of data the Federal Government acquires, uses, and disseminates for program, statistical, and mission-support purposes. These principles include concepts reflected in existing principles, such as those for the protection of personal information, for federal statistical agencies, and for federal evidence building. The principles will inform the development of practices and action steps for the Federal Data Strategy throughout the data lifecycle.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
European Statistical System Code of Practice (
6. Call for Use Cases. What Use Cases should the Federal Government consider in developing the Federal Data Strategy?
To solve the most pressing issues facing the nation, we must leverage data as a strategic asset. The United States Federal Data Strategy seeks to replicate, scale, and prioritize key data use cases to serve the public.
For the purposes of the Federal Data Strategy, a “Use Case” is a data practice or method that leverages data to support an articulable Federal agency mission or public interest outcome. The Federal Data Strategy is seeking best practices, missed opportunities, common solutions, and game changers that can help inform the four strategy areas:
1. Enterprise Data Governance. What data governance and stewardship practices should the Federal Government be employing and why?
2. Use, Access, and Augmentation. What data interoperability techniques or coordination tactics would better serve agency missions and the public?
3. Decision-making and Accountability. How can the Federal Government better assist policy-makers with data?
4. Commercialization, Innovation, and Public Use. What data solutions could address a pervasive problem in government service delivery or the public sphere?
• Economic Development—State and local authorities increasingly need detailed local information about their economies to make informed decisions. The US Census Bureau's Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) program (
• National Security—Preventing and minimizing adverse effects of cyber-attacks is imperative to national security in the 21st century. National Institute of Standards and Technology's National Vulnerability Database (
• Education—Students seek colleges that give them the best return on their investment. The College Scorecard (
• Public Safety—Emergency responders rely on up-to-date addresses for timely response. The Federal Geospatial Data Committee (
• Health—Local communities and health professionals reacting to the opioid crisis require timely data to assess impact and deliver effective interventions. The Department of Health and Human Services'
While many high-level civic data challenges have been identified—archaic data management practices and IT legacy systems, issues with data sharing and interoperability, and a lack of secondary use considerations—the Federal Government lacks an overall approach to prioritize data infrastructure improvements that serve the public. The Federal Data Strategy is seeking priority data use cases to ensure it is comprehensive and actionable.
These use cases will be identified and discussed in the Federal Data Strategy, and a select number of ready use cases will be assessed more deeply
A select number of Use Cases deemed “ripe for testing” will be included in
Please submit information about Use Cases in response to this RFC by July 27, 2018.
To ensure complete use case entries, please provide as much contextual information as possible, such as: contact information for follow-up questions, the Federal agencies or bureaus related to the relevant data, related reference materials (including URLs) such as documentation about the data, practice, or goal of the project, and why this Use Case should be included in Federal Data Strategy development.
7. What are the best mechanisms for engaging stakeholders in the development of the data strategy? What platforms and processes are both comprehensive and efficient for collecting stakeholder feedback on
We ask that each respondent include the name and address of his or her institution or affiliation, and the name, title, mailing and email addresses, and telephone number of a contact person for his or her institution or affiliation, if any. No specific information pertaining to the respondent is required, other than that necessary for self-identification, as a condition of the agency's full consideration of the comment.
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.
Notice of Advisory Committee charter renewal.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) hereby gives notice that the Department of Commerce Acting Chief Financial Officer/Assistant Secretary for Administration, and Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration has determined that charter renewal of the NIST Smart Grid Advisory Committee (Committee) is necessary and in the public interest. The renewed charter can be found on the Committee website at the following URL link:
Mr. Cuong Nguyen, Smart Grid and Cyber-Physical Systems Program Office, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8200, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8200; telephone 301-975-2254, fax 301-948-5668; or via email at
The Committee was established in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App. The Committee is composed of nine to fifteen members, appointed by the Director of NIST, who were selected on the basis of established records of distinguished service in their professional community and their knowledge of issues affecting Smart Grid deployment and operations. The Committee advises the Director of NIST in carrying out duties authorized by section 1305 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-140). The Committee provides input to NIST on Smart Grid standards, priorities, and gaps, on the overall direction, status, and health of the Smart Grid implementation by the Smart Grid industry, and on the direction of research and standards activities. Background information on the Committee is available at
The Committee functions solely as an advisory body and in compliance with provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Pursuant to section 9(c) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C., App., as amended, copies of the Committee's charter were furnished to the Library of Congress and to the following committees of Congress:
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), U.S. Department of Commerce, is contemplating the grant of an exclusive license in the United States of America, its territories, possessions and commonwealths, to NIST's interest in the invention embodied in U.S. Patent 9,726,553 B2, titled “Optical Temperature Sensor and Use of Same” (NIST Docket 13-006) to Fluke Corporation, a subsidiary of Fortive, Inc. The grant of the license would be for manufacture of optical thermometers in all fields.
The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless NIST receives, by July 12, 2018, written evidence and argument which establish that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
Information related to this license may be submitted to NIST, Technology Partnerships Office, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 2200, Gaithersburg, MD 20899, or emailed to
Donald G. Archer, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Technology Partnerships Office, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 2200, Gaithersburg, MD 20899, (301) 975-2522,
This is a notice in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(e) and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i) that NIST is contemplating the grant of an exclusive license in the United States of America, its territories, possessions and commonwealths, to NIST's interest in the invention embodied in 9,726,553 B2, titled “Optical Temperature Sensor and Use of Same” (NIST Docket 13-006) to Fluke Corporation, a subsidiary of Fortive, Inc. The grant of the license would be for manufacture of optical thermometers in all fields.
The prospective exclusive license will be royalty bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within fifteen (15) days from the date of this published Notice, NIST receives written evidence and argument which establish that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The Patent was filed on June 11, 2014, issued on August 8, 2017, and describes an optical resonator thermometer.
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.
Notice of closed meeting.
The Judges Panel of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality
The meeting will be held on Wednesday, August 22, 2018, from 9:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Eastern time. The entire meeting will be closed to the public.
The meeting will be held at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, MD 20899.
Robert Fangmeyer, Director, Baldrige Performance Excellence Program, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 1020, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-1020, telephone number (301) 975-2360, email
15 U.S.C. 3711a(d)(1) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App., notice is hereby given that the Judges Panel of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award will meet on Wednesday, August 22, 2018, from 9:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Eastern time. The Judges Panel is composed of twelve members, appointed by the Secretary of Commerce, with a balanced representation from U.S. service, manufacturing, nonprofit, education, and health care industries. Members are selected for their familiarity with quality improvement operations and competitiveness issues of manufacturing companies, service companies, small businesses, nonprofits, health care providers, and educational institutions. The purpose of this meeting is to review the results of examiners' scoring of written applications. Panel members will vote on which applicants merit site visits by examiners to verify the accuracy of quality improvements claimed by applicants. The meeting is closed to the public in order to protect the proprietary data to be examined and discussed.
The Acting Chief Financial Officer/Assistant Secretary for Administration and Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the Assistant General Counsel for Employment, Litigation and Information, formally determined on March 7, 2018, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended by Section 5(c) of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the meeting of the Judges Panel may be closed to the public in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4) because the meeting is likely to disclose trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person which is privileged or confidential and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B) because for a government agency the meeting is likely to disclose information that could significantly frustrate implementation of a proposed agency action. The meeting, which involves examination of current Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (Award) applicant data from U.S. organizations and a discussion of these data as compared to the Award criteria in order to recommend Award recipients, will be closed to the public.
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Under the provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801
Regulations at 50 CFR 635.4 require that vessels participating in commercial and recreational fisheries for Atlantic highly migratory species (HMS) and dealers purchasing Atlantic HMS from a vessel obtain a Federal permit issued by NMFS. This action addresses the renewal of permit applications currently approved under PRA 0648-0327, including both vessel and Atlantic Tunas Dealer permits. Vessel permits include Atlantic Tunas (except Longline permits, which are approved under OMB Control No. 0648-0205), HMS Charter/Headboat, HMS Angling, and Swordfish General Commercial permits. This action also includes the one-time requirement for commercial vessels greater than 20 meters in length to obtain a International Maritime Organization/Lloyd's Registry (IMO/LR) number.
The primary reason for the revision of this information collection is to reflect that HMS International Trade Permits have been removed from this collection as they were discontinued in 2016, and replaced with the International Fishing Trade Permit (IFTP). The IFTP is covered under OMB Control No. 0648-0732. Thus, the burden and costs associated with renewal and issuance of an initial HMS ITP are no longer applicable to this collection of information.
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Office for Coastal Management (OCM), National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).
Notice.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Office for Coastal Management will hold a public meeting to solicit comments on the performance evaluation of the Hawaii Coastal Management Program.
For specific dates, times, and locations of the public meetings, see
You may submit comments on the program or reserve NOAA intends to evaluate by any of the following methods:
Ralph Cantral, Senior Advisor, Policy, NOAA Office for Coastal Management, 2234 South Hobson Avenue, Charleston, South Carolina 29405-2413, by phone at (843) 740-1143, or via email to
Section 312 of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) requires NOAA to conduct periodic evaluations of federally approved state and territorial coastal programs. The process includes one or more public meetings, consideration of written public comments, and consultations with interested Federal, state, and local agencies and members of the public. During the evaluation, NOAA will consider the extent to which the state has met the national objectives, adhered to the management program approved by the Secretary of Commerce, and adhered to the terms of financial assistance under the CZMA. When the evaluation is completed, NOAA's Office for Coastal Management will place a notice in the
You may participate or submit oral comments at the public meeting scheduled as follows:
Written public comments must be received on or before September 7, 2018.
Office for Coastal Management (OCM), National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).
Notice of public meeting.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Office for Coastal Management will hold a public meeting to solicit comments for the performance evaluation of the Old Woman Creek National Estuarine Research Reserve.
For the specific date, time, and location of the public meetings, see
You may submit comments on the reserve by any of the following methods:
Ralph Cantral, Senior Advisor, Policy, NOAA Office for Coastal Management, 2234 South Hobson Avenue, Charleston, South Carolina 29405-2413, by phone at (843) 740-1143, or via email to
Sections 312 and 315 of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) require NOAA to conduct periodic evaluations of federally-approved National Estuarine Research Reserves. The process includes a public meeting, consideration of written public comments, and consultations with interested Federal, state, and local agencies and members of the public. For the evaluation of National Estuarine Research Reserves, NOAA will consider the extent to which the state has met the national objectives, adhered to its management plan approved by the Secretary of Commerce, and adhered to the terms of financial assistance under
You may participate and submit oral comments at the public meeting scheduled as follows:
Written comments must be received on or before August 8, 2018.
Office for Coastal Management (OCM), National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).
Notice of public meeting.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Office for Coastal Management will hold a public meeting to solicit comments for the performance evaluation of the Sapelo Island National Estuarine Research Reserve.
For the specific date, time, and location of the public meetings, see
You may submit comments on the reserve by any of the following methods:
Pam Kylstra, Evaluator, NOAA Office for Coastal Management, 2234 South Hobson Avenue, Charleston, South Carolina 29405-2413, by phone at (843) 740-1259, or via email to
Sections 312 and 315 of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) require NOAA to conduct periodic evaluations of federally-approved National Estuarine Research Reserves. The process includes a public meeting, consideration of written public comments, and consultations with interested Federal, state, and local agencies and members of the public. For the evaluation of National Estuarine Research Reserves, NOAA will consider the extent to which the state has met the national objectives, adhered to its management plan approved by the Secretary of Commerce, and adhered to the terms of financial assistance under the Coastal Zone Management Act. When the evaluation is completed, NOAA's Office for Coastal Management will place a notice in the
You may participate and submit oral comments at the public meeting scheduled as follows:
Written comments must be received on or before August 31, 2018.
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
NOAA NMFS would like to conduct an intercept survey to assess the extent of interactions between recreational anglers on piers and other shore-based fishing structures, and sea turtles. This survey will also assess the feasibility of an intercept survey for this purpose in terms response rates and data collection. The survey will be administered on piers and other fixed structures nationwide, but focused within NOAA Fisheries Greater Atlantic Region and Southeast Region, and will survey approximately 36,000 individual recreational fishermen. The respondents will be verbally asked a series of questions, no longer than 5 minutes, and the interviewer will record answers. Members of the Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network will also complete sea turtle incidental take capture forms when applicable.
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
The Northwest Fisheries Science Center is conducting a cost and earnings survey of active vessels operating with a limited entry groundfish permit that has a fixed gear (longline and/or pot) endorsement. Commercial fisheries economic data collections implemented by the Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC) have contributed to legally mandated analyses required under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MFCMS), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), and Executive Order 12866 (E.O. 12866).
Surveys implemented by the NWFSC since 2005 have covered West Coast harvesters, processors, and coastal communities. These surveys have focused on the federally managed groundfish and salmon fisheries as well as the closely related crab and shrimp fisheries. This document describes a data collection covering catcher vessels operate with a limited entry groundfish permit that has a fixed gear (longline and/or pot) endorsement. During 2012 there were 169 vessels active on the West Coast that held a federal groundfish limited entry permit with a fixed gear endorsement. These 169 vessels landed $46.5 million of fish on the West Coast, including $25.3 million of groundfish (including $22.5 million of sablefish) and $16.6 million of crab.
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
The Northwest Fisheries Science Center will conduct a cost and earnings survey of active marine charter fishing vessel companies in Washington and Oregon. The data collected will be used by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to address statutory and regulatory mandates to determine the quantity and distribution of net benefits derived from living marine resources as well as to predict the economic impacts from proposed management options on charter fishing businesses, shore side industries, and fishing communities. In particular, these economic data collection programs contribute to legally mandated analyses required under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MFCMS), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), and Executive Order 12866 (E.O. 12866).
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request for comments.
NMFS has received a request from the Seattle Department of Transportation (Seattle DOT) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to pile driving activities for the restoration of Pier 62, Seattle Waterfront, Elliott Bay in Seattle, Washington (Season 2). Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to incidentally take marine mammals during the specified activities. NMFS
Comments and information must be received no later than July 27, 2018.
Comments should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. Physical comments should be sent to 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 and electronic comments should be sent to
Stephanie Egger, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the applications and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained online at.
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth.
NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.
The MMPA states that the term “take” means to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal.
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
This action is consistent with categories of activities identified in Categorical Exclusion B4 (incidental harassment authorizations with no anticipated serious injury or mortality) of the Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the issuance of the proposed IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review.
On January 27, 2018, NMFS received a request from the Seattle DOT for a second IHA to take marine mammals incidental to pile driving activities for the restoration of Pier 62, Seattle Waterfront, Elliott Bay in Seattle, Washington. A revised request was submitted on May 18, 2018 which was deemed adequate and complete. Seattle DOT's request is for take of 12 species of marine mammals, by Level B harassment and Level A harassment (three species only). Neither Seattle DOT nor NMFS expects serious injury or mortality to result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.
NMFS previously issued an IHA to Seattle DOT for related work for Season 1 of this activity (82 FR 47176; October 11, 2017). Seattle DOT complied with all the requirements (
This proposed IHA would cover the second season of work for the Pier 62 Project for which Seattle DOT obtained a prior IHA (82 FR 47176; October 11, 2017) and intends to request take authorization for subsequent facets of the project. The second season of the larger project is expected to primarily involve the remaining pile driving for Pier 62 and Pier 63. If the Seattle DOT encounters delays due to poor weather conditions, difficult pile driving, or other unanticipated challenges, an additional in-water work season may be necessary. If so, a separate IHA would be prepared for the third season of work.
The proposed project will replace Pier 62 and make limited modifications to Pier 63 on the Seattle waterfront of Elliott Bay, Seattle, Washington. The existing piers are constructed of creosote-treated timber piles and treated timber decking, which are failing. The proposed project would demolish and remove the existing timber piles and decking of Pier 62, and replace them with concrete deck planks, concrete pile caps, and steel piling. The majority of the timber pile removal required by the project occurred during the 2017-2018 in-water work season (Season 1).
The footprint of Pier 62 will remain as it currently is, with a small amount of additional over-water coverage (approximately 3,200 square feet) created by a new float system added to the south side of Pier 62. This float
In-water construction for this application is proposed from August 1, 2018 to February 28, 2019. Pile removal and installation will occur during daylight hours, typically during a work shift of eight hours or less. Timber pile removal for the remaining piles of the Pier 62 Project is estimated to occur on 10 days during the 2018-2019 in-water work window. Pile installation will occur via vibratory and impact hammers. Vibratory hammer use is estimated to occur on up to 53 days, and impact hammer use may occur on up to 64 days, for a total of up to 117 days of pile installation. Therefore, the total number of working days for the project is 127. It is expected that many of the pile installation days will involve both a vibratory and an impact hammer, resulting in fewer cumulative days of pile installation. It is anticipated that the contractor will complete the pile installation during the 2018-2019 in-water work window. In-water work may occur within a modified or shortened work window (September through February) to reduce or minimize effect on juvenile salmonids.
Pier 62 and Pier 63 are located on the downtown Seattle waterfront on Elliot Bay in King County, Washington just north of the Seattle Aquarium (see Figure 1 from the Seattle DOT application). The project will occur between Pike Street and Lenora Street, an urban embayment in central Puget Sound. This is an important industrial region and home to the Port of Seattle, which ranked 8th in the top 10 metropolitan port complexes in the U.S. in 2015. This area includes the proposed construction zone, Elliott Bay, and a portion of Puget Sound.
During Season 1, Pier 62 was fully removed, including all support piles, structural components, and decking. The 3,700-square-foot portion of Pier 63 was also removed. A total of 831 piles were removed from Pier 62 and Pier 63 (see Table 1 below). Timber pile removal work in Season 2 (2018-2019 in-water work window) may occur for an estimated 10 days (49 remaining timber piles, if the contractor encounters deteriorated piles that pose a safety hazard or are within the area where grated decking or habitat improvements are to be installed. Seattle DOT estimates 10 days will be needed to remove the old timber piles, 53 days for vibratory installation of steel piles, and 64 days for impact installation of steel piles for a total of 127 in-water construction days for both Pier 62 and Pier 63 (see Table 1 below). Seattle DOT expects most days for vibratory and impact installation of steel piles will overlap, for a total of fewer than 127 days.
Approximately 20 percent of the pile driving effort is anticipated to require an impact hammer. However, the impact hammer activity is sporadic, often occurring for short periods each day. A total of 64 days represents the number of days in which pile installation with an impact hammer could occur, with the anticipation that each day's impact hammer activity would be short.
The 14-inch (in) timber piles will be removed with a vibratory hammer or pulled with a clamshell bucket. The 30-in steel piles will be installed with a vibratory hammer to the extent possible. The maximum extent of pile removal and installation activities are described in Table 1.
An impact hammer will be used for proofing steel piles or when encountering obstructions or difficult ground conditions. In addition, a pile template will be installed to ensure the piles are placed properly. The template,
The Seattle DOT anticipates proofing 10 piles, spread over the different geological zones and construction zones of the pier foundation. For this proofing effort, one impact crane would be mobilized. In addition to proofing, if a pile reaches refusal (
It is not possible to know in advance the location of the crews and hammers on a given day, nor how many crews will be working each day. The multiple-source decibel addition method does not result in significant increases in the noise source when an impact hammer and vibratory hammer are working at the same time, because the difference in noise sources is greater than 10 dB. For periods when two vibratory hammers are operating simultaneously, an increase in noise level could be generated, and this will be accounted for when determining Level A Harassment Zones (PTS isopleths) and Level B Harassment Zones for all marine mammal hearing groups.
If the Seattle DOT encounters delays due to poor weather conditions, difficult pile driving, or other unanticipated challenges, an additional in-water work season may be necessary. If so, a separate IHA would be prepared for the third season of work. In-water work will occur within the designated work window (August through February).
The marine mammal species under NMFS's jurisdiction that have the potential to occur in the construction area include Pacific harbor seal (
Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and behavior and life history, of the potentially affected species. Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be found in NMFS's Stock Assessment Reports (SAR;
Table 3 lists all species with expected potential for occurrence in Elliott Bay and summarizes information related to the population or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and ESA and potential biological removal (PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we follow Committee on Taxonomy (2017). PBR is defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population (as described in NMFS's SARs). While no mortality is anticipated or authorized here, PBR and annual serious injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources are included here as gross indicators of the status of the species and other threats.
Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area. NMFS's stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in the NMFS's U.S. 2017 Draft SARs for the Pacific (Carretta
All species that could potentially occur in the proposed survey areas are included in Table 3. As described below, all 12 species temporally and spatially co-occur with the activity to the degree that take is reasonably likely to occur, and we have proposed authorizing it.
Marine mammal monitoring during pile driving/removal activities occurred for 21 days, between December 29, 2017, and February 21, 2018. Throughout the Season 1 monitoring season, a total of 167 California sea lions and 72 harbor seals were observed, mostly at the Alki and Magnolia sites, but only a few were taken by Level B harassment. Eight California sea lions and ten harbor seals were taken by Level B harassment. There were no takes by Level A harassment nor any serious injuries or mortalities. No other species were observed.
Individual harbor seals occur along the Elliott Bay shoreline. There is one documented harbor seal haulout area near Bainbridge Island, approximately 6 miles (9.66 km) from Pier 62. The haulout, which is estimated at less than 100 animals, consists of intertidal rocks and reef areas around Blakely Rocks and is within the area of potential effects but at the outer extent near Bainbridge Island (Jefferies
Six harbor seals were observed (and taken) within the Level B Harassment/Monitoring Zone during vibratory activity during Season 1 of the Seattle DOT Pier 62 project. Higher numbers of harbor seals were observed at the Alki and Magnolia sites; however, those animals were outside the Level B zone for vibratory pile removal so were not considered as “taken” under the previous IHA for Season 1. The number of harbor seals observed from all three monitoring locations (Alki, Magnolia and around the construction site) combined ranged from 0 to 11 per day, with an average of 3 harbor seals per day.
Marine mammal monitoring also occurred on 175 days during Seasons 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the Elliott Bay Seawall Project (EBSP), during which 267 harbor seals were documented as takes in the Pier 62 Project area (Anchor QEA 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017). Numbers of harbor seals observed on the project varied from zero to seven per day, with an average of 1, 1, 2, and 3 observed daily in 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017, respectively. Additional marine mammal monitoring results in the vicinity of the projects, are as follows:
2016 Seattle Test Pile Project: 56 Harbor seals were observed over 10 days in the area that corresponds to the upcoming project ZOIs. The maximum number sighted during one day was 13 (Washington State Ferries (WSF) 2016).
2012 Seattle Slip 2 Batter Pile Project: Six harbor seals were observed during this one-day project in the area that corresponds to the upcoming project ZOIs (WSF 2012).
2012 Seattle Aquarium Pier 60 Project: 281 Harbor seals were observed over 29 days in the area that corresponds to the upcoming project ZOIs (HiKARI 2012).
No elephant seals were observed during Season 1 of the Seattle DOT Pier 62 project. Marine mammal monitoring also occurred on 175 days during Seasons 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the EBSP, during which no elephant seals were observed in the project area (Anchor QEA 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017). Similarly, no elephant seals were observed during monitoring for the 2012 Seattle Slip 2 Batter Pile Project, the 2016 Seattle Test Pile Project, or the 2012 Seattle Aquarium Pier 60 Project (WSF 2016).
California sea lions are often observed in the area of potential effects. There are four documented haulout sites near Bainbridge Island, approximately six miles from Pier 62, and two documented haulout sites between Bainbridge Island and Magnolia (Jefferies
Eight California sea lions were observed (and taken) within the Level B Harassment/Monitoring Zone during vibratory activity during Season 1 of the Seattle DOT Pier 62 project. Higher numbers of California sea lions were observed at the Alki and Magnolia sites; however, those animals were outside the Level B zone for vibratory pile removal so were not considered as “taken” under the previous IHA for Season 1. The number of sea lions observed from all three monitoring locations (Alki, Magnolia and around the construction site) combined ranged from 0 to 13 per day, with an average of 8 sea lions per day.
Marine mammal monitoring also occurred on 175 days during Seasons 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the EBSP, during which 951 California sea lions were documented as takes in the project area (Anchor QEA 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017). California sea lions were frequently observed (average seven per day in 2014 and 2015, three per day in 2016 and 2017, and a maximum of 15 over a day) hauled out on two navigational buoys within the project area (near Alki Point) and swimming along the shoreline. Additional marine mammal monitoring results in the vicinity of the projects, are as follows:
Steller sea lions are a rare visitor to the Pier 62 area of potential effects. Steller sea lions use haulout locations in Puget Sound. The nearest haulout to the project area is located approximately six miles away (9.66 km). This haulout is composed of net pens offshore of the south end of Bainbridge Island. The population of Steller sea lions at this haulout has been estimated at less than 100 individuals (Jeffries
No steller sea lions were observed during Season 1 of the Seattle DOT Pier 62 project. Marine mammal monitoring occurred on 175 days during Seasons 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the EBSP, during which three Steller sea lions were observed and documented as takes in the project area (Anchor QEA 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017).
No Steller sea lions were observed during monitoring for the 2012 Seattle Slip 2 Batter Pile Project or the 2016 Seattle Test Pile Project (WSF 2016).
The Eastern North Pacific SRKW and West Coast Transient (transient) stocks of killer whale may be found near the project site. The SRKW live in three family groups known as the J, K and L pods. The Southern Residents are listed as endangered under the ESA. Transient killer whales generally occur in smaller (less than 10 individuals), less structured pods (NMFS 2013). According to the Center for Whale Research (CWR) (2015), they tend to travel in small groups of one to five individuals, staying close to shorelines, often near seal rookeries when pups are being weaned. The transient killer whale sightings have become more common since mid-2000. Unlike the SRKW pods, transients may be present in an area for hours or days as they hunt pinnipeds.
A long-term database maintained by the Whale Museum contains sightings and geospatial locations of SRKWs, among other marine mammals, in inland waters of Washington State (Osborne 2008). Data are largely based on opportunistic sightings from a variety of sources (
Based on reports from 1990 to 2008, the greatest number of unique killer whale sighting-days near or in the area
An analysis of sightings in 2011 described an estimated 93 sightings of SRKWs near the area of potential effects (Whale Museum 2011). During this same analysis period, 12 transient killer whales were also observed near the area of potential effects. The majority of all sightings in this area are of groups of killer whales moving through the main channel between Bainbridge Island and Elliott Bay and outside the area of potential effects (Whale Museum 2011). The purely descriptive format of these observations makes it impossible to discern what proportion of the killer whales observed entered the area of potential effects; however, it is assumed that individuals do enter this area on occasion.
No killer whales were observed during Season 1 of the Seattle DOT Pier 62 project. Marine mammal monitoring also occurred on 175 days during Seasons 1, 2, 3, and 4 (2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017) of the EBSP, during which two killer whales were documented as takes in the project area (unknown if SRKW or transient), and one pod of six whales was also observed in Elliott Bay more than 30 minutes before or after pile driving activity (no take documented; Anchor QEA 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017). This pod of six whales were not identified as SRKW or transients.
During the 2016 Seattle Test Pile project, 0 SRKW were observed over 10 days in the area that corresponds to the upcoming project ZOIs (WSF 2016). During the 2012 Seattle Slip 2 Batter Pile project, 0 SRKW were observed during this one day project in the area that corresponds to the upcoming project ZOIs (WSF 2012). On February 5, 2016, a pod of up to 7 transients were reported in the area (Orca Network Archive Report 2016a).
No long-beaked common dolphins were observed during Season 1 of the Seattle DOT Pier 62 project. Marine mammal monitoring also occurred on 175 days during Seasons 1, 2, 3, and 4 (2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017) of the EBSP, during which no long-beaked common dolphins were observed in the project area (Anchor QEA 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017).
No long-beaked common dolphins were observed during monitoring for the 2012 Seattle Slip 2 Batter Pile Project, the 2016 Seattle Test Pile Project, or the 2012 Seattle Aquarium Pier 60 project. However, there were reported sightings in the Puget Sound in the summer of 2016. Beginning on June 16, long-beaked common dolphins were observed near Victoria, British Columbia. Over the following weeks, a pod of 15 to 20 (including a calf) was observed in central and southern Puget Sound. They were positively identified as long-beaked common dolphins (Orca Network 2016a). This is the first confirmed observation of a pod of long-beaked common dolphins in Washington waters—NMFS states that as of 2012, long-beaked common dolphins had not been observed during surveys in Washington waters (Carretta
NOAA offshore surveys from 1991 to 2014 resulted in no sightings during study transects off the Oregon or Washington coasts (NOAA 2017d). However, in October 2017, multiple sightings of a bottlenose dolphin were reported to Orca Network throughout the Puget Sound and in Elliott Bay. Two bottlenose dolphins were observed in Elliott Bay in one week of monitoring (WSDOT 2017) and a group of seven dolphins were observed in 2017 and were positively identified as part of the CA coastal stock (Cascadia Research Collective, 2017). It is acknowledged that bottlenose dolphins could occur within the project area.
No bottlenose dolphins were observed during Season 1 of the Seattle DOT Pier 62 project. In addition, no bottlenose dolphins were observed during monitoring for the EBSP, the 2012 Seattle Slip 2 Batter Pile Project or the 2016 Seattle Test Pile Project (Anchor QEA 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017; WSF 2012, 2016).
Gray whale sightings are typically reported in February through May and include an observation of a gray whale off the ferry terminal at Pier 52 heading toward the East Waterway in March 2010 (CWR 2011). Three gray whales were observed near the project area during 2011 (Whale Museum 2011), but the narrative format of the observations make it difficult to discern whether these individuals entered the area of potential effects. It is assumed that gray whales might rarely occur in the area of potential effects.
No gray whales were observed during Season 1 of the Seattle DOT Pier 62 project. No gray whales were observed during monitoring for Seasons 1, 2,3, or 4 of the EBSP (Anchor QEA 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017), the 2012 Seattle Slip 2 Batter Pile Project, the 2016 Seattle Test Pile Project, or the 2012 Seattle Aquarium Pier 60 Project (Anchor QEA 2014, 2015, 2016; WSF 2016a).
Prior to 2016, humpback whales were listed under the ESA as an endangered species worldwide. Following a 2015 global status review (Bettridge
Humpback whales are only rare visitors to Puget Sound. There is evidence of increasing numbers in recent years (Falcone
No humpback whales were observed during Season 1 of the Seattle DOT Pier 62 project. Marine mammal monitoring
Minke whales are relatively common in the San Juan Islands and Strait of Juan de Fuca (especially around several of the banks in both the central and eastern Strait), but are relatively rare in Puget Sound (WSF 2016a). No minke whales were observed during Season 1 of the Seattle DOT Pier 62 project. No minke whales were observed during monitoring for Season 1, 2, 4, or 4 of the EBSP, the 2012 Seattle Slip 2 Batter Pile Project, the 2016 Seattle Test Pile Project, or the 2012 Seattle Aquarium Pier 60 Project (Anchor QEA 2014, 2015, 2016; WSF 2016).
No harbor porpoise or Dall's porpoise were observed during Season 1 of the Seattle DOT Pier 62 project. Marine mammal monitoring occurred on 175 days during Seasons 1, 2, 3, and 4 (2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017) of the EBSP, during which one harbor porpoise was observed and documented as a take in the project area; no Dall's porpoises were observed (Anchor QEA 2014, 2015, 2016. 2017).
During the 2012 Seattle Aquarium Pier 60 Project, five harbor porpoises and one Dall's porpoise were observed over 29 days in the area that corresponds to the upcoming project ZOIs, with a maximum of three observed in one day (HiKARI 2012). Neither harbor porpoise nor Dall's porpoise were observed during monitoring for the 2012 Seattle Slip 2 Batter Pile Project or the 2016 Seattle Test Pile Project (WSF 2016).
Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine mammals are able to hear. Current data indicate that not all marine mammal species have equal hearing capabilities (
Low-frequency cetaceans (mysticetes): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 7 hertz (Hz) and 35 kilohertz (kHz);
Mid-frequency cetaceans (larger toothed whales, beaked whales, and most delphinids): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz;
High-frequency cetaceans (porpoises, river dolphins, and members of the genera Kogia and Cephalorhynchus; including two members of the genus Lagenorhynchus, on the basis of recent echolocation data and genetic data): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 275 Hz and 160 kHz;
Pinnipeds in water; Phocidae (true seals): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 50 Hz to 86 kHz; and
Pinnipeds in water; Otariidae (eared seals and sea lions): Generalized hearing is estimated to occur between 60 Hz and 39 kHz.
The pinniped functional hearing group was modified from Southall
For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency ranges, please see NMFS (2016a) for a review of available information. Twelve marine mammal species (8 cetacean and 4 pinniped (2 otariid and 2 phocid) species) have the reasonable potential to co-occur with the proposed survey activities. Please refer to Table 3. Of the cetacean species that may be present, three are classified as low-frequency cetaceans (
This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that components of the specified activity may impact marine mammals and their habitat. The “Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment” section later in this document will include a quantitative analysis of the number of individuals that are expected to be taken by this activity. The “Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination” section will consider the content of this section, the “Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment” section, and the “Proposed Mitigation” section, to draw conclusions regarding the likely impacts of these activities on the reproductive success or survivorship of individuals and how those impacts on individuals are likely to impact marine mammal species or stocks.
The Seattle DOT's Pier 62 Project using in-water pile driving and pile removal could adversely affect marine mammal species and stocks by exposing them to elevated noise levels in the vicinity of the activity area.
Exposure to high intensity sound for a sufficient duration may result in auditory effects such as a noise-induced threshold shift (TS)—an increase in the auditory threshold after exposure to noise (Finneran
For marine mammals, published data are limited to the captive bottlenose dolphin, beluga, harbor porpoise, and Yangtze finless porpoise (Finneran
Lucke
Marine mammal hearing plays a critical role in communication with conspecifics, and interpretation of environmental cues for purposes such as predator avoidance and prey capture. Depending on the degree (elevation of threshold in dB), duration (
Masking occurs at the frequency band that the animals utilize. Therefore, since noise generated from vibratory pile driving activity is mostly concentrated at low frequency ranges, it may have less effect on high frequency echolocation sounds by odontocetes (toothed whales). However, lower frequency man-made noises are more likely to affect detection of communication calls and other potentially important natural sounds such as surf and prey noise. It may also affect communication signals when they occur near the noise band and thus reduce the communication space of animals (
Unlike TS, masking, which can occur over large temporal and spatial scales, can potentially affect the species at population, community, or even ecosystem levels, as well as individual levels. Masking affects both senders and receivers of the signals and could have long-term chronic effects on marine mammal species and populations. Recent science suggests that low frequency ambient sound levels have increased by as much as 20 dB (more than three times in terms of sound pressure level) in the world's ocean from pre-industrial periods, and most of these increases are from distant shipping (Hildebrand 2009). For Seattle DOT's Pier 62 Project, noises from vibratory pile driving and pile removal contribute to the elevated ambient noise levels in the project area, thus increasing potential for or severity of masking. Baseline ambient noise levels in the vicinity of project area are high due to ongoing shipping, construction and other activities in the Puget Sound.
The onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise depends on both external factors (characteristics of noise sources and their paths) and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography) and is also difficult to predict (Southall
The biological significance of many of these behavioral disturbances is difficult to predict, especially if the detected disturbances appear minor. However, the consequences of behavioral modification could be biologically significant if the change affects growth, survival, and/or reproduction, which depends on the severity, duration, and context of the effects.
SPLs from impact pile driving has the potential to injure or kill fish in the immediate area. These few isolated fish mortality events are not anticipated to have a substantial effect on prey species population or their availability as a food resource for marine mammals.
Studies also suggest that larger fish are generally less susceptible to death or injury than small fish. Moreover, elongated forms that are round in cross section are less at risk than deep-bodied forms. Orientation of fish relative to the shock wave may also affect the extent of injury. Open water pelagic fish (
The huge variation in fish populations, including numbers, species, sizes, and orientation and range from the detonation point, makes it very difficult to accurately predict mortalities at any specific site of detonation. Most fish species experience a large number of natural mortalities, especially during early life-stages, and any small level of mortality caused by the Seattle DOT's impact pile driving will likely be insignificant to the population as a whole.
For non-impulsive sound such as that of vibratory pile driving, experiments have shown that fish can sense both the strength and direction of sound (Hawkins 1981). Primary factors determining whether a fish can sense a sound signal, and potentially react to it, are the frequency of the signal and the strength of the signal in relation to the natural background noise level.
The level of sound at which a fish will react or alter its behavior is usually well above the detection level. Fish have been found to react to sounds when the sound level increased to about 20 dB above the detection level of 120 dB (Ona 1988); however, the response threshold can depend on the time of year and the fish's physiological condition (Engas
During construction activity of the Pier 62 Project, only a small fraction of the available habitat would be ensonified at any given time. Disturbance to fish species would be short-term and fish would return to their pre-disturbance behavior once the pile driving activity ceases. Thus, the proposed construction would have little, if any, impact on the abilities of marine mammals to feed in the area where construction work is proposed.
Finally, the time of the proposed construction activity would avoid the spawning season of the ESA-listed salmonid species between March and July.
Short-term turbidity is a water quality effect of most in-water work, including pile driving. Cetaceans are not expected to be close enough to the Pier 62 Project to experience turbidity, and any pinnipeds will be transiting the terminal area and could avoid localized areas of turbidity. Therefore, the impact from increased turbidity levels is expected to be discountable to marine mammals.
For these reasons, any adverse effects to marine mammal habitat in the area from the Seattle DOT's proposed Pier 62 would not be significant.
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes proposed for authorization through this IHA, which informed both NMFS's consideration of whether the number of takes is “small” and the negligible impact determination.
Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines “harassment” as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
Authorized takes would primarily be by Level B harassment, as exposure to pile driving activities has the potential to result in disruption of behavioral patterns for individual marine mammals. There is also some potential for auditory injury (Level A harassment) to result, primarily for high frequency species due to larger predicted auditory injury zones. Auditory injury is unlikely to occur for mid-frequency species and most pinnipeds. The proposed mitigation and monitoring measures (
Described in the most basic way, we estimate take by considering: (1) Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available science indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur some degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of water that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and, (4) and the number of days of activities. Below, we describe these components in more detail and present the proposed take estimates.
Using the best available science, NMFS has developed acoustic thresholds that identify the received level of underwater sound above which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur PTS of some degree (equated to Level A harassment).
These thresholds were developed by compiling and synthesizing the best available science and soliciting input multiple times from both the public and peer reviewers to inform the final product, and are provided in Table 4 below. The references, analysis, and methodology used in the development of the thresholds are described in NMFS 2016 Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at:
Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the activity that fed into identifying the area ensonified above the acoustic thresholds.
Background noise is the sound level that would exist without the proposed activity (pile driving and removal, in this case), while ambient sound levels are those without human activity (NOAA 2009). The marine waterway of Elliott Bay is very active, and human factors that may contribute to background noise levels include ship traffic. Natural actions that contribute to ambient noise include waves, wind, rainfall, current fluctuations, chemical composition, and biological sound sources (
The source level of vibratory removal of 14-in timber piles is based on hydroacoustic monitoring measurements conducted at the Pier 62 project site during Season 1 vibratory removal (Greenbusch Group 2018). The recorded source level ranged from 140 to 169 dB rms re 1 micropascal (μPa) at 10 meters (m) from the pile, with the 75th percentile at 161 dB rms. This level, 161 dB rms, was chosen as the source value for vibratory timber removal in Season 2 because it is a conservative estimate of potential noise generation; 75 percent of the timber pile removal noise generated in Season 1 was on average lower than 161 dB rms. The sound source levels for installation of the 30-in steel piles and 24-in template piles are based on surrogate data compiled by WSDOT. This value was also used for other pile driving projects (
The method of incidental take requested is Level B acoustical harassment of marine mammals within the 160 dB rms disturbance threshold (impact pile driving); the 120 dB rms disturbance threshold (vibratory pile driving); and the 120 dB rms disturbance threshold for vibratory removal of piles. Therefore, three different Level B Harassment/Monitoring Zones were established and will be in place during pile driving installation or removal (Table 5). Measured ambient noise levels in the area are 124 dB; therefore, NMFS only considers take likely to occur in the area ensonified above 124 dB, as pile driving noise below 124 dB would likely be masked or their impacts diminished such that any reactions would not be considered take as a result of the high ambient noise levels.
For the Level B Harassment/Monitoring Zones, sound waves propagate in all directions when they travel through water until they dissipate to background levels or encounter barriers that absorb or reflect their energy, such as a landmass. Therefore, the area of the Level B Harassment/Monitoring Zones was determined using land as the boundary on the north, east and south sides of the project. On the west, land was also used to establish the zone for vibratory driving. From Alki on the south and Magnolia on the north, a straight line of transmission was established out to Bainbridge Island. For impact driving (and vibratory removal), sound dissipates much quicker and the impact zone stays within Elliott Bay. Pile-related construction noise would extend throughout the nearshore and open water environments to just west of Alki Point and a limited distance into the East Waterway of the Lower Duwamish River, a highly industrialized waterway. Because landmasses block in-water construction noise, a “noise shadow” created by Alki Point is expected to be present immediately west of this feature (refer to Seattle DOT's application for maps depicting the Level B Harassment/Monitoring Zones).
When NMFS Technical Guidance (NMFS 2016) was published, in recognition of the fact that ensonified area/volume could be more technically challenging to predict because of the duration component in the new thresholds, we developed a User Spreadsheet that includes tools to help predict a simple isopleth that can be used in conjunction with marine mammal density or occurrence to help predict takes. We note that because of some of the assumptions included in the methods used for these tools, we anticipate that isopleths produced are typically going to be overestimates of some degree, which will result in some degree of overestimate of Level A harassment take. However, these tools offer the best way to predict appropriate isopleths when more sophisticated 3D modeling methods are not available, and NMFS continues to develop ways to quantitatively refine these tools, and will qualitatively address the output where appropriate. For stationary sources such as vibratory and impact pile driving, NMFS's User Spreadsheet predicts the closest distance at which, if a marine mammal remained at that distance the whole duration of the activity, it would not incur PTS. Inputs used in the User Spreadsheet, and the resulting isopleths/Level A Harassment Zones are reported below.
The PTS isopleths were identified for each hearing group for impact and vibratory installation and removal methods that will be used in the Pier 62 Project. The PTS isopleth distances were calculated using the NMFS acoustic threshold calculator (NMFS 2016), with inputs based on measured and surrogate noise measurements taken during the EBSP and from WSDOT, and estimating conservative working durations (Table 6 and Table 7).
In this section we provide the information about the presence, density, or group dynamics of marine mammals that informed the take calculation and we describe how the marine mammal occurrence information is brought together to produce a quantitative take estimate. In some cases (
Where species density is available, take estimates are based on average marine mammal density in the project area multiplied by the area size of ensonified zones within which received noise levels exceed certain thresholds (
Unless otherwise described, incidental take is estimated by the following equation:
However, adjustments were made for nearly every marine mammal species, whenever their local abundance is known through monitoring during Season 1 activities and other monitoring efforts. In those cases, the local abundance data was used for take calculations for the authorized take instead of general animal density (see below).
The take estimate for harbor seals for Pier 62 is based on local seal abundance information using the maximum number of seals (13) sighted in one day during the 2016 Seattle Test Pile project multiplied by the total of 127 pile driving days for the Seattle DOT Pier 62 Project Season 2 for 1,651 seals. Fifty-three of the 127 days of activity would involve installation by vibratory pile driving, which has a much larger Level A Harassment Zone (306.8 m) than the Level A Harassment Zones for vibratory removal (16.6 m) and impact pile driving (47.4 m). Harbor seals may be difficult to observe at greater distances, therefore, during vibratory pile driving, it may not be known how long a seal is present in the Level A Harassment Zone. We estimate that four instances of harbor seals may occur by Level A harassment during these 53 days. Four instances of potential take by Level A harassment was based the local
As a comparison, using U.S. Navy species density estimates (U.S. Navy 2015) for the inland waters of Puget Sound, potential take of harbor seal is shown in Table 8. Based on these calculations, instances of take by Level A is estimated at 10 harbor seals from vibratory pile driving and instances of take by Level B is estimated at 6,107 harbor seals from all sound sources. However, observational data from previous projects on the Seattle waterfront have documented only a fraction of what is calculated using the Navy density estimates for Puget Sound. For example, between zero and seven seals were observed daily for the EBSP and 56 harbor seals were observed over 10 days in the area with the maximum number of 13 harbor seals sighted during the 2016 Seattle Test Pile project (WSF 2016). During marine mammal monitoring for Season 1 of the Seattle DOT Pier 62 Project, 10 harbor seals were observed within the Level B Harassment/Monitoring Zone during vibratory activity. Project activities in Season 1, primarily timber vibratory removal, had a smaller Level B Harassment/Monitoring Zone than vibratory steel installation (the primary activity for Seasons 2), so it is expected that harbor seal observations and takes in Season 2 will be greater and will more closely resemble observational data from other monitoring efforts such as EBSP and Seattle Test Pile Project.
For the Northern elephant seal, the Whale Museum (as cited in WSDOT 2016a) reported one sighting in the relevant area between 2008 and 2014. In addition, based on U.S. Navy species density estimates (U.S. Navy 2015), potential take of northern elephant seal is expected to be zero. Therefore, the Seattle DOT is requesting authorization for an instance of take by Level B harassment of one northern elephant seal.
The take estimate of California sea lions for Pier 62 is based on Season 1 marine mammal monitoring for the Seattle DOT Pier 62 Project and four seasons of local sea lion abundance information from the EBSP. Marine mammal visual monitoring during the EBSP indicates that a maximum of 15 sea lions were observed in a day during 4 years of project monitoring (Anchor QEA 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017). Based on a total of 127 pile driving days for the Seattle Pier 62 project Season 2, it is estimated that up to 1,905 California sea lions (15 sea lions multiplied by 127 days) could be exposed to noise levels associated with “take.” Since the calculated Level A Harassment Zones of otariids are all very small (Table 7), we do not consider it likely that any sea lions would be taken by Level A harassment. Therefore, all California sea lion takes estimated here are expected to be takes by Level B harassment and NMFS proposes to authorize instances of take by Level B harassment of 1,905 California sea lions.
As a comparison, using the U.S. Navy species density estimates (U.S. Navy 2015) for the inland waters of Washington, including Eastern Bays and Puget Sound, potential take of California sea lion is shown in Table 9. The estimated instances of take by Level B harassment is 636 California sea lions. However, the Seattle DOT believes that this estimate is unrealistically low, based on local marine mammal monitoring.
No local monitoring data of Steller sea lions is available. Therefore, the estimated take for Steller sea lions is based on U.S. Navy species density estimates (U.S. Navy 2015), and is shown in Table 10. Since the calculated Level A Harassment Zones of otariids are all very small (Table 7), we do not consider it likely that any Steller sea lions would be taken by Level A harassment. The Seattle DOT is requesting authorization instances of take by Level B harassment of 185 Steller sea lions.
The take estimate of SRKW for Pier 62 is based on local data and information from the Center for Whale Research (CWR). J-pod is the pod most likely to appear in the lower Puget Sound near Seattle with a group size of approximately 23 SRKW in 2017, 24 in 2016, and 29 in 2015. (CWR 2017). Therefore, NMFS proposes to authorize instances of take by Level B harassment of 23 SRKW based on a single occurrence of one pod (
The Seattle DOT will coordinate with the Orca Network and the CWR in an attempt to avoid all take of SRKW, but it may be possible that a group may enter the Level B Harassment/Monitoring Zones before Seattle DOT could shut down due to the larger size of the Level B Harassment/Monitoring Zones particularly during vibratory pile driving (installation).
As a comparison, using the U.S. Navy species density estimates (U.S. Navy 2015) the density for the SRKW is variable across seasons and across the range. The inland water density estimates vary from 0.000000 to 0.000090/km
The take estimate of transient killer whales for Pier 62 is based on local data. Seven transients were reported in the project area (Orca Network Archive Report 2016a). Therefore, NMFS proposes to authorize instances of take by Level B harassment of 42 transient killer whales, which would cover up to 2 groups of up to 7 transient whales entering into the project area and remaining there for three days. Since the Level A Harassment Zones of mid-frequency cetaceans are small (Table 7), we do not consider it likely that any transient killer whales would be taken by Level A harassment.
As a comparison, based on U.S. Navy species density estimates (U.S. Navy 2015), potential take of transient killer whale is shown in Table 12. As with the SRKW, the density estimate of transient killer whales is variable between seasons and regions. Density estimates range from 0.000575 to 0.001582/km
The take estimate of Long-beaked common dolphin for Pier 62 is based on local monitoring data.. In 2016, the Orca Network (2016c) reported a pod of up to 20 long-beaked common dolphins. Therefore, the Seattle DOT is requesting authorization for instances of take by Level B harassment of 20 long-beaked common dolphins. Since the Level A Harassment Zones of mid-frequency cetaceans are all very small (Table 7), we do not consider it likely that the long-beaked common dolphin would be taken by Level A harassment. Based on U.S. Navy species density estimates (U.S. Navy 2015), potential instances take of long-beaked common dolphin is expected to be zero; therefore, we believe it more appropriate to use local monitoring data.
The take estimate of bottlenose dolphin for Pier 62 is based on local monitoring data. In 2017 the Orca Network (2017) reported sightings of a bottlenose dolphin in Puget Sound and in Elliott Bay, and WSDOT observed two bottlenose dolphins in one week during monitoring for the Colman Dock Multimodal Project (WSDOT 2017). In addition, a group of seven dolphins were observed in 2017 and were positively identified as part of the CA coastal stock (Cascadia Research Collective, 2017). Bottlenose dolphins typically travel in groups of 2 to 15 in coastal waters (NOAA 2017). Therefore, the Seattle DOT is requesting instances of takes by Level B harassment of seven bottlenose dolphins. Since the Level A Harassment Zones of mid-frequency cetaceans are all very small (Table 7), we do not consider it likely that the common bottlenose dolphin would be taken by Level A harassment. Based on U.S. Navy species density estimates (U.S. Navy 2015), instances of potential take by Level B harassment of bottlenose dolphin is expected to be zero; therefore, we believe it more appropriate to use local monitoring data.
Species density estimates from Jefferson
No local monitoring data of Dall's porpoise is available. Therefore, the estimated instances of take for Dall's porpoise is based on U.S. Navy species density estimates (U.S. Navy 2015), as shown in Table 14. Based on these calculations, NMFS proposes to authorize instances of take by Level A harassment of two Dall's porpoise and instances take by Level B harassment of 196 Dall's porpoise.
Based on U.S. Navy species density estimates (U.S. Navy 2015), potential take of humpback whale is shown in Table 15. Although the standard take calculations would result in an estimated take of less than one humpback whale, to be conservative, the Seattle DOT is requesting authorization for instances of take by Level B harassment of five humpback whales based on take during previous work in Elliott Bay where two humpback whales were observed, including one take, during the 175 days of work during the previous four years (Anchor QEA 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017). Since the Level A Harassment Zones of low-frequency cetaceans are smaller during vibratory removal (27.3 m) or impact installation (88.6 m) compared to the Level A Harassment Zone for vibratory installation (504.8 m) (Table 7), we do not consider it likely that any humpbacks would be taken by Level A harassment during removal or impact installation. We also do not believe any humpbacks would be taken during vibratory installation due to the ability to see humpbacks easily during monitoring and additional coordination with the Orca Network and the CWR which would enable the work to be shut down before a humpback would be taken by Level A harassment.
No local monitoring data of gray whales is available. Therefore, the instances of estimated take for gray whales is based on U.S. Navy species density estimates (U.S. Navy 2015), as shown in Table 16. Therefore, the Seattle DOT is requesting authorization for instances of take by Level B harassment of four gray whales. Since the Level A Harassment Zones of low-frequency cetaceans are smaller during vibratory removal (27.3 m) or impact installation (88.6 m) compared to the Level A Harassment Zone for vibratory installation (504.8 m) (Table 7), we do not consider it likely that any gray whales would be taken by Level A harassment during removal or impact installation. We also do not believe any gray whales would be taken by Level A harassment during vibratory installation due to the ability to see gray whales easily during monitoring and additional coordination with the Orca Network and the CWR, which would enable the work to be shut down before a gray whale would be taken by Level A harassment.
Between 2008 and 2014, the Whale Museum (as cited in WSDOT 2016a) reported one sighting in the relevant area. To be conservative the Seattle DOT is requesting authorization for instances of take by Level B harassment of two minke whales, based on previous sightings in the construction area by the Whale Museum. Based on the low probability that a minke whale would be observed during the project and then also enter into a Level A zone, we do not consider it likely that any minke whales would be taken by Level A harassment. As a comparison, based on U.S. Navy species density estimates (U.S. Navy 2015), the instance of potential take of minke whales is expected to be zero (Table 17).
The summary of the authorized take by Level A and Level B Harassment is described below in Table 18.
In order to issue an IHA under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, “and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for taking” for certain subsistence uses (latter not applicable for this action). NMFS regulations require applicants for incidental take authorizations to include information about the availability and feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting such activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact upon the affected species or stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 216.104(a)(11)).
In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, we carefully consider two primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat. This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented (probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as planned) the likelihood of effective implementation (probability implemented as planned), and;
(2) the practicability of the measures for applicant implementation, which may consider such things as cost, impact on operations.
Several measures for mitigating effects on marine mammals and their habitat from the pile installation and removal activities at Pier 62 are described below.
All work will be conducted during daylight hours.
Seattle DOT shall conduct briefings for construction supervisors and crews, the monitoring team, and Seattle DOT staff prior to the start of all pile driving activity, and when new personnel join the work, in order to explain responsibilities, communication procedures, the marine mammal monitoring protocol, and operational procedures.
A bubble curtain will be used during pile driving activities with an impact hammer to reduce sound levels. Seattle DOT has stated as part of their specified activity that they and has agreed to employ a bubble curtain during impact pile driving of steel piles and will implement the following bubble curtain performance standards:
(i) The bubble curtain must distribute air bubbles around 100 percent of the piling perimeter for the full depth of the water column.
(ii) The lowest bubble curtain ring will be deployed on or as close to the mudline for the full circumference of
(iii) Seattle DOT will require that construction contractors train personnel in the proper balancing of air flow to the bubblers, and will require that construction contractors submit an inspection/performance report for approval by Seattle DOT within 72 hours following the performance test. Corrections to the attenuation device to meet the performance standards will occur prior to impact driving.
Shutdown Zones will be implemented to protect marine mammals from Level A harassment (Table 20 below). The PTS isopleths described in Table 7 were used as a starting point for calculating the shutdown zones; however, Seattle DOT will implement a minimum shutdown zone of a 10 m radius around each pile for all construction methods for all marine mammals. Therefore, in some cases the shutdown zone will be slightly larger than was calculated for the PTS isopleths as described in Table 7 (
For in-water heavy machinery activities other than pile driving, if a marine mammal comes within 10 m, operations shall cease and vessels shall reduce speed to the minimum level required to maintain steerage and safe working conditions.
Seattle DOT will implement shutdown measures if the cumulative total number of individuals observed within the Level B Harassment/Monitoring Zones (below in Table 21) for any particular species reaches the number authorized under the IHA and if such marine mammals are sighted within the vicinity of the project area and are approaching the Level B Harassment/Monitoring Zone during in-water construction activities.
Seattle DOT will monitor the Level B Harassment/Monitoring Zones as described in Table 21.
Each day at the beginning of impact pile driving or any time there has been cessation or downtime of 30 minutes or more without impact pile driving, Seattle DOT will use the soft-start technique by providing an initial set of three strikes from the impact hammer at 40 percent energy, followed by a 30-secondwaiting period, then two subsequent three-strike sets.
The project team will monitor and coordinate with local marine mammal networks on a daily basis (
During Season 1, Seattle DOT carried out additional voluntary mitigation measures during pile driving and
1. If aquarium animals are determined by the Aquarium veterinarian to be distressed, Seattle DOT will coordinate with Aquarium staff to determine appropriate next steps, which may include suspending pile driving work for 30 minutes, provided that suspension does not pose a safety issue for the Pier 62 project construction crews.
2. Seattle DOT will make reasonable efforts to take at least one regularly scheduled 20-minute break in pile driving each day.
3. Seattle DOT will regularly communicate with the Aquarium staff when pile driving is occurring.
4. Seattle DOT will further coordinate with the Aquarium to determine appropriate methods to avoid and minimize impacts to water quality.
5. Seattle DOT does not anticipate the project resulting in impacts associated with airborne dust. If, during construction, odors associated with the project are an issue, Seattle DOT will coordinate with its contractor to determine appropriate mitigation measures.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's mitigation measures, as well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth, “requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.” The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the action area. Effective reporting is critical both to compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the required monitoring.
Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
• Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area in which take is anticipated (
• Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment (
• Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors.
• How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) populations, species, or stocks.
• Effects on marine mammal habitat (
• Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
Marine mammal monitoring will be conducted at all times during in-water pile driving and pile removal activities in strategic locations around the area of potential effects as described below:
During pile removal or installation with a vibratory hammer, three to four monitors would be used, positioned such that each monitor has a distinct view-shed and the monitors collectively have overlapping view-sheds (refer to Appendix A, Figures 1-3 of the Seattle DOT's application).
During pile driving activities with an impact hammer, one monitor, based at or near the construction site, will conduct the monitoring.
In the case(s) where visibility becomes limited, additional land-based monitors and/or boat-based monitors may be deployed.
Monitors will record take when marine mammals enter the relevant Level B Harassment/Monitoring Zones based on type of construction activity.
If a marine mammal approaches a Shutdown Zone, the observation will be reported to the Construction Manager and the individual will be watched closely. If the marine mammal crosses into a Shutdown Zone, a stop-work order will be issued. In the event that a stop-work order is triggered, the observed marine mammal(s) will be closely monitored while it remains in or near the Shutdown Zone, and only when it moves well outside of the Shutdown Zone or has not been observed for at least 15 minutes for pinnipeds and small cetaceans and 30 minutes for large whales will the lead monitor allow work to recommence.
Seattle DOT will employ NMFS-approved protected species observers (PSOs) to conduct marine mammal monitoring for its Pier 62 Project. The PSOs will observe and collect data on marine mammals in and around the project area for 30 minutes before, during, and for 30 minutes after all pile removal and pile installation work. NMFS-approved PSOs will meet the following requirements:
1. Independent observers (
2. At least one observer must have prior experience working as an observer.
3. Other observers may substitute education (undergraduate degree in biological science or related field) or training for experience.
4. Where a team of three or more observers are required, one observer should be designated as lead observer or monitoring coordinator. The lead observer must have prior experience working as an observer.
5. NMFS will require submission and approval of observer CVs.
6. PSOs will monitor marine mammals around the construction site using high-quality binoculars
7. If marine mammals are observed, the following information will be documented:
(A) Date and time that monitored activity begins or ends;
(B) Construction activities occurring during each observation period;
(C) Weather parameters (
(D) Water conditions (
(E) Species, numbers, and, if possible, sex and age class of marine mammals;
(F) Description of any observable marine mammal behavior patterns,
(G) Distance from pile driving activities to marine mammals and distance from the marine mammals to the observation point;
(H) Locations of all marine mammal observations; and
(I) Other human activity in the area.
In addition, acoustic monitoring will occur on up to six days per in-water work season to evaluate, in real time, sound production from construction activities and will capture all hammering scenarios that may occur under the proposed project. Background noise recordings (in the absence of pile-related work) will also be made during the study to provide a baseline background noise profile. Acoustic monitoring will follow NMFS's 2012 Guidance Documents: Sound Propagation Modeling to Characterize Pile Driving Sounds Relevant to Marine Mammals; Data Collection Methods to Characterize Impact and Vibratory Pile Driving Source Levels Relevant to Marine Mammals; and Data Collection Methods to Characterize Underwater Background Sound Relevant to Marine Mammals in Coastal Nearshore Waters and Rivers of Washington and Oregon.
The results and conclusions of the acoustic monitoring will be summarized and presented to NMFS with recommendations on any modifications to this plan or Shutdown Zones.
Seattle DOT will submit a draft marine mammal monitoring report within 90 days after completion of the in-water construction work, the expiration of the IHA (if issued), or 60 days prior to the requested date of issuance of any subsequent IHA, whichever sooner. The report would include data from marine mammal sightings as described: Date, time, location, species, group size, and behavior, any observed reactions to construction, distance to operating pile hammer, and construction activities occurring at time of sighting and environmental data for the period (
In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the IHA, such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, or mortality, Seattle DOT would immediately cease the specified activities and immediately report the incident to the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS and the NMFS' West Coast Stranding Coordinator. The report must include the following information:
• Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
• Name and type of vessel involved;
• Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
• Description of the incident;
• Status of all sound source use in the 24 hrs preceding the incident;
• Water depth;
• Environmental conditions (
• Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hrs preceding the incident;
• Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
• Fate of the animal(s); and
• Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if equipment is available).
Activities would not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS would work with Seattle DOT to determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. Seattle DOT may not resume their activities until notified by NMFS via letter, email, or telephone.
In the event that Seattle DOT discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (
In the event that Seattle DOT discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA (
Seattle DOT will submit an Acoustic Monitoring Report within 90 days after completion of the in-water construction work or the expiration of the IHA (if issued), whichever comes earlier. The report will provide details on the monitored piles, method of installation, monitoring equipment, and sound levels documented during both the sound source measurements and the background monitoring. NMFS will have an opportunity to provide comments on the report or changes in monitoring for a third season (if needed), and if NMFS has comments, Seattle DOT will address the comments and submit a final report to NMFS within 30 days. If no comments are received from NMFS within 30 days, the draft report will be considered final. Any comments received during that time will be addressed in full prior to finalization of the report.
NMFS has defined negligible impact as “an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival” (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (
No serious injury or mortality is anticipated or authorized for the Pier 62 Project (Season 2). Takes that are anticipated and authorized are expected to be limited to short-term Level A and Level B (behavioral) harassment. Marine mammals present in the vicinity of the action area and taken by Level A and Level B harassment would most likely show overt brief disturbance (startle reaction) and avoidance of the area from elevated noise levels during pile driving and pile removal. However, many marine mammals showed no observable changes during Season 1 of the Pier 62 project and similar project activities for the EBSP.
A fair number of instances of takes are expected to be repeat takes of the same animals. This is particularly true for harbor porpoise, because they generally use subregions of Puget Sound, and the abundance of the Seattle sub-region from the Puget Sound Study was estimated to be 147 animals, which is much lower than the calculated take. Very few harbor porpoises have been observed during past projects in Elliott Bay (ranging from one to five harbor porpoises).
There are two endangered species that may occur in the project area, humpback whales and SRKW. However, few humpbacks are expected to occur in the project area and few have been observed during previous projects in Elliott Bay. SRKW have occurred in small numbers in the project area. Seattle DOT will shut down in the Level B Harassment/Monitoring Zones should they meet or exceed the take of one occurrence of one pod (J-pod, 24 whales).
There is ESA-designated critical habitat in the vicinity of Seattle DOT's Pier 62 Project for SRKW. However, this IHA is authorizing the harassment of marine mammals, not the production of sound, which is what would result in adverse effects to critical habitat for SRKW.
There is one documented harbor seal haulout area near Bainbridge Island, approximately 6 miles (9.66 km) from Pier 62. The haulout, which is estimated at less than 100 animals, consists of intertidal rocks and reef areas around Blakely Rocks and is at the outer edge of potential effects at the outer extent near Bainbridge Island (Jefferies
The project also is not expected to have significant adverse effects on affected marine mammal habitat, as analyzed in the “Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and their Habitat” section. Project activities would not permanently modify existing marine mammal habitat. The activities may kill some fish and cause other fish to leave the area temporarily, thus impacting marine mammals' foraging opportunities in a limited portion of the foraging range; but, because of the short duration of the activities and the relatively small area of the habitat that may be affected, the impacts to marine mammal habitat are not expected to cause significant or long-term negative consequences. Therefore, given the consideration of potential impacts to marine mammal prey species and their physical environment, Seattle DOT's Pier 62 Project would not adversely affect marine mammal habitat.
In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily support our determination that the impacts resulting from this activity are not expected to adversely affect the species or stocks through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
• No serious injury or mortality is anticipated or authorized.
• Takes that are anticipated and authorized are expected to be limited to short-term Level B harassment (behavioral) and a small number of takes of Level A harassment for three species.
• The project also is not expected to have significant adverse effects on affected marine mammals' habitat.
• There are no known important feeding or pupping areas. There are haulouts for California sea lions, harbor seals and Steller sea lions. However, they are at the most outer edge of the potential effects and approximately 6.6 miles from Pier 62. There are no other known important areas for marine mammals.
• For nine of the twelve species, take is less than one percent of the stock abundance. Instances of take for the other three species (harbor seals, killer whales, and harbor porpoise) range from about 15-31 percent of the stock abundance. One occurrence of J-pod of SRKW would account for 29 percent of the stock abundance. However, when the fact that a fair number of these instances are expected to be repeat takes of the same animals is considered, particularly for harbor porpoise, the number of individual marine mammals taken is significantly lower.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the total marine mammal take from the proposed activity will have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal species or stocks.
As noted above, only small numbers of incidental take may be authorized under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for specified activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA does not define small numbers and so, in practice, where estimated numbers are available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to the most appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or stock in our determination of whether an authorization is limited to small numbers of marine mammals. Additionally, other factors may be considered in the analysis, such as the temporal or spatial scale of the activities.
Take of nine of the twelve species is less than one percent of the stock abundance. Instances of take for the SRKW and transient killer whales, harbor seals, and harbor porpoise ranges from about 15-31 percent of the stock abundance. However, when the fact that a fair number of these instances are expected to be repeat takes of the same animals is considered, the number of individual marine mammals taken is significantly lower. Specifically, for example, Jefferson
There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine mammal stocks or species implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has preliminary determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.
Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531
NMFS is proposing to authorize take of SRKW and humpback whales, which are listed under the ESA. The Permit and Conservation Division has requested initiation of Section 7 consultation with the West Coast Regional Office for the issuance of this IHA. NMFS will conclude the ESA consultation prior to reaching a determination regarding the proposed issuance of the authorization.
As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to Seattle DOT for conducting piledriving activities at Pier 62 (Season 2), Elliott Bay, Seattle, Washington from August 2018 through February 2019, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. This section contains a draft of the IHA itself. The wording contained in this section is proposed for inclusion in the IHA (if issued).
The proposed IHA language is provided next.
1. This Authorization is valid from August 1, 2018, through February 28, 2019.
2. This Authorization is valid only for activities associated with in-water construction work at the Seattle Department of Transportation's (Seattle DOT) Pier 62 Project (Season 2) in Elliott Bay, Seattle, Washington.
3. General Conditions
(a) The species authorized for taking, by Level A harassment and Level B harassment, and in the numbers shown in Table 18 are: Harbor seal (
(b) The authorization for taking by harassment is limited to the following acoustic sources and from the following activities:
Impact pile driving;
Vibratory pile driving; and
Vibratory pile removal
4. Prohibitions
The taking, by incidental harassment only, is limited to the species listed under condition 3(a) above and by the numbers listed in Table 18 of this notice. The taking by serious injury or death of these species or the taking by harassment, injury or death of any other species of marine mammal is prohibited unless separately authorized or exempted under the MMPA and may result in the modification, suspension, or revocation of this Authorization.
5. Mitigation Measures
The holder of this Authorization shall be required to implement the following mitigation measures:
In-water construction work shall occur only during daylight hours.
Seattle DOT shall conduct briefings for construction supervisors and crews, the monitoring team, and Seattle DOT staff prior to the start of all pile driving activity, and when new personnel join the work, in order to explain
A bubble curtain shall be used during pile driving activities with an impact hammer and will be conducted using the following bubble curtain performance standards:
(i) The bubble curtain must distribute air bubbles around 10 percent of the piling perimeter for the full depth of the water column.
(ii) The lowest bubble curtain ring shall be deployed on or as close to the mudline for the full circumference of the ring as possible, without causing turbidity.
(iii) Seattle DOT shall require that construction contractors train personnel in the proper balancing of air flow to the bubblers, and shall require that construction contractors submit an inspection/performance report for approval by Seattle DOT within 72 hours following the performance test. Corrections to the attenuation device to meet the performance standards shall occur prior to impact driving.
Seattle DOT shall implement the Level B Harassment/Monitoring Zones as described in Table 5 of this notice.
(i) Seattle DOT shall implement shutdown measures if a marine mammal is detected within or approaching the Shutdown Zones as outlined in Table 7. Seattle DOT shall implement a minimum shutdown zone of 10 m radius around each pile for all construction methods for all marine mammals.
(ii) If a marine mammal is observed at or within the Shutdown Zone, work shall stop until the individual has been observed outside of the zone, or has not been observed for at least 15 minutes for all marine mammals.
(iii) A determination that the shutdown zone is clear must be made during a period of good visibility (
(iv) If a marine mammal approaches or enters the shutdown zone during activities or pre-activity monitoring, all pile driving activities at that location shall be halted or delayed, respectively. If pile driving is halted or delayed due to the presence of a marine mammal, the activity may not resume or commence until either the animal has voluntarily left and been visually confirmed beyond the shutdown zone and 15 minutes have passed without re-detection of the animal. Pile driving activities include the time to install or remove a single pile or series of piles, as long as the time elapsed between uses of the pile driving equipment is no more than thirty minutes.
(i) For in-water heavy machinery activities other than pile driving, if a marine mammal comes within 10 m, operations shall cease and vessels shall reduce speed to the minimum level required to maintain steerage and safe working conditions.
(ii) Seattle DOT shall implement shutdown measures if the cumulative total of individuals observed within the Level B Harassment/Monitoring Zones for any particular species exceeds the number authorized under the IHA and if such marine mammals are sighted within the vicinity of the project area and are approaching the Level B Harassment/Monitoring Zones during in-water construction activities.
Each day at the beginning of impact pile driving or any time there has been cessation or downtime of 30 minutes or more without pile driving, contractors shall initiate soft-start for impact hammers by providing an initial set of three strikes from the impact hammer at 40 percent energy, followed by a 30-second waiting period, then two subsequent three-strike sets.
The project team shall monitor and coordinate with local marine mammal sighting networks (
In addition, to minimize impacts from noise on the Seattle Aquarium's captive marine mammals as well as for air and water quality concerns, Seattle DOT shall implement the following:
(i) If aquarium animals are determined by the Aquarium veterinarian to be distressed, Seattle DOT shall coordinate with Aquarium staff to determine appropriate next steps, which may include suspending pile driving work for 30 minutes, provided that suspension does not pose a safety issue for the Pier 62 project construction crews.
(ii) Seattle DOT shall make reasonable efforts to take at least one regularly scheduled 20-minute break in pile driving each day.
(iii) Seattle DOT shall regularly communicate with the Aquarium staff when pile driving is occurring.
(iv) Seattle DOT shall further coordinate with the Aquarium to determine appropriate methods to avoid and minimize impacts to water quality.
(v) Seattle DOT does not anticipate the project resulting in impacts associated with airborne dust. If, during construction, odors associated with the project are an issue, Seattle DOT shall coordinate with its contractor to determine appropriate mitigation measures.
6. Monitoring
Seattle DOT shall employ NMFS-approved PSOs to conduct marine mammal monitoring for its construction project. NMFS-approved PSOs shall meet the following qualifications.
(i) Independent observers (
(ii) At least one observer must have prior experience working as an observer.
(iii) Other observers may substitute education (undergraduate degree in biological science or related field) or training for experience.
(iv) Where a team of three or more observers are required, one observer should be designated as lead observer or monitoring coordinator. The lead observer must have prior experience working as an observer.
(v) NMFS shall require submission and approval of observer CVs.
PSOs shall be present on site at all times during pile removal and driving. Marine mammal visual monitoring will be conducted for different Level B Harassment/Monitoring Zones based on different sizes of piles being driven or removed.
(i) A 30-minute pre-construction marine mammal monitoring shall be required before the first pile driving or pile removal of the day. A 30-minute post-construction marine mammal monitoring shall be required after the last pile driving or pile removal of the
(ii) During pile removal or installation with a vibratory hammer, three to four monitors shall be used, positioned such that each monitor has a distinct view-shed and the monitors collectively have overlapping view-sheds.
(iii) During pile driving activities with an impact hammer, one monitor, based at or near the construction site, shall conduct the monitoring.
(iv) Where visibility becomes limited, additional land-based monitors and/or boat-based monitors shall be deployed.
(v) Monitors shall record take when marine mammals enter their relevant Level B Harassment/Monitoring Zones based on type of construction activity.
(vi) If a marine mammal approaches a Shutdown Zone, the observation shall be reported to the Construction Manager and the individual shall be watched closely. If the marine mammal crosses into a Shutdown Zone, a stop-work order shall be issued. In the event that a stop-work order is triggered, the observed marine mammal(s) shall be closely monitored while it remains in or near the Shutdown Zone, and only when it moves well outside of the Shutdown Zone or has not been observed for at least 15 minutes for pinnipeds and small cetaceans and 15 minutes for large whales will the lead monitor allow work to recommence.
(vii) PSOs shall monitor marine mammals around the construction site using high-quality binoculars
(viii) If marine mammals are observed, the following information shall be documented:
(A) Date and time that monitored activity begins or ends;
(B) Construction activities occurring during each observation period;
(C) Weather parameters (
(D) Water conditions (
(E) Species, numbers, and, if possible, sex and age class of marine mammals;
(F) Description of any observable marine mammal behavior patterns, including bearing and direction of travel and distance from pile driving activity;
(G) Distance from pile driving activities to marine mammals and distance from the marine mammals to the observation point;
(H) Locations of all marine mammal observations; and
(I) Other human activity in the area.
(ix)
7. Reporting
(i) Seattle DOT shall submit a draft marine mammal monitoring report within 90 days after completion of the in-water construction work, the expiration of the IHA (if issued), whichever comes earlier. The report shall include data from marine mammal sightings as described in 6(b)(viii).The marine mammal monitoring report shall also include total takes, takes by day, and stop-work orders for each species.
(ii) If no comments are received from NMFS, the draft report shall be considered the final report. Any comments received during that time shall be addressed in full prior to finalization of the report.
(iii) In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the IHA (if issued), such as an injury (Level A harassment) of unauthorized species, or serious injury, or mortality of any species, Seattle DOT shall immediately cease the specified activities and immediately report the incident to the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS and the NMFS' West Coast Stranding Coordinator. The report must include the following information:
• Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
• Name and type of vessel involved;
• Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
• Description of the incident;
• Status of all sound source use in the 24 hrs preceding the incident;
• Water depth;
• Environmental conditions (
• Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hrs preceding the incident;
• Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
• Fate of the animal(s); and
• Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if equipment is available).
Activities would not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS shall work with Seattle DOT to determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. Seattle DOT shall not resume their activities until notified by NMFS via letter, email, or telephone.
(i) In the event that Seattle DOT discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (
(ii) In the event that Seattle DOT discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA (
Seattle DOT shall submit an Acoustic Monitoring Report within 90 days after completion of the in-water construction work, expiration of the IHA (if issued), or 60 days prior to the requested date of issuance of any subsequent IHA, whichever sooner. The report shall provide details on the monitored piles, method of installation, monitoring equipment, and sound levels documented during both the sound source measurements and the background monitoring. NMFS shall have an opportunity to provide comments on the report or changes in monitoring for the second season, and if NMFS has comments, Seattle DOT shall address the comments and submit a final report to NMFS within 30 days. If no comments are received from NMFS within 30 days, the draft report shall be considered final. Any comments received during that time shall be addressed in full prior to finalization of the report.
8. This Authorization may be modified, suspended or withdrawn if the holder fails to abide by the conditions prescribed herein or if NMFS determines the authorized taking is having more than a negligible impact on the species or stock of affected marine mammals.
9. A copy of this Authorization must be in the possession of each contractor who performs the construction work at the Pier 62 Project.
We request comment on our analyses, the proposed authorization, and any other aspect of this Notice of Proposed IHA for the proposed pile driving activities by Seattle DOT. We also request comment on the potential for renewal of this proposed IHA as described in the paragraph below. Please include with your comments any supporting data or literature citations to help inform our final decision on the request for MMPA authorization.
On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may issue a subsequent one-year IHA without additional notice when (1) another year of identical or nearly identical activities as described in the Specified Activities section is planned or (2) the activities would not be completed by the time the IHA expires and a subsequent IHA would allow for completion of the activities beyond that described in the Dates and Duration section, provided all of the following conditions are met:
• A request for renewal is received no later than 60 days prior to expiration of the current IHA.
• The request for renewal must include the following:
(1) An explanation that the activities to be conducted beyond the initial dates either are identical to the previously analyzed activities or include changes so minor (
(2) A preliminary monitoring report showing the results of the required monitoring to date and an explanation showing that the monitoring results do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not previously analyzed or authorized.
• Upon review of the request for renewal, the status of the affected species or stocks, and any other pertinent information, NMFS determines that there are no more than minor changes in the activities, the mitigation and monitoring measures remain the same and appropriate, and the original findings remain valid.
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.
Notice.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), the European Patent Office (EPO), the Japan Patent Office (JPO), the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) and the State Intellectual Property Office of the People's Republic of China (SIPO), referred to collectively as the IP5 Offices, will launch a pilot project on Collaborative Search and Examination (CS&E) under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). This will be the third such pilot. The USPTO, the EPO, and the KIPO conducted two previous pilots in 2010 and in 2011-2012. The third pilot is needed to further develop and test the concept amongst all the IP5 Offices. In particular, this IP5 pilot project aims at assessing user interest for a CS&E product and the expected efficiency gains for the IP5 Offices.
Inquiries regarding the handling of any specific application participating in the pilot may be directed to Daniel Hunter, Director of International Work Sharing, Planning, and Implementation, Office of International Patent Cooperation, by telephone at (571) 272-8050 or by email to
The concept of CS&E under the PCT refers to the collaboration of examiners from different International Searching Authorities in different regions and with different working languages on one international application for the establishment of an international search report and written opinion under PCT Chapter I, which, although remaining the opinion of the chosen International Search Authority, is based on contributions from all participating IP5 Offices.
Under the pilot project, the examiner of the IP5 Office from the chosen International Searching Authority under PCT Rule 35 for a given international application (“the main examiner”) works on the application by conducting the search and examination and by establishing a provisional international search report and written opinion. These provisional work products are transmitted to examiners from the other participating IP5 Offices in their capacity as an International Searching Authority (“the peer examiners”). Each peer examiner provides the main examiner with his contribution, in light of the provisional international search report and written opinion. The final international search report and written opinion are subsequently established by the main examiner after having taken into consideration the contributions of the peer examiners. Further details regarding the implementation of the
Under the pilot project, with a view to assessing the users' interest for a CS&E product, international applications processed under the collaborative scheme will be selected by applicants (“applicant-driven approach”), whereas, under the two previous pilot projects, the applications were selected by the participating IP5 Offices.
Applicants wishing to participate in the pilot project must submit a request for participation in the pilot on a standard participation form and file it together with the international application at the receiving Office of one of the IP5 Offices or the International Bureau. The participation form is available in all official languages of the IP5 Offices on WIPO's website at
For international applications filed in English, requests for participation in the pilot may be filed beginning July 1, 2018. Each applicant will be able to select only a limited number of international applications for inclusion in the program.
Initially, only international applications filed in English will be accepted into the pilot. Eventually, international authorities that work in languages other than English will accept international applications filed in those languages into the pilot. Each main International Searching Authority that will accept international applications filed in a language other than English will inform the applicants accordingly by a communication published on its website. Such communication will specify the additional languages that will be accepted by a main International Searching Authority for the purposes of this pilot and the date as of which requests for participation in the pilot may be filed in such languages. The USPTO in its capacity as an International Searching Authority only accepts applications in English.
The receiving Office will transmit the participation form to the International Bureau and the main International Searching Authority as part of the record copy and search copy, respectively. Upon receipt of the search copy, the main International Searching Authority will determine if the request for participation in the pilot may be accepted based on whether the applicable requirements detailed below in part III are met. The International Searching Authority will notify the applicant and the International Bureau of the acceptance or refusal of the request for participation in the pilot using Form PCT/ISA/224 (Communication in Cases for Which No Other Form Is Applicable).
The main International Searching Authority will perform the search and examination as it would for any other international application not processed under this pilot. It will establish a provisional international search report (Form PCT/ISA/210) (or, where appropriate, declaration of non-establishment of international search report (Form PCT/ISA/203)) and written opinion (Form PCT/ISA/237), and, where applicable, a record of the search strategy. The form and content of the record of the search strategy will generally be according to the current practice of each International Searching Authority.
The main International Searching Authority will transmit the above mentioned provisional work products to the peer International Searching Authorities, where a peer examiner will prepare a contribution to the final work product, taking into consideration the provisional work products prepared by the main International Searching Authority and performing additional searching to the extent deemed necessary.
With respect to the handling of cases lacking unity of invention by the peer International Searching Authorities, a principle of the first invention will be followed. This means that each main International Searching Authority proceeds with the non-unity procedure according to its own standard practice, while the provisional work products submitted to the peer International Searching Authorities are based only on the invention first mentioned in the claims as determined by the main International Searching Authority. Peer examiners will focus their searches on what they determine to be the first invention, regardless of whether the provisional work products are directed to one or more inventions.
Each peer International Searching Authority will transmit its contribution to the main International Searching Authority using a standard peer contribution form. Depending on its practice, each peer International Searching Authority will either record its contribution directly on the peer contribution form or use the peer contribution form as a cover sheet for the standard forms PCT/ISA/210 and PCT/ISA/237. Peer contribution forms and peer contributions attached to such forms, if any, will be made available as separate documents in WIPO's PATENTSCOPE.
The main International Searching Authority will consider the contributions received from the peer International Searching Authorities and prepare the final international search report (Form PCT/ISA/210) (or, where appropriate, declaration of non-establishment of international search report (Form PCT/ISA/203)) and written opinion (Form PCT/ISA/237) in light of these contributions. The main International Searching Authority will strive to establish these final work products within the time limit under PCT Rule 42.1; however, compliance with this time limit may not be guaranteed due to the collaborative nature of the pilot project, which inherently results in additional administrative burdens. The final work products will be transmitted to the applicant and the International Bureau.
Final CS&E work products will be identified, either by a direct indication in box V of Form PCT/ISA/237 or at the top of a supplemental sheet referenced in said box, as the result of the collaboration under the pilot, which does not necessarily reflect the opinions of all IP5 Offices. Only the final CS&E work product may serve as a basis for requesting participation in a Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) pilot program.
All exchanges of documents and information among the IP5 Offices will be carried out via an ePCT-based platform allowing a secure and confidential data transmission. This ePCT-based platform is provided and maintained by the International Bureau.
In this pilot project, the international search fee charged by each IP5 Office remains unchanged. Therefore, applicants participating in this pilot will pay only the standard fee for a PCT Chapter I search at the chosen International Searching Authority. However, if following this pilot the CS&E product is implemented as a regular product under the PCT, applicants will have to pay a specific fee for such product (the CS&E fee). The maximum prospective amount of the CS&E fee is the aggregated amount of the search fees of the participating International Searching Authorities plus an administrative fee to cover the collaboration costs.
Towards the end of the pilot project, participating applicants will be asked to complete a questionnaire about their interest for a regular CS&E product under the PCT. Responses to the questionnaire will be taken into account by the IP5 Offices in the assessment of the pilot project.
Applicants who would like to participate in the pilot project must be aware of both the following requirements to be met by applicants and the following limitations set by the IP5 Offices.
The following requirements must be met by applicants wishing to participate in the pilot project:
(a) The request for participation in the pilot must be submitted on the standard participation form and filed together with the international application.
(b) The participation form and the international application must be filed at the receiving Office of one of the IP5 Offices or at the International Bureau as receiving Office, and the applicant must select one of the IP5 Offices as the main International Searching Authority under PCT Rule 35. For example, U.S. applicants filing with the USPTO or the International Bureau as receiving Office may select the USPTO, the EPO, the KIPO, or the JPO as International Searching Authority, subject to certain limitations as described in the PCT Applicant's Guide, Annex C/US.
(c) Where the participation form and the international application are filed with the USPTO, they must be filed in electronic form via the USPTO's EFS-Web system. The participation form must be loaded into EFS-Web as a separate document using document description “Request to Participate in PCT CS&E Pilot.” This is true even where the participation form is prepared using WIPO's ePCT system since EFS-Web only extracts the PCT Request form and Fee Calculation sheet from ePCT or PCT Safe zip files.
(d) The participation form and the international application must be filed in English when they are filed with the USPTO. As noted above, the other IP5 Offices will initially only accept applications filed in English and will announce when they are prepared to accept applications in languages other than English.
The following limitations related to organizational aspects of the pilot must be complied with for the main International Searching Authority to accept a request for participation in the pilot:
(a) The applicant must not have had ten international applications accepted in the pilot by the same main International Searching Authority.
(b) The main International Searching Authority must not have accepted 100 international applications into the pilot. The USPTO, in its capacity as the main International Searching Authority, will accept 50 applications during the first year of the pilot, that is from July 1, 2018, to June 30, 2019, and 50 applications during the second year of the pilot, that is from July 1, 2019, to June 30, 2020.
(c) The main International Searching Authority must not determine that there is a defect in the application (
The pilot project is divided into two phases, a preparatory phase and an operational phase. The preparatory phase started on June 2, 2016, and was dedicated to the administrative and practical preparations required for a smooth functioning of the pilot. The operational phase will start on July 1, 2018, and will be dedicated to the processing of applications under the collaborative scheme, the monitoring of applications for evaluation purposes, and the assessment of the outcome of the pilot. The operational phase will last for a period of three years ending on July 1, 2021, and will include an evaluation of the impact of the pilot on examination during the subsequent national/regional stages. Requests for participation in the pilot will be accepted only during the first two years of the operational phase,
Joint Service Committee on Military Justice (JSC), Department of Defense.
Notice of proposed amendments to the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2016 ed.) and notice of public meeting.
The Department of Defense requests comments on proposed changes to the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2016 ed.) (MCM). The proposed changes concern the rules of procedure and evidence applicable in trials by courts-martial as well as amendments to portions of the MCM discussing the punitive articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The approval authority for these changes is the President. These proposed changes have not been coordinated within the Department of Defense under DoD Directive 5500.01, “Preparing, Processing and Coordinating Legislation, Executive Orders, Proclamations, Views Letters, and Testimony,” June 15, 2007, and do not constitute the official position of the Department of Defense, the Military Departments, or any other Government agency.
Comments on the proposed changes must be received no later than August 27, 2018. A public meeting for comments will be held on July 11, 2018, at 1:30 p.m. in the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces building, 450 E Street NW, Washington DC 20442-0001.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Lieutenant Alexandra Nica, JAGC, USN, Executive Secretary, JSC, (202) 685-7058,
This notice is provided in accordance with
The JSC invites members of the public to comment on the proposed changes; such comments should address specific recommended changes and provide supporting rationale.
This notice also sets forth the date, time, and location for a public meeting of the JSC to discuss the proposed changes.
This notice is intended only to improve the internal management of the Federal Government. It is not intended to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by any party against the United States, its agencies, its officers, or any person.
The proposed amendments to the MCM are as follows:
“(1)
(A) A limitation on the maximum punishment that can be imposed by the court-martial;
(B) a limitation on the minimum punishment that can be imposed by the court-martial;
(C) limitations on the maximum and minimum punishments that can be imposed by the court-martial; or,
(D) a specified sentence or portion of a sentence that shall be imposed by the court-martial.”
“(e)
(1)
(A) Apprehended, on reasonable grounds, that death or grievous bodily harm was about to be inflicted wrongfully on the accused; and
(B) Believed that the force the accused used was necessary for protection against death or grievous bodily harm.
(2)
(A) Apprehended, on reasonable grounds, that bodily harm was about to be inflicted wrongfully on the accused; and
(B) In order to deter the assailant, offered but did not actually inflict or attempt to inflict substantial or grievous bodily harm.
(3)
(A) Apprehended, upon reasonable grounds, that bodily harm was about to be inflicted wrongfully on the accused; and
(B) Believed that the force that the accused used was necessary for protection against bodily harm, provided that the force used by the accused was less than the force inflicting substantial or grievous bodily harm.”
“(g)
“(c)
“(3) “Warrant for Wire or Electronic Communications” means a warrant issued by a military judge pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 2703(a), (b)(1)(A), or (c)(1)(A) in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 846(d)(3) and R.C.M. 309(b)(2) and R.C.M. 703A.”
“(d)
(1)
(2)
(3)
“c.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
“(1) “Access” means to gain entry to, instruct, cause input to, cause output from, cause data processing with, or communicate with, the logical, arithmetical, or memory function resources of a computer, computer system, or computer network.”
“(2)
(a) any action taken against a Servicemember that affects, or has the potential to affect, that Servicemember's current position or career, including promotion, disciplinary or other corrective action, transfer or reassignment, performance evaluations, decisions concerning pay, benefits, awards, or training, relief or removal, separation, discharge, referral for mental health evaluations, and any other personnel actions as defined by law or regulation, such as DoD Directive 7050.06 (17 April 2015); or,
(b) any action taken against a civilian employee that affects, or has the potential to affect, that person's current position or career, including promotion, disciplinary or other corrective action, transfer or reassignment, performance evaluations, decisions concerning pay, benefits, awards, or training, relief and removal, discharge, and any other personnel actions as defined by law or regulation such as 5 U.S.C. 2302.”
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, DoD.
Information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by August 27, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to ODASD (Supply Chain Integration), 3500 Defense Pentagon RM 1E518, Washington DC 20301-3500, Anthony VanBuren,
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a revision of an existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before August 27, 2018.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Michelle Georgia, 202-453-5501.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Department of Education (ED), Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a revision of an existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before August 27, 2018.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Michelle Georgia, 202-453-5501.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the
Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
The Department of Education (Department) is issuing a notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2018 for the Native Hawaiian Career and Technical Education Program (NHCTEP), Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number 84.259A.
For the addresses for obtaining and submitting an application, please refer to our Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the
Linda Mayo, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Potomac Center Plaza, Room 11075, Washington, DC 20202-7241. Telephone: (202) 245-7792. Email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
Under section 3(5)(A) of the Act (20 U.S.C. 2302(5)(A)), the Department awards grants under this competition to carry out career and technical education projects that provide organized educational activities offering a sequence of courses that—
(a) Provides individuals with coherent and rigorous content aligned with challenging academic standards and relevant technical knowledge and skills needed to prepare for further education and careers in current or emerging professions;
(b) Provides technical skill proficiency, an industry-recognized credential, a certificate, or an associate degree; and
(c) Includes competency-based applied learning that contributes to the
Contacts for State ESEA programs may be found on the internet at:
This priority is:
Creating or expanding opportunities for students to obtain recognized postsecondary credentials in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, or computer science.
For the purposes of this invitational priority,
Computer science often includes computer programming or coding as a tool to create software, including applications, games, websites, and tools to manage or manipulate data; or development and management of computer hardware and the other electronics related to sharing, securing, and using digital information.
In addition to coding, the expanding field of computer science emphasizes computational thinking and interdisciplinary problem-solving to equip students with the skills and abilities necessary to apply computation in our digital world.
Computer science does not include using a computer for everyday activities, such as browsing the internet; use of tools like word processing, spreadsheets, or presentation software; or using computers in the study and exploration of unrelated subjects. (See definition of “computer science” in the Secretary's Supplemental Priorities)
(a) In accordance with section 116(e) of the Act, under this program, NHCTEP projects must—
(1) Develop new programs, services, or activities or improve or expand existing programs, services, or activities that are consistent with the purposes of the Act. In other words, the Department will support “expansions” or “improvements” that include, but are not necessarily limited to, the expansion of effective programs or practices; upgrading of activities, equipment, or materials; increasing staff capacity; adoption of new technology; modification of curriculum; or implementation of new policies to improve program effectiveness and outcomes; and
(2) Fund a CTE program, service, or activity that—
(i) Is a new program, service, or activity that was not provided by the applicant during the instructional term (a defined period, such as a semester, trimester, or quarter, within the academic year) that preceded the request for funding under NHCTEP;
(ii) Will improve or expand an existing CTE program; or
(iii) Inherently improves CTE. A program, service, or activity “inherently improves CTE” if it—
(A) Develops new CTE programs of study for approval by the appropriate accreditation agency;
(B) Strengthens the rigor of the academic and career and technical components of funded programs;
(C) Uses curriculum that is aligned with industry-recognized standards and will result in students attaining industry-recognized credentials, certificates, or degrees;
(D) Integrates academics (other than remedial courses) with CTE programs through a coherent sequence of courses to help ensure learning in the core academic and career and technical subjects;
(E) Links CTE at the secondary level with CTE at the postsecondary level and facilitates students' pursuit of a baccalaureate degree;
(F) Expands the scope, depth, and relevance of curriculum, especially content that provides students with a comprehensive understanding of all aspects of an industry and a variety of hands-on, job-specific experiences; or
(G) Offers—
(1) Work-related experience, internships, cooperative education, school-based enterprises, studies in entrepreneurship, community service learning, and job shadowing that are related to CTE programs;
(2) Coaching/mentoring, support services, and extra help for students after school, on the weekends, or during the summer, so they can meet higher standards;
(3) Career guidance and academic counseling for students participating in CTE programs under NHCTEP;
(4) Placement services for students who have successfully completed CTE programs and attained a technical skill proficiency that is aligned with industry-recognized standards;
(5) Professional development programs for teachers, counselors, and administrators;
(6) Strong partnerships among grantees and local educational agencies, postsecondary institutions, community leaders, adult education providers, and, as appropriate, other entities, such as employers, labor organizations, parents, and local partnerships, to enable students to achieve State academic standards and attain career and technical skills;
(7) The use of student assessment and evaluation data to improve continually instruction and staff development; or
(8) Research, development, demonstration, dissemination, evaluation and assessment, capacity-building, and technical assistance, related to CTE programs.
To help ensure the high quality of NHCTEP projects and the achievement of the goals and purposes of section 116(h) of the Act, each grantee must budget for and conduct an ongoing evaluation of the effectiveness of its project. An independent evaluator must conduct the evaluation. The evaluation must—
(a) Be appropriate for the project and be both formative and summative in nature; and
(b) Include—
(1) Collection and reporting of the performance measures for NHCTEP that are identified in the Performance Measures section of this notice; and
(2) Qualitative and quantitative data with respect to—
(i) Academic and career and technical competencies demonstrated by the participants and the number and kinds of academic and work credentials acquired by individuals, including their participation in programs providing skill proficiency assessments, industry certifications, or training at the associate degree level that is articulated with an advanced degree option;
(ii) Enrollment, completion, and placement of participants by gender, for each occupation for which training was provided;
(iii) Job or work skill attainment or enhancement, including participation in apprenticeship and work-based learning programs, and student progress in achieving technical skill proficiencies necessary to obtain employment in the field for which the student has been prepared, including attainment or enhancement of technical skills in the industry the student is preparing to enter;
(iv) Activities, during the formative stages of the project, to help guide and improve the project, as well as a summative evaluation that includes recommendations for disseminating information on project activities and results;
(v) The number and percentage of students who obtained industry-recognized credentials, certificates, or degrees;
(vi) The outcomes of students' technical assessments, by type and scores, if available;
(vii) The rates of attainment of a proficiency credential or certificate, in conjunction with a secondary school diploma;
(viii) The effectiveness of the project, including a comparison between the intended and observed results and a demonstration of a clear link between the observed results and the specific treatment given to project participants;
(ix) The extent to which information about or resulting from the project was disseminated at other sites, such as through the grantee's development and use of guides or manuals that provide step-by-step directions for practitioners to follow when initiating similar efforts; and
(x) The impact of the project,
A portion of an award under this program may be used to provide stipends (as defined in the Definitions section of this notice) to help students meet the costs of participation in a NHCTEP project.
(1) To be eligible for a stipend a student must—
(i) Be enrolled in a CTE project funded under this program;
(ii) Be in regular attendance in a NHCTEP project and meet the training institution's attendance requirement;
(iii) Maintain satisfactory progress in his or her program of study according to the training institution's published standards for satisfactory progress; and
(iv) Have an acute economic need that—
(A) Prevents participation in a project funded under this program without a stipend; and
(B) Cannot be met through a work-study program.
(2) The amount of a stipend is the greater of either the minimum hourly wage prescribed by State or local law or the minimum hourly wage established under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
(3) A grantee may award a stipend only if the stipend combined with other resources the student receives does not exceed the student's financial need. A student's financial need is the difference between the student's cost of attendance and the financial aid or other resources available to defray the student's cost of attending a NHCTEP project.
(4) To calculate the amount of a student's stipend, a grantee must multiply the number of hours a student actually attends CTE instruction by the amount of the minimum hourly wage that is prescribed by State or local law, or by the minimum hourly wage that is established under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The grantee must reduce the amount of a stipend if necessary to ensure that it does not exceed the student's financial need.
Grantees must maintain records that fully support their decisions to award stipends to students, as well as the amounts that are paid, such as proof of a student's enrollment in a NHCTEP project, stipend applications, timesheets showing the number of hours of student attendance that are confirmed in writing by an instructor, student financial status information, and evidence that a student could not participate in the NHCTEP project without a stipend. (See generally 20 U.S.C. 1232f; 34 CFR 75.700-75.702; 75.730; and 75.731.)
(5) An eligible student may receive a stipend when taking a course for the first time. However, generally a stipend may not be provided to a student who has already taken, completed, and had the opportunity to benefit from a course and is merely repeating the course.
(6) An applicant must include in its application the procedure it intends to use to determine student eligibility for stipends and stipend amounts, and its oversight procedures for the awarding and payment of stipends.
A grantee may provide direct assistance (as defined elsewhere in this notice under the heading Definitions) to a student only if the following conditions are met:
(1) The recipient of the direct assistance is an individual who is a member of a special population (as defined in section 3(29) of the Act) and who is participating in a NHCTEP project.
(2) The direct assistance is needed to address barriers to the individual's successful participation in a NHCTEP project.
(3) The direct assistance is part of a broader, more generally focused program or activity for addressing the needs of an individual who is a member of a special population.
Direct assistance to individuals who are members of special populations is not, by itself, a “program or activity for special populations.”
(4) The grant funds used for direct assistance must be expended to supplement, and not supplant, assistance that is otherwise available from non-Federal sources. For example, generally, a community-based organization could not use NHCTEP funds to provide child care for single parents if non-Federal funds previously were made available for this purpose, or if non-Federal funds are used to provide child care services for single parents participating in non-career and technical education programs and these services otherwise (in the absence of
(5) In determining how much of the NHCTEP grant funds it will use for direct assistance to an eligible student, a grantee—
(i) May only provide assistance to the extent that it is needed to address barriers to the individual's successful participation in CTE; and
(ii) Considers whether the specific services to be provided are a reasonable and necessary cost of providing career and technical education programs for special populations. However, the Secretary does not envision a circumstance in which it would be a reasonable and necessary expenditure of NHCTEP project funds for a grantee to utilize a majority of a project's budget to pay direct assistance to students, in lieu of providing the students served by the project with CTE.
Any applicant that is not proposing to provide CTE directly to Native Hawaiian students and proposes instead to pay one or more qualified educational entities to provide such CTE to Native Hawaiian students must include with its application a written CTE agreement between the applicant and the educational entity. The written agreement must describe the commitment between the applicant and the educational entity and must include, at a minimum, a statement of the responsibilities of the applicant and the entity. The agreement must be signed by the appropriate individuals on behalf of each party, such as the authorizing official or administrative head of the applicant Native Hawaiian community-based organization.
Grantees may not use funds under NHCTEP to replace otherwise available non-Federal funding for “direct assistance to students” (as defined elsewhere in this notice under the heading Definitions) and family assistance programs. For example, NHCTEP funds must not be used to supplant non-Federal funds to pay the costs of students' tuition, dependent care, transportation, books, supplies, and other costs associated with participation in a CTE program.
Further, funds under NHCTEP may not be used to replace Federal student financial aid. The Act does not authorize the Secretary to fund projects that serve primarily as entities through which students may apply for and receive tuition and other financial assistance.
Section 315 of the Act prohibits the use of funds received under the Act to provide vocational and technical education programs to students prior to the seventh grade, except that equipment and facilities purchased with funds under the Act may be used by such students. (20 U.S.C. 2395)
(a) Offer a sequence of courses that—
(1) Provides individuals with coherent and rigorous content aligned with challenging academic standards and relevant technical knowledge and skills needed to prepare for further education and careers in current or emerging professions;
(2) Provides technical skill proficiency, an industry-recognized credential, a certificate, or an associate degree; and
(3) May include prerequisite courses (other than a remedial course) that meet the requirements of this definition; and
(b) Include competency-based applied learning that contributes to the academic knowledge, higher-order reasoning and problem-solving skills, work attitudes, general employability skills, technical skills, and occupation-specific skills, and knowledge of all aspects of an industry, including entrepreneurship, of an individual. (20 U.S.C. 2302(5))
(a) Whose native language is a language other than English; or
(b) Who lives in a family or community environment in which a language other than English is the dominant language. (20 U.S.C. 2302(16))
(a) Individuals with disabilities;
(b) Individuals from economically disadvantaged families, including foster children;
(c) Individuals preparing for nontraditional fields;
(d) Single parents, including single pregnant women;
(e) Displaced homemakers; and
(f) Individuals with limited English proficiency. (20 U.S.C. 2302(29))
(a) For a student who is enrolled in a CTE program funded under the NHCTEP;
(b) For a student who has an acute economic need that cannot be met through work-study programs; and
(c) That is necessary for the student to participate in a project funded under this program. (Notice of Final Requirements)
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2019 or in subsequent years from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
(a) Community-based organizations primarily serving and representing Native Hawaiians. For purposes of the NHCTEP, a community-based organization means a public or private organization that provides career and technical education, or related services, to individuals in the Native Hawaiian community.
(b) Any community-based organization may apply individually or as part of a consortium with one or more eligible community-based organizations. (Eligible applicants seeking to apply for funds as a consortium must meet the requirements in 34 CFR 75.127-75.129.)
2. (a)
(b)
We caution applicants not to plan to use funds under NHCTEP to replace otherwise available non-Federal funding for direct assistance to students and family assistance programs. For example, NHCTEP funds must not be used to supplant non-Federal funds with Federal funds in order to pay the costs of students' tuition, dependent care, transportation, books, supplies, and other costs associated with participation in a CTE program.
Funds under NHCTEP should not be used to replace Federal student financial aid. The Act does not authorize the Secretary to fund projects that serve primarily as entities through which students may apply for and receive tuition and other financial assistance.
(c)
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
The maximum possible score for addressing each criterion is indicated in parentheses.
(a)
(1) The extent to which the design of the proposed project is appropriate to and will successfully address the needs of the target population or other identified needs (as evidenced by such data as local labor market demand, occupational trends, and surveys). (Up to 5 points)
(2) The extent to which goals, objectives, and outcomes are clearly specified and measurable. (For example, we look for clear descriptions of proposed student career and technical education activities; recruitment and retention strategies; expected student enrollments, completions, and placements in jobs, military specialties, and continuing education/training opportunities; the number of teachers, counselors, and administrators to be trained; and identification of requirements for each program of study to be provided under the project, including related training areas and a description of performance outcomes.) (Up to 10 points)
(3) The extent to which the proposed project will establish linkages with other appropriate agencies (
(4) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project will create and offer activities that focus on enabling participants to obtain the skills necessary to gain employment in high-skill, high-wage, and high-demand occupations in emerging fields or in a specific career field. (Up to 5 points)
(5) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project will create opportunities for students to acquire skills identified by the State at the secondary level or by industry-recognized career and technical education programs for licensure, degree, certification, or as required by a career or profession. (Up to 5 points)
(6) The extent to which the proposed project will provide opportunities for
(i) Are of sufficient quality, intensity, and duration to lead to improvements in practice among instructional personnel;
(ii) Will improve and increase instructional personnel's knowledge and skills to help students meet challenging and rigorous academic and career and technical skill proficiencies;
(iii) Will advance instructional personnel's understanding of effective instructional strategies that are supported by scientifically based research; and
(iv) Include professional development plans that clearly address ways in which learning gaps will be addressed and how continuous review of performance will be conducted to identify training needs. (Up to 5 points)
(b)
(1) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and the milestones and performance standards for accomplishing project tasks. (Up to 5 points)
(2) The extent to which the time commitments of the project director and other key project personnel, including instructors, are appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed project. (Up to 5 points)
(3) The adequacy of procedures for ensuring feedback and continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project. (Up to 5 points)
(c)
(1) The extent to which the applicant encourages applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability. (Up to 5 points)
(2) The qualifications, including relevant training, expertise, and experience, of the project director. (Up to 10 points)
(3) The qualifications, including relevant training, expertise, and experience, of key project personnel, especially the extent to which the project will use instructors who are certified to teach in the field in which they will provide instruction. (Up to 5 points)
(4) The qualifications, including training, expertise, and experience, of project consultants. (Up to 5 points)
(d)
(1) The adequacy of support, including facilities, equipment, supplies, and other resources, from the applicant organization(s) and the entities to be served, including the evidence and relevance of commitments (
(2) The extent to which the budget is adequate and costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives and design of the proposed project. (Up to 5 points)
(3) The potential for continued support of the project after Federal funding ends. (Up to 5 points)
(e)
(1) The extent to which the methods of evaluation proposed by the grantee are thorough, feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project.
(2) The extent to which the methods of evaluation include the use of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the intended outcomes of the project and the performance measures discussed elsewhere in this notice and will produce quantitative and qualitative data, to the extent possible. (Up to 5 points)
(3) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide performance feedback and continuous improvement toward achieving intended outcomes. (Up to 5 points)
(4) The quality of the proposed evaluation to be conducted by an external evaluator with the necessary background and technical expertise to carry out the evaluation. (Up to 5 points)
2.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
3.
4.
Please note that, if the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
4.
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
5.
(a) Number of Secondary, Postsecondary, and Adult Projects. The number of secondary, postsecondary, and adult projects that—
(1) Apply industry-recognized skill standards so that students can earn skill certificates in those projects; and
(2) Offer skill competencies, related assessments, and industry-recognized skill certificates in an area of study offered by secondary and postsecondary institutions.
(b) Secondary Projects. The percentage of participating secondary career and technical education students who—
(1) Meet or exceed State proficiency standards in reading/language arts and mathematics;
(2) Attain a secondary school diploma or its State-recognized equivalent, or a proficiency credential in conjunction with a secondary school diploma;
(3) Attain career and technical education skill proficiencies aligned with industry-recognized standards; and
(4) Are placed in postsecondary education, advanced training, military service, or employment in high-skill, high-wage, and high-demand occupations or in current or emerging occupations.
(c) Postsecondary Projects. The percentage of participating postsecondary students in career and technical education programs who—
(1) Receive postsecondary degrees, certificates, or credentials;
(2) Attain career and technical education skill proficiencies aligned with industry-recognized standards;
(3) Receive industry-recognized credentials, certificates, or degrees;
(4) Are retained in postsecondary education or transfer to a baccalaureate degree program; and
(5) Are placed in military service or apprenticeship programs, or are placed in employment, receive an employment promotion, or retain employment.
All grantees must submit an annual performance report addressing these performance measures, to the extent feasible and to the extent that they apply to each grantee's NHCTEP project.
6.
In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
The Department of Education is issuing a notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2018 for the Training Program for Federal TRIO Programs (Training Program), Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number 84.103A.
For the addresses for obtaining and submitting an application, please refer to our Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the
Suzanne Ulmer or, if unavailable, Carmen Gordon, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 278-44, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 453-7700. Email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), contact the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
In accordance with 34 CFR 642.7, each application must clearly identify the specific absolute priority for which a grant is requested. An applicant must submit a separate application for each absolute priority it proposes to address. If an applicant submits more than one application for the same absolute priority, we will accept only the application with the latest “date/time received” validation.
These priorities are:
Under this competition we are particularly interested in applications that address the following priorities.
These priorities are:
Applications that propose projects designed to address one or more of the following priority areas:
(a) Implementing strategies that ensure education funds are spent in a way that increases their efficiency and cost-effectiveness, including by reducing waste or achieving better outcomes.
(b) Supporting training toward innovative strategies or research that have the potential to lead to significant and wide-reaching improvements in the delivery of educational services.
(c) Reducing compliance burden within the grantee's operations (including on partners working to achieve grant objectives or being served by the grant) in a manner that decreases paperwork or staff time spent on administrative functions, or other measurable ways that help education providers to save money, benefit more students, or improve results.
Applications that propose projects designed to assist TRIO grantees with the ongoing implementation of the evidence-based strategies for which they
Applications that propose projects designed to assist TRIO grantees with improving student achievement or other educational outcomes in one or more of the following areas: Science, technology, engineering, math, or computer science (as defined in the Secretary's Final Supplemental Priorities and Definitions for Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the
The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian Tribes.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education (IHEs) only.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2019 from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.
Under Absolute Priorities 1, 2, and 4, the maximum award amount is $265,764 and the minimum number of participants is 231. Under Absolute Priorities 3 and 5, the maximum award amount is $344,945 and the minimum number of participants is 300. Under Absolute Priority 6, the maximum award amount is $294,464 and the minimum number of participants is 256.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Applications that do not follow the page limit and formatting recommendations will not be penalized.
• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins.
• Double-space all text in the application narrative, and single-space titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions.
• Use a 12-point font.
• Use an easily readable font such as Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial.
The recommended page limit does not apply to Part I, the Application for Federal Assistance face sheet (SF 424); Part II, the Budget Information Summary form (ED Form 524); Part III-A, the Program Profile form; Part III-B, the one-page Project Abstract form; or Part IV, the Assurances and Certifications. The recommended page limit also does not apply to a table of contents, which we recommend that you include in the application narrative.
5.
1.
(a)
(1) The Secretary reviews each application for information that shows the quality of the plan of operation for the project.
(2) The Secretary looks for information that shows—
(i) High quality in the design of the project;
(ii) An effective plan of management that ensures proper and efficient administration of the project;
(iii) A clear description of how the objectives of the project relate to the purpose of the program;
(iv) The way the applicant plans to use its resources and personnel to achieve each objective; and
(v) A clear description of how the applicant will provide equal access and treatment for eligible project participants who are members of groups that have been traditionally underrepresented, such as—
(A) Members of racial or ethnic minority groups;
(B) Women;
(C) Individuals with disabilities; and
(D) The elderly.
(b)
(1) The Secretary reviews each application for information that shows the qualifications of the key personnel the applicant plans to use on the project.
(2) The Secretary looks for information that shows—
(i) The qualifications of the project director;
(ii) The qualifications of each of the other key personnel to be used in the project;
(iii) The time that each person referred to in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section plans to commit to the project; and
(iv) The extent to which the applicant, as part of its nondiscriminatory employment practices, encourages applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have been traditionally underrepresented, such as—
(A) Members of racial or ethnic minority groups;
(B) Women;
(C) Individuals with disabilities; and
(D) The elderly.
(3) To determine the qualifications of a person, the Secretary considers evidence of past experience and training, in fields related to the objectives of the project, as well as other information that the applicant provides.
(c)
(1) The Secretary reviews each application for information that shows that the project has an adequate budget and is cost effective.
(2) The Secretary looks for information that shows—
(i) The budget for the project is adequate to support the project activities; and
(ii) Costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives of the project.
(d)
(1) The Secretary reviews each application for information that shows the quality of the evaluation plan for the project.
(2) The Secretary looks for information that shows methods of evaluation that are appropriate for the project and, to the extent possible, are objective and produce data that are quantifiable.
(e)
(1) The Secretary reviews each application for information that shows that the applicant plans to devote adequate resources to the project.
(2) The Secretary looks for information that shows—
(i) The facilities that the applicant plans to use are adequate; and
(ii) The equipment and supplies that the applicant plans to use are adequate.
2.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
For this competition, a panel of non-Federal reviewers will review each application in accordance with the selection criteria in 34 CFR 642.21. The individual scores of the reviewers will be added and the sum divided by the number of reviewers to determine the peer review score received in the review process. Additionally, in accordance with 34 CFR 642.22, the Secretary will award prior experience points to eligible applicants by evaluating the applicant's current performance under its expiring Training Program grant. Pursuant to 34 CFR 642.22(b)(1), prior experience points, if any, will be added to the application's averaged peer review score to determine the total score for each application.
Under section 402A(c)(3) of the HEA, the Secretary is not required to make awards under the Training Program in the order of the scores received.
In the event a tie score exists, the Secretary will select for funding the applicant that has the greatest capacity to provide training to eligible participants in all regions of the Nation in order to assure accessibility to the greatest number of prospective training participants, consistent with 34 CFR 642.20(e).
3.
4.
Please note that, if the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
4.
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
(c) Under 34 CFR 75.250(b), the Secretary may provide a grantee with additional funding for data collection analysis and reporting. In this case the Secretary establishes a data collection period.
5.
6.
In making a continuation grant, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Take notice that on June 20, 2018, the City of Falmouth, Kentucky (Falmouth or Petitioner) filed a petition for a declaratory order requesting the Commission confirm that when Falmouth changes power suppliers on May 1, 2019, Falmouth will be able to continue to obtain transmission service over the facilities of East Kentucky Power Cooperative at the same rates, and under the same terms and conditions, as would have applied for deliveries to Falmouth's load had it remained a power supply customer of Kentucky Utilities Company, 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
Take notice that on June 20, 2018, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824e and Rule 206 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206, CXA La Paloma, LLC (Complainant) filed a formal complaint against California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO or Respondent) alleging that, CAISO's continued reliance on short-term, interim, stopgap mechanisms for resource adequacy has created a resource adequacy regime that is unjust and unreasonable and unduly discriminatory. CXA La Paloma, LLC requests that the Commission order CAISO to implement a centralized resource adequacy procurement process including a downward sloped demand curve, uniform locational pricing, and several other key features, all as more fully explained in the complaint.
CXA La Paloma, LLC certifies that copies of the complaint were served on the contacts for Respondent as listed on the Commission's list of Corporate Officials.
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 and 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. The Respondents' answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondents' answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainant.
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
Take notice that on June 20, 2018, American Municipal Power, Inc. submitted a filing of proposed cost-based revenue requirement for the provision of Reactive Supply and Voltage Control from Generation or Other Sources Service under Schedule 2 of the PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Open Access Transmission Tariff.
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. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
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
Take notice that on June 11, 2018, Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. (Southern Star), 4700 Highway 56, Owensboro, Kentucky 42301, filed a prior notice application pursuant to sections 157.205, and 157.208 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Southern Star's blanket certificate
Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Cindy Thompson, Manager, Regulatory, Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc., 4700 Highway 56, Owensboro, Kentucky 42301 or phone (270) 852-4655, or by email at
Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 60 days after issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205), a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed time for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding, or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenter will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
On June 21, 2018, the Commission issued an order in Docket Nos. EL18-155-000, EL18-156-000, EL18-157-000, EL18-158-000, EL18-159-000, EL18-160-000, EL18-161-000, EL18-162-000, EL18-163-000, EL18-164-000, EL18-165-000, EL18-166-000, and EL18-167-000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824e (2012), instituting investigations into whether the transmission formula rates of Ameren Illinois Company, Ameren Transmission Company of Illinois, American Transmission Company, LLC, GridLiance West Transco LLC, International Transmission Company, ITC Midwest, LLC, Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation, Northern States Power Company, a Wisconsin corporation, Public Service Company of Colorado, Southern California Edison Company, TransCanyon DCR, LLC, Southwestern Public Service Company, and Virginia Electric and Power Company (collectively, Respondents) may be unjust, unreasonable, or unduly discriminatory or preferential.
The refund effective date in Docket Nos. EL18-155-000, EL18-156-000, EL18-157-000, EL18-158-000, EL18-159-000, EL18-160-000, EL18-161-000, EL18-162-000, EL18-163-000,
Any interested person desiring to be heard in the proceeding associated with a particular Respondent must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate, in the docket number identified in the caption of this notice, with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214 (2017), within 21 days of the date of issuance of the order.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. The Town of Bedford filed its request to use the Traditional Licensing Process on April 30, 2018. The Town of Bedford provided public notice of its request on May 23, 2018. In a letter dated June 21, 2018, the Director of the Division of Hydropower Licensing approved the Town of Bedford's request to use the Traditional Licensing Process.
k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations thereunder at 50 CFR part 402. We are also initiating consultation with the Virginia State Historic Preservation Officer, as required by section 106, National Historic Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
l. The Town of Bedford filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD; including a proposed process plan and schedule) with the Commission, pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
m. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website (
n. The Town of Bedford states its unequivocal intent to submit an application for a new license for Project No. 5596. Pursuant to 18 CFR 16.8, 16.9, and 16.10 each application for a new license and any competing license applications must be filed with the Commission at least 24 months prior to the expiration of the existing license. All applications for license for this project must be filed by April 30, 2021.
o. Register online 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:
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared a final environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Midcontinent Supply Header Interstate Pipeline Project, proposed by Midship Pipeline Company, LLC (Midship Pipeline) in the above-referenced docket. Midship Pipeline requests authorization to construct and operate approximately 234.1 miles of new pipeline, three compressor stations, a booster station, and accompanying facilities in Oklahoma. The project would deliver an additional 1,440 million standard cubic feet per day of year-round firm transportation capacity from Kingfisher County, Oklahoma to existing natural gas pipelines near Bennington, Oklahoma for transport to growing Gulf Coast and Southeast Markets.
The final EIS assesses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the project in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FERC staff concludes that approval of the project would result in some adverse environmental impacts; however, these impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels with the implementation of Midship Pipeline's proposed mitigation and the additional measures recommended in the final EIS.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency participated as a cooperating agency in the preparation of the EIS. Cooperating agencies have jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to resources potentially affected by the proposal and participate in the NEPA analysis. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency provided input to the conclusions and recommendations presented in the final EIS.
The final EIS addresses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the following proposed project facilities in Oklahoma:
• 199.7 miles of new 36-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline in Kingfisher, Canadian, Grady, Garvin, Stephens, Carter, Johnston, and Bryan Counties;
• 20.5 miles of new 30-inch-diameter pipeline lateral in Kingfisher County;
• 13.8 miles of new 16-inch-diameter pipeline lateral in Stephens, Carter, and Garvin Counties;
• 0.1 mile of new 24-inch-diameter tie-in piping in Canadian County;
• three new compressor stations and one new booster station in Canadian, Garvin, Bryan, and Stephens Counties; and
• eight new receipt meters, two new receipt taps, four new delivery meters, and appurtenant facilities.
The FERC staff mailed copies of the EIS to federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; potentially affected landowners and other interested individuals and groups; and newspapers and libraries in the project area. Paper copy versions of Volume I of the EIS were mailed to those specifically requesting them; all recipients received a CD version containing both Volumes I and II of the EIS. In addition, the EIS is available for public viewing on the FERC's website (
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website (
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
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
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 on June 11, 2018, Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line, LP (Panhandle), P.O. Box 4967, Houston, Texas 77210-4967, filed a prior notice application pursuant to sections 157.205, and 157.208(f)(2) of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Panhandle's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP83-83-000. Panhandle requests authorization to decrease the maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) of a segment of its State Line Lateral located in Johnson County, Kansas and Jackson County, Missouri, due to the recent compliance testing results in accordance with U.S. Department of Transportation regulations, all as more fully set forth in the application, which is open to the public for inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at
Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Blair Lichtenwalter, Senior Director of Certificates, Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, LP, 1300 Main Street, Houston, Texas 77002 or phone (713) 989-1205, or by email at
Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 60 days after issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205), a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed time for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding, or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenter will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
As required by TSCA, which was amended by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act in June 2016, EPA is announcing the availability of a document entitled:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are required to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Basic Chemical Manufacturers (NAICS code 3251);
• Resin, Synthetic Rubber, and Artificial Synthetic Fibers and Filament Manufacturers (NAICS code 3252);
• Pesticide, Fertilizer, and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturers (NAICS code 3255);
• Paint, Coating, and Adhesive Manufacturers (NAICS code 3255);
• Other Chemical Product and Preparation Manufacturers (NAICS code 3259); and Petroleum Refineries (NAICS code 32411);
• Animal Welfare Groups;
• Environmental non-governmental organizations;
• Toxicity testing laboratories (contract labs);
• Academic/non-profit groups involved in developing and using alternative toxicity test methods.
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0559, is available at
On June 22, 2016, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act amended TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2601
In fulfillment of the requirements in TSCA section 4(h)(2)(A), EPA has prepared a final Strategic Plan to “promote the development and implementation of alternative test methods and strategies to reduce, refine or replace vertebrate animal testing and provide information of equivalent or better scientific quality and relevance for assessing risks of injury to health or the environment of chemical substances or mixtures . . .”. The Strategic Plan is being made available in both the docket and on the EPA website.
In addition, making available a response to comments document that addresses comments on the draft Strategic Plan received through May 11, 2018. The response to comment document is available in the docket. (
OPPT hosted a public meeting on November 2, 2017, in which a conceptual approach to this final Strategic Plan was presented. Meeting materials and public comments received through January 10, 2018, can be found in the docket (
A draft Strategic Plan was published on March 12, 2018, along with a response to comments document that addressed the comments received through January 10, 2018. OPPT hosted a second public meeting on April 10, 2018, to receive input from the public on the draft Strategic Plan. A docket was made available with the meeting materials and allowed for comments to
15 U.S.C. 2601
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
As amended in 2016, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) requires EPA to develop a system to assign a unique identifier (UID) whenever it approves a confidential business information (CBI) claim for the specific chemical identity of a chemical substance, to apply this UID to other information concerning the same chemical substance, and to ensure that any non-confidential information received by the Agency identifies the chemical substance using the UID while the specific chemical identity of the chemical substance is protected from disclosure. EPA previously requested comment on several approaches for assigning and applying UIDs. EPA has determined that it will use a numerical identifier that incorporates the year the CBI claim was asserted, and will apply this UID to non-confidential information related to the chemical substance, except where the Agency's act of applying the UID would itself disclose to the public the confidential specific chemical identity that the UID was assigned to protect.
You may be affected by this action if you have submitted or expect to submit information to EPA under TSCA. Persons who would use UIDs assigned by the Agency to seek information may also be affected by this action. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Manufacturers, importers, or processors of chemical substances (NAICS codes 325 and 324110),
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0144, is available at
The June 22, 2016, amendments to TSCA by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act added a requirement in TSCA section 14(g)(4) for EPA to, among other things, “assign a unique identifier to each specific chemical identity for which the Administrator approves a request for protection from disclosure.” EPA is required to use the “unique identifier assigned under this paragraph to protect the specific chemical identity in information that the Administrator has made public” and to “apply that identifier consistently to all information relevant to the applicable chemical substance,” including “any non-confidential information received by the Administrator with respect to a chemical substance . . . while the specific chemical identity of the chemical substance is protected from disclosure.” 15 U.S.C. 2613(g)(4).
The requirements to assign a UID and the unreconciled requirements concerning application of the UID and protection of CBI are more fully discussed in a document that published in the
The UID cannot be the specific chemical identity, or a structurally descriptive generic term. TSCA section 14(a)(4)(A)(i). Consequently, EPA has developed a system to assign UIDs for each substance for which it makes a final determination approving a CBI claim for specific chemical identity. The UID is a number that incorporates the year that the claim was asserted (
EPA is adopting the “third alternative approach,” as described in the February
EPA believes that this is the best of the approaches considered because it most appropriately balances the two purposes of the UID provisions: to provide public linkages between related non-confidential information concerning a particular confidential chemical substance (
By contrast, the other two alternative approaches (described more fully in the May 2017
In the “second alternative approach,” whereby a UID would be assigned to each chemical-company combination (different companies submitting information on the same substance would be assigned different UIDs for that substance), the CBI protection goal would at least initially be met, but only at considerable expense to the other goal of the UID provisions—to provide the public with links between related documents. In addition, this approach would have raised its own administrative issues, such as what to do with the UID in the case that a company or parts of a company changes ownership; how such UIDs would be applied to EPA-generated documents that are relevant to a substance that is referenced in multiple submissions from different companies; or how the multiple UIDs would be handled in the case that one company withdraws or permits its CBI claim to expire while the other does not. Finally, this approach seems unreconciled with the TSCA section 8(b)(7) requirement to publish UIDs alongside other identifiers for the same chemical—accession number, generic name, and PMN number, where applicable. Any list that includes all of this information for each chemical would automatically link submissions from different companies by including all of the UIDs and/or by using the same accession number for multiple listings on the same chemical. (For example, if Chemical X has three UIDs, assigned to three different company claims, they would all be linked on this list, because Chemical X only has one accession number, and the list is supposed to include both accession number and UID.)
In response to the two requests for comment, in the May 2017 and February 2018
In response to the first request for comment (May 2017
In response to the second request for comment (February 2018
EPA has prepared a separate response to comments document, a copy of which is available in the docket for this action (Ref. 1), and is also including the
1. “
This approach would be largely inconsistent with both the letter of TSCA section 14(g)(4) and the intent of setting up a UID system. EPA interprets TSCA section 14(g)(4)(A)(i) (requiring the Agency to “assign a unique identifier to
2.
The UID is specifically described in the statute as an identifier assigned “to protect the specific chemical identity” of the subject chemical. Section 14(g)(4)(D). It would plainly undermine that Congressional purpose if application of the UID itself were the means by which an otherwise valid chemical identity CBI claim was disclosed. Congress' intention that the UID preserve valid CBI claims is further evidenced by the requirement that the UID “shall not be . . . the specific chemical identity.” Section 14(g)(4)(A)(i). Similarly, section 14(g)(4)(B) requires EPA to publish an annual list of confidential chemical substances “referred to by their unique identifiers . . . including the expiration date for each such claim.” This further reflects Congress' understanding that the duration of a valid CBI claim would be determined by its expiration date and that the UID would serve to link documents pertaining to a confidential chemical during that period, not to terminate the period. Section 14(g)(4)(C) in turn instructs EPA to ensure that any non-confidential information received by EPA regarding a chemical substance “on the list published under paragraph (B)” while the specific identity is protected from disclosure identifies the chemical using the UID. It is apparent that Congress intended the UID to serve the function of enabling the public to link such non-confidential information to other documents pertaining to the same confidential chemical during the life of the valid CBI claim as reflected on the list under paragraph (B), not to terminate the period of protection. Finally, section 14(g)(4)(D) requires EPA to link the specific identity of a chemical substance to the corresponding UID in three circumstances: where the claim has been denied, has expired, or has been withdrawn. If Congress had intended for the application of the UID itself to reveal the confidential chemical identity, it presumably would have included this circumstance in the list in section 14(g)(4)(D).
The approach suggested by the commenter might also tend to increase CBI claims for chemical identity. Many TSCA section 8(e) filings, for example, concern chemicals that are in the research and development (R&D) stage. At this early stage, not all companies claim the chemical identity as CBI. Under the “straightforward” approach, any time a company chooses to not claim an R&D chemical identity as CBI, they would foreclose any chance (of theirs, or of a competitor's) to maintain a successful CBI claim for the specific identity of that substance in the future. This is because even if such a claim were made and approved in, for example, a section 5 Notice of Commencement, the confidential chemical identity, and the fact the substance is in commerce in the United States, would be revealed as soon as EPA applied the UID to the related R&D 8(e) submission and made the labeled submission public. In order to avoid this foreclosure of opportunity, TSCA section 8(e) submitters may feel compelled to claim more R&D chemical identities as CBI.
EPA believes that section 14(g)(4) is best read as instructing EPA to provide a public linkage of non-confidential information that concerns each confidential chemical substance, while simultaneously protecting approved and valid CBI claims. It is both appropriate and lawful for EPA to interpret conflicting requirements of a provision in a manner that minimizes those conflicts, because provisions of a text should be interpreted in a way that renders them compatible and not contradictory. Accordingly, EPA is acting consistent with TSCA by attempting to balance two requirements that occasionally conflict with one another.
3.
EPA has developed procedures for applying UIDs to related documents, prior to releasing those labeled documents to the public. EPA will search its records and screen incoming submissions for non-confidential information that relates to the applicable confidential chemical identity (using CASRN, accession number, PMN number, specific name,
Any relevant documents that do not reveal the confidential specific chemical identity in the public version would be labeled with the UID. Any relevant documents that mention this confidential specific chemical identity in the public version would be set aside for additional screening. EPA anticipates that documents in the latter category will be fairly rare. Documents subject to additional screening would be examined for information indicating that the confidential TSCA Inventory status may no longer be warranted (
If the result of the additional screening is that the chemical identity CBI claim appears no longer valid (
Under TSCA section 14(g)(4)(B), EPA is required to “annually publish and update a list of chemical substances, referred to by their unique identifiers, for which claims to protect the specific chemical identity from disclosure have been approved, including the expiration date for each such claim.” EPA will be using the approach announced in this document and anticipates publishing the first annual list on EPA's internet site in November of 2018.
The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically referenced in this document. The docket includes these documents and other information considered by EPA, including documents that are referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, even if the referenced document is not physically located in the docket. For assistance in locating these other documents, please consult the person listed under
15 U.S.C. 2613.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act in June 2016 expanded the categories of people to whom EPA may disclose TSCA confidential business information (CBI) by specifically authorizing EPA to disclose TSCA CBI to state, tribal, and local governments; environmental, health, and medical professionals; and emergency responders, under certain conditions, including consistency with guidance that EPA is required to develop. This document announces the availability of three guidance documents that address this requirement.
As directed by TSCA, EPA has developed guidance for each of three new expanded TSCA CBI access provisions. The guidance documents cover the content and form of the agreements and statements of need required under each provision, and include some basic logistical information on where and how to submit requests to EPA.
EPA maintains a list of Significant Guidance Documents at
These final documents have been determined to be EPA Significant Guidance Documents per the OMB Bulletin definition and are included on the EPA list of significant guidance documents. OMB's Bulletin directs agencies to allow for the public to submit comments on any Significant Guidance Document that appears on the Agency's list of significant guidance documents. EPA allows for public comments to be submitted through the Agency's electronic docket and commenting system at
TSCA section 14(c)(4)(B) requires that EPA develop guidance concerning the “content and form of the statements of need and agreements required” under TSCA section 14(d)(4), (5), and (6). 15 U.S.C. 2613.
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are a state, tribal, or local government, or are employed by a
The potential incremental economic impacts that are associated with the information collection activities contained in the guidance documents are enumerated in the Information Collection Request (ICR) entitled “Guidance on Expanded Access to TSCA Confidential Business Information” (EPA ICR No. 2570.01 and OMB Control No. 2070-(new)), which published in the
Enacted on June 22, 2016, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Pub. L. 114-182), changed and expanded many parts of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2601
• Under TSCA section 14(d)(4), 15 U.S.C. 2613(d)(4), EPA may disclose CBI to state, tribal, and local governments;
• Under TSCA section 14(d)(5), 15 U.S.C. 2613(d)(5), EPA may, in non-emergency situations, disclose CBI to a health or environmental professional employed by a Federal or state agency or tribal government, or to a treating physician or nurse; and
• Under TSCA section 14(d)(6), 15 U.S.C. 2613(d)(6), EPA may, in the event of an emergency, disclose CBI to a treating or responding physician, nurse, agent of a poison control center, public health or environmental official of a state, political subdivision of a state, or tribal government, or to a first responder (including any individual duly authorized by a Federal agency, state, political subdivision of a state, or tribal government who is trained in urgent medical care or other emergency procedures, including a police officer, firefighter, or emergency medical technician).
The conditions for access vary under each of the new provisions, but generally include the following;
• The requester must show that he or she has a need for the information related to their employment, professional, or legal duties;
• The recipient of TSCA CBI is prohibited from disclosing or permitting further disclosure of the information to individuals not authorized to receive it (physicians/nurses may disclose the information to their patient or person authorized to make medical or health care decisions on behalf of the patient); and
• EPA generally must notify the entity that made the CBI claim at least 15 days prior to disclosing the CBI. There is an exception for disclosures in emergency situations, which require that EPA make the notification as soon as practicable (
In addition, under these new provisions, requesters are generally required to sign an agreement and may be required to submit a statement of need to EPA. Emergency requestors only need to sign an agreement and submit a statement of need if the person who made the claim so requests, following the notification required under TSCA section 14(g)(2)(C)(ii).
EPA previously collected public comment on draft versions of the three guidance documents (83 FR 11748 (March 16, 2018)). Thirteen relevant comments were received, from state governments and government organizations (3), tribal governments (2), industry (3), a utility group (1), a fire fighters' organization (1), and medical, health and environmental groups (3). Most commentary on the guidance documents concerned EPA's request processing time; the scope of some definitions in the 14(d)(5) and (d)(6) documents; requested additional means through which to request or access information; suggested revisions to a provision in the confidentiality agreements included in the 14(d)(5) and (d)(6) documents; or requested that EPA establish a contact available for emergency requests after business hours. A Response to Comments document is available in the docket for this action.
The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically referenced in this document. The docket includes these documents and other information considered by EPA, including documents that are referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, even if the referenced document is not physically located in the docket. For assistance in locating these other documents, please consult the person listed under
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
OMB has determined that these guidance documents qualify as significant under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). As such, the documents were submitted to OMB for review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). Any changes to the documents that were made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action as required by section 6(a)(3)(E) of Executive Order 12866.
In the
This action is not subject to the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. As such, the requirements of UMRA sections 202, 203, 204, or 205, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, do not apply to this action.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).
Consistent with the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes, the EPA consulted with tribal officials during the development of this action. EPA coordinated and engaged with tribal partners early in the process during the development of the guidance documents as well as continued to conduct outreach to tribes during the release of the draft guidance documents. In addition, EPA held a tribal consultation with tribes that requested further information. The Agency plans to continue to work with our tribal partners to introduce the guidance and provide a forum for open dialogue with tribes.
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of Executive Order 13045. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate environmental health risks or safety risks.
This action is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on energy supply, distribution, or use. This action is announcing the availability of guidance concerning obtaining access to CBI under TSCA, which will not have a significant effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy.
Since this action does not involve any technical standards, NTTAA section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) does not apply to this action.
EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). This action does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
15 U.S.C. 2613(c).
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA is announcing the availability of the following guidance document: “
Submit comments on or before August 27, 2018.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0292, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are a company needing assistance in creating structurally descriptive generic names for chemical substances whose specific chemical identities are claimed confidential, for purposes of protecting the specific chemical identities from disclosure and listing the substances on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory. This action may be of particular interest to entities that are regulated under TSCA (
1.
2.
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0292, is available online at
As amended by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act in June 2016, TSCA section 14(c)(4), 15 U.S.C. 2613(c)(4), requires that EPA develop guidance regarding the determination of structurally descriptive generic names provided for chemical substances whose specific chemical identities have been claimed confidential in a TSCA notice. TSCA section 14(c)(1)(C) was amended to require submitters who assert a confidentiality claim for specific chemical identity to include a structurally descriptive generic name for the chemical substance that EPA may disclose to the public. The generic name must be consistent with EPA's guidance, and should describe the chemical structure of the substance as specifically as practicable while protecting those features of the chemical structure that are claimed as confidential and the disclosure of which would be likely to cause substantial harm to the competitive position of the claimant.
EPA is announcing the availability of the following guidance document: “
EPA previously published guidance to assist companies in creating structurally descriptive generic names in an appendix to the 1985 publication of the TSCA Inventory (Appendix B, “
As a nonbinding guidance document, this updated guidance document is a living document which may be revised periodically and without notice. In addition to seeking comments within the next 60 days, EPA welcomes public input on this guidance document at any time in the future.
15 U.S.C. 2613(c)(4).
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
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before August 27, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email to
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
47 CFR Section 76.73 provides that equal opportunity in employment shall be afforded by all multichannel video program distributors (“MVPD”) to all qualified persons and no person shall be discriminated against in employment by such entities because of race, color, religion, national origin, age or sex.
Section 76.75 requires that each MVPD employment unit employing six or more full-time employees shall establish, maintain and carry out a program to assure equal opportunity in every aspect of a cable entity's policy and practice.
Section 76.79 requires that every MVPD employment unit employing six or more full-time employees maintain, for public inspection, a file containing copies of all annual employment reports and related documents.
Section 76.1702 requires that every MVPD employment unit employing six or more full-time employees place certain information concerning its EEO program in its public inspection file.
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 August 27, 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
FCC Form 498 enables participants to request a Service Provider Identification Number (SPIN) and provides the official record for participation in the universal service support mechanisms. The remittance information provided by participants on FCC Form 498 enables USAC to make payments to participants in the universal service support mechanisms.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before August 27, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email to
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
The information collection requirements approved under this collection are as follows:
47 CFR 25.701(c)(1)(i)(C) states DBS providers may establish and define their own reasonable classes of immediately preemptible time so long as the differences between such classes are based on one or more demonstrable benefits associated with each class and are not based solely upon price or identity of the advertiser. Such demonstrable benefits include, but are not limited to, varying levels of preemption protection, scheduling flexibility, or associated privileges, such as guaranteed time sensitive make goods. DBS providers may not use class distinctions to defeat the purpose of the lowest unit charge requirement. All classes must be fully disclosed and made available to candidates.
47 CFR 25.701(c)(1)(i)(D) states DBS providers may establish reasonable classes of preemptible with notice time so long as they clearly define all such classes, fully disclose them and make them available to candidates.
47 CFR 25.701(c)(1)(i)(E) states DBS providers may treat non preemptible and fixed position as distinct classes of time provided that they articulate clearly the differences between such classes, fully disclose them, and make them available to candidates.
47 CFR 25.701(c)(1)(i)(I) states DBS providers shall review their advertising records periodically throughout the election period to determine whether compliance with this section requires that candidates receive rebates or credits. Where necessary, DBS providers shall issue such rebates or credits promptly.
47 CFR 25.701(c)(1)(i)(M) states DBS providers must disclose and make available to candidates any make good policies provided to commercial advertisers. If a DBS provider places a make good for any commercial advertiser or other candidate in a more valuable program or daypart, the value of such make good must be included in the calculation of the lowest unit charge for that program or daypart.
47 CFR 25.701(c)(1)(ii) states at any time other than the respective periods set forth in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section, DBS providers may charge legally qualified candidates for public office no more than the charges made for comparable use of the facility by commercial advertisers. The rates, if any, charged all such candidates for the same office shall be uniform and shall not be rebated by any means, direct or indirect. A candidate shall be charged no more than the rate the DBS provider would charge for comparable commercial advertising. All discount privileges otherwise offered by a DBS provider to commercial advertisers must be disclosed and made available upon equal terms to all candidates for public office.
47 CFR 25.701(d) states each DBS provider shall keep and permit public inspection of a complete and orderly political file and shall prominently disclose the physical location of the file, and the telephonic and electronic means to access the file.
(1) The political file shall contain, at a minimum:
(i) A record of all requests for DBS origination time, the disposition of those requests, and the charges made, if any, if the request is granted. The “disposition” includes the schedule of time purchased, when spots actually
(ii) A record of the free time provided if free time is provided for use by or on behalf of candidates.
(2) DBS providers shall place all records required by this section in a file available to the public as soon as possible and shall be retained for a period of four years until December 31, 2006, and thereafter for a period of two years.
47 CFR 25.701(e)(3) requires DBS providers airing children's programming must maintain records sufficient to verify compliance with this rule and make such records available to the public. Such records must be maintained for a period sufficient to cover the limitations period specified in 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(6)(B).
47 CFR 25.701(f)(6) states that each DBS provider shall keep and permit public inspection of a complete and orderly record of:
(A) Quarterly measurements of channel capacity and yearly average calculations on which it bases its four percent reservation, as well as its response to any capacity changes;
(B) A record of entities to whom noncommercial capacity is being provided, the amount of capacity being provided to each entity, the conditions under which it is being provided and the rates, if any, being paid by the entity;
(C) A record of entities that have requested capacity, disposition of those requests and reasons for the disposition.
(ii) All records required by this paragraph shall be placed in a file available to the public as soon as possible and shall be retained for a period of two years.
The statutory authority which covers this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 335 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.
The Commission is reinstating this collection into the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB's) inventory because after further evaluation the Commission has determined that this collection is still needed by the Commission because DBS providers make up the majority of their universe of respondents. Since this is the case, OMB approval is still needed for this collection.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than July 17, 2018.
1.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a proposed and/or continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection project titled “Environmental Health and Land Reuse Certification” This certification is a joint collaboration with National Environmental Health Association (NEHA); ATSDR will jointly co-produce the course with NEHA.
Written comments must be received on or before August 27, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. ATSDR-2018-0005 by any of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Jeffrey M. Zirger, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
5. Assess information collection costs.
Environmental Health and Land Reuse Certification—New—ICR—Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR).
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) is requesting a three-year Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) Clearance for a new Information Collection Request (ICR) entitled “Environmental Health and Land Reuse Certification.” The specific activities of the ICR request are for a course registration process and one-time participant follow up. This information collection is funded through a contract with the National Environmental Health Association (NEHA), number 200-2013-57475.
The purpose of the information collection is to allow environmental health professionals to register for courses and evaluate the impact of certification program in environmental health and land reuse work. The certification is geared to meet the following objectives:
• Increase participant awareness and knowledge of environmental health and land reuse;
• Increase skills and capacity of participants to engage in environmental health and land reuse work; and
• Assess participant feedback and assessment of their own increased awareness, skills, and knowledge in environmental health and land reuse.
ATSDR will use data from this information collection to assess the impact of participating in the certification, such as increased capacity to perform their work. Ultimately, ATSDR is interested in long-term benefits of the certification, such as state health partners engaging more frequently in land reuse and redevelopment projects. The certification consists of online learning content in NEHA's Learning Management System. The content includes topics in Risk Assessment, Risk Communication, Epidemiology, Toxicology, and Land Reuse and Redevelopment.
Through this information collection, ATSDR would like to determine the utility and effectiveness of the certification course content. Subsequently, ATSDR will analyze the data provided by NEHA regarding participants' job titles (
The respondents for the certification course will largely be environmental professionals; students of environmental science, public health, or planning; and local or state health agency professionals. ATSDR may use Excel or other spreadsheet software to characterize certification course participants (
In summary, the registration and feedback information will help ATSDR determine impacts of the certification course in building capacity and skills in environmental health and land reuse. Without this information, ATSDR will not be able to assess the effectiveness of the certification in terms of building participants' capacity in environmental health and land reuse activities. In addition, ATSDR can generalize feedback from course participants to create new materials that can support additional capacity-building for health agencies to increase their involvement in environmental health and land reuse activities.
This information collection will occur through an ongoing, online portal hosted by NEHA's standardized course registration process and their standardized feedback using Survey Monkey one time within a 12-month period. NEHA will collect feedback data about the certification course. The feedback data will center around participant's assessment of their own potentially increased skills in environmental health and land reuse as a result of the certification and use of subsequent certification components. Participation in this proposed information collection is voluntary. There is no cost to respondents other than their time. The total burden is estimated to be 100 hours.
Section 110 of the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 extended funding for outreach and assistance for low income programs under the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act (MIPPA). Older Americans Act (OAA) Title VI Native American Programs can fill an important role in providing valuable support to help eligible Native American elders in accessing the Low Income Subsidy program (LIS), Medicare Savings Program (MSP), Medicare Part D, Medicare prevention benefits and screenings and in assisting beneficiaries in applying for benefits. The purpose of these MIPPA grants will be to help inform eligible Native American elders about these benefits. The Administration for Community Living (ACL) seeks certification from OAA Title VI Native American programs that they will use the funds to coordinate at least one community announcement and at least one community outreach event to inform and assist eligible American Indian, Alaska Native or Native Hawaiian elders about the benefits available to them through Medicare Part D, the Low Income Subsidy, the Medicare Savings Program or Medicare prevention benefits and screenings and counsel those who are eligible.
ACL/AoA has a total budget of $270,000 for the Tribes and will provide a grant of at least $1,000 to each Older Americans Act Title VI Native American grantee. ACL reserves the right to adjust funding levels subject to the number of applications received and availability of funds. ACL/AoA will award grants of at least $1,000 to each Title VI Native American grantee for a period of 12 months. The example of at least $1,000 per event is for illustrative purposes only. All expenditures must be properly documented and allowable per the terms and conditions of the grant award. The anticipated award date is on or before September 30, 2018.
Only current Older Americans Act Title VI Native American Program grantees are eligible to apply for this funding opportunity. Cost Sharing or Matching is not required.
The program instructions and one-page application template for this funding opportunity are available at
To receive consideration, signed applications must be submitted by 11:59 p.m. Eastern time on August 17, 2018. No applications will be accepted after this date. Submit your signed application via:
(1) Email to
(2) Overnight mail (FedEx, UPS, or USPS) to: Administration for Community Living, Office of Grants Management, 330 C Street SW, Suite 1136B, Washington, DC 20201; Attention: Yi-Hsin Yan.
Direct inquiries regarding this funding opportunity to U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Community Living, Administration on Aging, Washington, DC 20201, attention: Cecelia Aldridge or by calling (202) 795-7293 or by email
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public meeting; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing the following public meeting entitled “FDA's Comprehensive, Multi-Year Nutrition Innovation Strategy.” The purpose of the public meeting is to give interested persons an opportunity to discuss FDA's nutrition innovation strategy, including: A standard icon or symbol for the claim “healthy”; a more efficient review strategy for evaluating qualified health claims; statements or claims that could facilitate innovation to promote healthful eating patterns; approaches for modernizing standards of identity; possible changes that could make ingredient information more consumer friendly; and FDA's educational campaign for consumers about the updated Nutrition Facts Label that consumers will be seeing in the marketplace.
The public meeting will be held on July 26, 2018, from 8:30 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. Eastern Time. Submit either electronic or written comments on this public meeting by August 27, 2018. See the
The public meeting will be held at the Hilton Washington DC/Rockville Hotel, 1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. For more information on the hotel see
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered.
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” We will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in our consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
FDA plays a critical role in promoting public health by, among other things, ensuring that food labeling provides consumers with reliable, evidence-based information so that they can make informed choices about the foods they purchase in order to maintain and improve their health through diet and nutrition. On January 11, 2018, FDA released its 2018 Strategic Policy Roadmap (
On March 29, 2018, FDA Commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb, M.D. announced a comprehensive, multi-year FDA Nutrition Innovation Strategy (hereinafter the “FDA Nutrition Innovation Strategy”) (to access the speech, visit
FDA will host a 1-day meeting to provide stakeholders and other interested persons an opportunity to have an in-depth discussion on various aspects of the FDA Nutrition Innovation Strategy and to provide input on ways to modernize FDA's approach to better protect public health while removing barriers to industry innovation. FDA expects that the topics addressed at the meeting will include the following (a more detailed agenda will be made available prior to the meeting):
• Considering using a standard icon to denote the claim “healthy” on food labels.
• Creating a more efficient review strategy for evaluating qualified health claims on food labels.
• Discussing new or enhanced labeling statements or claims that could facilitate innovation to produce more healthful foods and more healthful consumer food choices.
• Modernizing the standards of identity to provide more flexibility for the development of healthier products, while making sure consumers have accurate information about these food products.
• Providing opportunities to make ingredient information more helpful to consumers.
• FDA's educational campaign for consumers about the updated Nutrition Facts Label.
We invite interested parties to provide information on the above and other topics related to the FDA Nutrition Innovation Strategy.
Registration is free and based on space availability, with priority given to early registrants. Persons interested in attending this public meeting must register by July 19, 2018, midnight Eastern Time. Early registration is recommended because seating is limited; therefore, FDA may limit the number of participants from each organization. Registrants will receive confirmation when they have been accepted.
If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Juanita Yates (see
Office of HIV/AIDS and Infectious Disease Policy, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announces the seventh meeting of the Tick-Borne Disease Working Group (Working Group) on July 24, 2018, from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Eastern Time. The seventh meeting will be an on-line meeting held via webcast. The Working Group will review and vote on the content of the five chapters that will be included in the Working Group's Report to Congress.
The on-line meeting will be held on July 24, 2018, from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
This will be an on-line meeting that is held via webcast. Members of the public may attend the meeting via webcast. Instructions for attending this virtual meeting will be posted prior to the meeting at:
James Berger, Office of HIV/AIDS and Infectious Disease Policy, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Department of Health and Human Services; via email at
The Working Group invites public comment on issues related to the Working Group's charge. Comments may be provided over the phone during the meeting or in writing. Persons who wish to provide comments by phone should review directions at
During the meeting, the Working Group will review and vote on the content of the five draft chapters that will be included in the Working Group's Report to Congress. Persons who wish to receive the draft chapters should email the
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Council for Complementary and Integrative Health.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
New or modified Base (1-percent annual chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, and/or regulatory floodways (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations) as shown on the indicated Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for each of the communities listed in the table below are finalized. Each LOMR revises the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and in some cases the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, currently in effect for the listed communities. The flood hazard determinations modified by each LOMR will be used to calculate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and their contents.
Each LOMR was finalized as in the table below.
Each LOMR is available for inspection at both the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the table below and online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final flood hazard determinations as shown in the LOMRs for each community listed in the table below. Notice of these modified flood hazard determinations has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
The modified flood hazard determinations are made pursuant to section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
The new or modified flood hazard information is the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
This new or modified flood hazard information, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities.
This new or modified flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings, and for the contents in those buildings. The changes in flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the final flood hazard information available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
New or modified Base (1-percent annual chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, and/or regulatory floodways (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations) as shown on the indicated Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for each of the communities listed in the table below are finalized. Each LOMR revises the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and in some cases the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, currently in effect for the listed communities. The flood hazard determinations modified by each LOMR will be used to calculate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and their contents.
Each LOMR was finalized as in the table below.
Each LOMR is available for inspection at both the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the table below and online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final flood hazard determinations as shown in the LOMRs for each community listed in the table
The modified flood hazard determinations are made pursuant to section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
The new or modified flood hazard information is the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
This new or modified flood hazard information, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities.
This new or modified flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings, and for the contents in those buildings. The changes in flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the final flood hazard information available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for comment/information.
We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have received an application for an incidental take permit (ITP) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The City of Groveland is requesting a 10-year ITP for take of the sand skink. We request public comment on the permit application, which includes the proposed habitat conservation plan, as well as on our preliminary determination that the plan qualifies as low-effect under the National Environmental Policy Act. To make this determination, we used our environmental action statement and low-effect screening form, which are also available for review.
To ensure consideration, please send your written comments by July 27, 2018.
If you wish to review the application, including the HCP, as well as our environmental action statement or low-effect screening form, you may request the documents by email, U.S. mail, or phone. These documents are also available for public inspection by appointment during normal business hours at the office below. Send your comments or requests by any one of the following methods.
Erin M. Gawera, telephone: (904) 731-3121; email:
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
Regulations governing incidental take permits for endangered and threatened species are at 50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32, respectively. In addition to meeting other criteria, an incidental take permit's proposed actions must not jeopardize the existence of federally listed fish, wildlife, or plants.
The City of Groveland is requesting a 10-year ITP to take approximately 1.57 acres (ac) of occupied sand skink (
We have determined that the applicant's proposal, including the proposed mitigation and minimization measures, would have minor or negligible effects on the species covered in the HCP. Therefore, we have determined that the incidental take permit for this project would be “low effect” and qualify for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as provided by 43 CFR 46.205 and 43 CFR 46.210. A low-effect HCP is one involving (1) minor or negligible effects on federally listed or candidate species and their habitats, and (2) minor or negligible effects on other environmental values or resources.
We will evaluate the HCP and comments we receive to determine whether the ITP application meets the requirements of section 10(a) of the ESA. We will also conduct an intra-Service consultation to evaluate whether issuance of the ITP would comply with section 7 of the ESA. We will use the results of this consultation, in combination with the above findings, in our final analysis to determine whether or not to issue the ITP. If the requirements are met, we will issue ITP number TE69161C-0 to the applicant.
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.
We provide this notice under section 10 of the ESA and NEPA regulation 40 CFR 1506.6.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The plats of survey of the following described lands are scheduled to be officially filed in the Bureau of Land Management, Idaho State Office, Boise, Idaho, in 30 days from the date of this publication.
A copy of the plats may be obtained from the Public Room at the Bureau of Land Management, Idaho State Office, 1387 S. Vinnell Way, Boise, Idaho 83709, upon required payment.
Timothy A. Quincy, 208-373-3981 Branch of Cadastral Survey, Bureau of Land Management, 1387 South Vinnell
A person or party who wishes to protest one or more plats of survey identified above must file a written notice with the Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Idaho, Bureau of Land Management. The protest must identify the plat(s) of survey that the person or party wishes to protest and contain all reasons and evidence in support of the protest. The protest must be filed before the scheduled date of official filing for the plat(s) of survey being protested. Any protest filed after the scheduled date of official filing will be untimely and will not be considered. A protest is considered filed on the date it is received by the Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Idaho during regular business hours; if received after regular business hours, a protest will be considered filed the next business day. If a protest against a plat of survey is received prior to the scheduled date of official filing, the official filing of the plat of survey identified in the protest will be stayed pending consideration of the protest. A plat of survey will not be officially filed until the next business day following dismissal or resolution of all protests of the plat.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in a protest, you should be aware that the documents you submit, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available in their entirety at any time. While you can ask us to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of official filing.
The plats of survey of lands described in this notice are scheduled to be officially filed in the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), California State Office, Sacramento, California 30 calendar days from the date of this publication. The surveys, which were executed at the request of U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Reclamation, Department of Defense, Bureau of Indian Affairs and Bureau of Land Management, are necessary for the management of these lands.
Unless there are protests to this action, the plats described in this notice will be filed on July 27, 2018.
You may submit written protests to the BLM California State Office, Cadastral Survey, 2800 Cottage Way W-1623, Sacramento, CA 95825. A copy of the plats may be obtained from the BLM, California State Office, 2800 Cottage Way W-1623, Sacramento, California 95825, upon required payment.
Jon Kehler, Chief, Branch of Cadastral Survey, Bureau of Land Management, California State Office, 2800 Cottage Way W-1623, Sacramento, California 95825; 1-916-978-4323;
The lands surveyed are:
A person or party who wishes to protest one or more plats of survey must file a written notice of protest within 30 calendar days from the date of this publication at the address listed in the
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your
43 U.S.C., Chapter 3.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of expedited reviews pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on drawn stainless steel sinks from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.
June 4, 2018.
Drew Dushkes ((202) 205-3229), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
For further information concerning the conduct of these reviews and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the reviews must be served on all other parties to the reviews (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
This review is being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries gives notice of a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Actuarial Examinations (portions of which will be open to the public) at the Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC, on July 12 and 13, 2018.
Thursday, July 12, 2018, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and Friday, July 13, 2018, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Internal Revenue Service; 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224.
Ms. Elizabeth Van Osten, Designated Federal Officer, Advisory Committee on Actuarial Examinations, (703) 414-2163.
Notice is hereby given that the Advisory
The purpose of the meeting is to discuss topics and questions that may be recommended for inclusion on future Joint Board examinations in actuarial mathematics and methodology referred to in 29 U.S.C. 1242(a)(1)(B) and to review the May 2018 Pension (EA-2L) and Basic (EA-1) Examinations in order to make recommendations relative thereto, including the minimum acceptable pass scores. Topics for inclusion on the syllabus for the Joint Board's examination program for the November 2018 Pension (EA-2F) Examination will be discussed.
A determination has been made as required by section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., that the portions of the meeting dealing with the discussion of questions that may appear on the Joint Board's examinations and the review of the May 2018 EA-2L and EA-1 Examinations fall within the exceptions to the open meeting requirement set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B), and that the public interest requires that such portions be closed to public participation.
The portion of the meeting dealing with the discussion of the other topics will commence at 1:00 p.m. on July 12, 2018, and will continue for as long as necessary to complete the discussion, but not beyond 3:00 p.m. Time permitting, after the close of this discussion by Committee members, interested persons may make statements germane to this subject. Persons wishing to make oral statements should notify the Joint Board in writing prior to the meeting in order to aid in scheduling the time available and should submit the written text, or at a minimum, an outline of comments they propose to make orally. Such comments will be limited to 10 minutes in length. All persons planning to attend the public session should notify the Joint Board in writing to obtain building entry. Notifications of intent to make an oral statement or to attend must be sent electronically, by no later than July 5, 2018, to
The Legal Services Corporation's Finance Committee will meet telephonically on July 12, 2018. The meeting will commence at 4:00 p.m., EDT, and will continue until the conclusion of the Committee's agenda.
John N. Erlenborn Conference Room, Legal Services Corporation Headquarters, 3333 K Street NW, Washington DC 20007.
Members of the public who are unable to attend in person but wish to listen to the public proceedings may do so by following the telephone call-in directions provided below.
• Call toll-free number: 1-866-451-4981;
• When prompted, enter the following numeric pass code: 5907707348;
• When connected to the call, please immediately “MUTE” your telephone.
Members of the public are asked to keep their telephones muted to eliminate background noises. To avoid disrupting the meeting, please refrain from placing the call on hold if doing so will trigger recorded music or other sound. From time to time, the Chair may solicit comments from the public.
Open.
Katherine Ward, Executive Assistant to the Vice President & General Counsel, at (202) 295-1500. Questions may be sent by electronic mail to
LSC complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act. Upon request, meeting notices and materials will be made available in alternative formats to accommodate individuals with disabilities. Individuals needing other accommodations due to disability in order to attend the meeting in person or telephonically should contact Katherine Ward, at (202) 295-1500 or
Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO), National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Notice of Advisory Committee meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act and implementing regulations, NARA announces a meeting of the National Industrial Security Program Policy Advisory Committee.
The meeting will be on July 19, 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. The meeting will be open to the public. However, due to space limitations and access procedures, you must submit the name and
National Endowment for the Arts, National Foundation On the Arts and the Humanities.
Notice of proposed collection; comment request.
The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This program helps to ensure that requested data is provided in the desired format; reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized; collection instruments are clearly understood; and the impact of collection requirements on respondents is properly assessed. Currently, the National Endowment for the Arts is soliciting comments concerning the proposed information collection of Final Descriptive Reports for recipients of the National Endowment for the Arts grant awards. A copy of the information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the address section of this notice.
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the address section below within 60 days from the date of this publication in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Can help the agency minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the electronic submission of responses.
Send comments to Sunil Iyengar, National Endowment for the Arts, 400 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20506-0001, Telephone (202) 682-5424 (this is not a toll-free number), Fax (202) 682-5677, or send via email to
Sunil Iyengar, Research & Analysis Director, National Endowment for the Arts, at (202) 682-5424 or
The ACRS Subcommittee on Planning and Procedures will hold a meeting on July 10, 2018, 11545 Rockville Pike, Room T-2B3, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
The meeting will be open to public attendance.
The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
The Subcommittee will discuss proposed ACRS activities and related matters. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the Full Committee.
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official (DFO), Quynh Nguyen (Telephone 301-415-5844 or Email:
Information regarding changes to the agenda, whether the meeting has been canceled or rescheduled, and the time allotted to present oral statements can be obtained by contacting the identified DFO. Moreover, in view of the possibility that the schedule for ACRS meetings may be adjusted by the Chairman as necessary to facilitate the conduct of the meeting, persons planning to attend should check with the DFO if such rescheduling would result in a major inconvenience.
If attending this meeting, please enter through the One White Flint North building, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. After registering with Security, please contact Mr. Theron Brown at 301-415-6702 to be escorted to the meeting room.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License amendment request; notice of opportunity to comment, request a hearing, and petition for leave to intervene.
On June 19, 2018, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published a biweekly notice providing the public with the opportunity to comment, request a hearing, and petition for leave to intervene. Due to a publication error, which was corrected
Comments must be filed by July 27, 2018. A request for a hearing must be filed by August 27, 2018.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Peter C. Hearn, Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1189, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0125, when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2018-0125, facility name, unit number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
On June 19, 2018, the NRC published a biweekly notice providing the public with the opportunity to comment, request a hearing, and petition for leave to intervene (83 FR 28456). Due to a publication error, which was corrected by the Office of the Federal Register in a
Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the NRC is publishing this notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.
The Commission has made a proposed determination that this amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in section 50.92 of title 10 of the
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission takes action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's website at
As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d), the petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements for standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner must provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to the specific sources and documents on which the petitioner intends to rely to support its position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions must be limited to matters within the scope of the proceeding. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene. Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.
Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document.
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of the amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section, except that under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located within its boundaries. Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 46562; August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC website at
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public website at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public website at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
For further details with respect to this license amendment application, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional direction on accessing information related to this document, see the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed changes do not affect the operation of any systems or equipment that initiate an analyzed accident or alter any structures, systems, and components (SSC) accident initiator or initiating sequence of events.
The proposed changes do not affect the physical design and operation of the Passive Residual Heat Removal Heat Exchanger (PRHR HX) or In-containment Refueling Water Storage Tank (IRWST) as described in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report
The proposed changes do not affect the ability of the PRHR HX and IRWST to perform their design functions. The designs of the PRHR HX and IRWST continue to meet the same regulatory acceptance criteria, codes, and standards as required by the UFSAR. In addition, the proposed changes maintain the capabilities of the PRHR HX and IRWST to mitigate the consequences of an accident and to meet the applicable regulatory acceptance criteria.
The proposed changes do not affect the prevention and mitigation of other abnormal events (
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed changes do not affect the operation of any systems or equipment that may initiate a new or different kind of accident, or alter any SSC such that a new accident initiator or initiating sequence of events is created.
The proposed changes do not affect any other SSC design functions or methods of operation in a manner that results in a new failure mode, malfunction, or sequence of events that affect safety-related or nonsafety related equipment. Therefore, this activity does not allow for a new fission product release path, result in a new fission product barrier failure mode, or create a new sequence of events that result in significant fuel cladding failures.
Therefore, the requested amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different type of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed changes maintain existing safety margins. The proposed changes verify and maintain the capabilities of the PRHR HX and IRWST to perform their design functions. Therefore, the proposed changes satisfy the same design functions in accordance with the same codes and standards as stated in the UFSAR. These changes do not affect any design code, function, design analysis, safety analysis input or result, or design/safety margin.
No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the proposed changes, and no margin of safety is reduced.
Therefore, the requested amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License amendment application; opportunity to comment, request a hearing, and petition for leave to intervene.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuance of an amendment to Combined Licenses (NPF-91 and NPF-92), issued to Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC), and Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, MEAG Power SPVM, LLC, MEAG Power SPVJ, LLC, MEAG Power SPVP, LLC, Authority of Georgia, and the City of Dalton, Georgia (together “the licensees”), for construction and operation of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 3 and 4, located in Burke County, Georgia.
Submit must be filed by July 27, 2018. Requests for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene must be filed by August 27, 2018.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Paul B. Kallan, Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-000; telephone: 301-415-2809; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2008-0252 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2008-0252 in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
The NRC is considering issuance of an amendment to Combined License Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92, issued to SNC and Georgia Power Company for operation of the VEGP, Units 3 and 4, located in Burke County, Georgia.
The proposed changes would revise commitments related to the construction fitness-for-duty (FFD) program described in the VEGP, Units 3 and 4 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). Specifically, the change would involve the creation of a new type of FFD Authorization that would allow construction workers temporary access to the construction site pending completion of all pre-access FFD requirements. The individual will not be given assignments to work on safety or security-related structures, systems, and components prior to the completion of the FFD requirements.
Before any issuance of the proposed license amendment, the NRC will need to make the findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and NRC's regulations.
The NRC has made a proposed determination that the license amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the NRC's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (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. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed changes to the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) 3 and 4 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) commitment related to the construction worker Fitness-for-Duty (FFD) program do not affect the design of a system, structure, or component (SSC) used to meet the design bases of the nuclear plant. Nor do the changes affect the construction or operation of the nuclear plant itself, so there is no change to the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Changing the VEGP 3 and 4 FFD program commitments do not affect prevention and mitigation of abnormal events (
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed changes to the VEGP 3 and 4 UFSAR commitment related to the construction worker FFD program
No analysis is adversely affected. No system or design function or equipment qualification is adversely affected by the changes. This activity will not allow for a new fission product release path, nor will it result in a new fission product barrier failure mode, nor create a new sequence of events that would result in significant fuel cladding failures.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed changes to the VEGP 3 and 4 UFSAR commitment related to the construction worker FFD program do not alter any safety-related equipment, applicable design codes, code compliance, design function, or safety analysis. Consequently, no safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the proposed changes, thus the margin of safety is not reduced.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the license amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
The NRC is seeking public comments on this proposed determination that the license amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day notice period if the Commission concludes the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, the Commission will publish a notice of issuance in the
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and a petition to intervene (petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309,
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest. The petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion to support its position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the proceeding. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that person's admitted contentions consistent with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.
Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii).
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1).
The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission by August 27, 2018. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section, except that under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located within its boundaries. A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may also have the opportunity to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
If a hearing is granted, any person who does not wish, or is not qualified, to become a party to the proceeding may, in the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of position on the issues, but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene (hereinafter “petition”), and documents filed by interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 46562, August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public website at
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit a petition. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF). Additional guidance on PDF submissions is available on the NRC's public website at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public website at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
For further details with respect to this action, see the application for license amendment dated June 15, 2018.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning negotiated service agreements. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service has filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The requests(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the market dominant or the competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the market dominant or the competitive product list.
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern market dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3010, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.
1.
2.
This notice will be published in the
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(7) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”),
On November 27, 2017, NFA filed this proposed rule change with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) and requested that the CFTC make a determination that review of the proposed rule change of NFA is not necessary. By letter dated December 11, 2017, the CFTC notified NFA of its determination not to review the proposed rule change.
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the self-regulatory organization's office, on the NFA's website at
NFA's Interpretive Notice to NFA Compliance Rule 2-9 entitled “NFA Compliance Rule 2-9: Enhanced Supervisory Requirements” (“Interpretive Notice”) requires NFA Member (“Member”) firms that meet certain criteria identified by NFA's Board of Directors (“Board”) to comply with specific enhanced supervisory requirements (“Requirements”) that are designed to prevent abusive sales practices. NFA's Board is amending the Interpretive Notice to require all Members subject to the Requirements to maintain a record of all electronic written communications between associated persons (“APs”) and customers or potential customers, including but not limited to, email, text messages, instant messages, and any other communication that occurs in a chat room or on any social media platform. The proposed rule change also requires all Member firms subject to the Requirements of the Interpretive Notice to prepare a catalog of electronic written communications and for APs to maintain a log of those written electronic communications. The text of the proposed rule change to the Interpretive Notice is found in Exhibit 4.
In its filing with the Commission, NFA 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. NFA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Section 15A(k) of the Exchange Act
NFA's Interpretive Notice to Compliance Rule 2-9(b) authorizes NFA's Board to require Members to adopt certain enhanced supervisory requirements based upon the regulatory background of either its APs or principals. The Interpretive Notice is designed to, among other things, minimize the likelihood of a Member engaging in deceptive sales practices. One of the more important Requirements with respect to minimizing sales practice problems is the requirement that firms make audio
Given the popularity of electronic written communications, NFA's Board is amending the Interpretive Notice to explicitly state that all Members subject to the Requirements are required to maintain a record of all electronic written communications, including but not limited to, emails, text messages, instant messages, and any other communication that occurs in a chat room or on any social media platform. NFA's Board is also amending the Interpretive Notice to require Member firms subject to the Requirements to prepare a catalog of electronic written communications and require APs to maintain a log of those written electronic communications. This modification to the Interpretive Notice merely parallels the current cataloging and AP log requirement for telephone sales solicitations and ensures that, for firms subject to the Requirements, all sales solicitations—regardless of the method by which they occur—are maintained, cataloged, and logged by the firm's APs.
Amendments to the Interpretive Notice were previously filed with the SEC in SR-NFA-2002-07, Exchange Act Release No. 34-47147 (Jan. 9, 2003), 68 FR 2383 (Jan. 16, 2003); SR-NFA-2003-01, Exchange Act Release No. 34-47533 (Mar. 19, 2003), 68 FR 14733 (March 26, 2003); SR-NFA-2005-01, Exchange Act Release No. 34-52808 (Nov. 18, 2005), 70 FR 71347 (Nov. 28, 2005); SR-NFA-2006-01 Exchange Act Release No. 34-53568 (Mar. 29, 2006), 71 FR 16850 (Apr. 4, 2006); SR-NFA-2007-03, Exchange Act Release No. 34-55710 (May 4, 2007), 72 FR 26858 (May 11, 2007); SR-NFA-2007-07, Exchange Act Release No. 34-57142 (Jan. 14, 2008), 73 FR 3502 (Jan. 18, 2008); SR-NFA-2008-02, Exchange Act Release No. 34-58709 (Oct. 1, 2008), 73 FR 59011 (Oct. 8, 2008); SR-NFA-2010-04, Exchange Act Release No. 34-63602 (Dec. 22, 2010), 76 FR 202 (Jan. 3, 2011); and SR-NFA-2014-05, Exchange Act Release No. 34-72514 (July 2, 2014), 79 FR 39046 (July 9, 2014).
The proposed rule change is authorized by, and consistent with, Section 15A(k)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act.
At first glance, the proposed rule change appears to impose additional burdens on NFA Members subject to the Requirements. In practice, however, CFTC Regulation 1.35
However, CFTC Regulation 1.35 does not apply to CPOs and CTAs that are not a member of a DCM or SEF. NFA and NFA's Member Committees realize that this proposed rule would impose an additional recordkeeping requirement and additional costs to CPOs and CTAs that are not a member of a DCM or a SEF. However, NFA and NFA's Member Committees believe that this consideration is outweighed by the fact that, in NFA's experience, firms that qualify to adopt the Requirements are more likely to engage in deceptive sales solicitations and requiring these firms to maintain records of electronic written communications may reduce the likelihood of deceptive sales practices. Therefore, this burden is necessary and appropriate to help minimize deceptive sales solicitations.
Additionally, the other portion of the proposed rule change—the cataloging and AP log requirement for electronic written communication—poses minimal burden on impacted firms because it merely parallels the current cataloging and AP log requirement for telephone sales solicitations. This minimal burden is necessary and appropriate to minimize the likelihood of abusive sales practices.
NFA worked with Member Committees in developing the proposed rule change. NFA did not, however, publish the proposed rule change to the membership for comment. NFA did not receive comment letters concerning the rule change.
On December 11, 2017, the CFTC notified NFA of its determination not to review the proposed rule change.
At any time within 60 days of the date of effectiveness of the proposed rule change, the Commission, after consultation with the CFTC, may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change and require that the proposed rule change be refiled in accordance with the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Exchange 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 Exchange 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 11A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Pursuant to Rule 608(b)(3)(ii) under Regulation NMS,
The Amendment effectuates changes that certain Participants have made to their names and addresses, as set forth in Section I(A) of the UTP Plan and updates the listing of Participant identifying codes set forth in Section VIII(C) of the UTP Plan.
Not applicable.
Because the Amendment constitutes a “Ministerial Amendment” under Section XVI of the UTP Plan, the Chairman of the UTP Plan's Operating Committee may submit the Amendment to the Commission on behalf of the Participants in the UTP Plan. Because the Participants have designated the Amendment as concerned solely with the administration of the Plan, the Amendment is effective upon filing with the Commission.
Not applicable.
The Participants assert that the Amendment does not impose any burden on competition because it simply effectuates a change in the names and addresses of certain Participants. For the same reasons, the Participants do not believe that the Amendment introduces terms that are unreasonably discriminatory for purposes of Section 11A(c)(1)(D) of the Exchange Act.
Not applicable.
See Item I.C. above.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
The Commission seeks general comments on the Amendment. Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed Amendment 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.
All comments received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number S7-24-89 and should be submitted on or before July 18, 2018.
By the Commission.
To be published.
Thursday, June 28, 2018.
The following matter will also be considered during the 2 p.m. Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday, June 28, 2018:
Report on an investigation.
For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(7) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”),
On August 30, 2017, NFA also filed this proposed rule change with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) and requested that the CFTC make a determination that review of the proposed rule change of NFA is not necessary. By letter dated September 15, 2017, the CFTC notified NFA of its determination not to review the proposed rule change.
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the self-regulatory organization's office, on the NFA's website at
The technical amendment to NFA's Interpretive Notice entitled “NFA Compliance Rule 2-9: Special Supervisory Requirements for Members Registered as Broker-Dealers” (“Interpretive Notice”) references the Form 3-R. The amendment eliminates the reference to the Form 3-R. The text of the proposed technical amendment to the Interpretive Notice is found in Exhibit 4.
In its filing with the Commission, NFA 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. NFA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Section 15A(k) of the Exchange Act
NFA's registration rules need to be amended to implement the CFTC's retiring of the Form 3-R, which had been used to report changes to registration information. The CFTC eliminated the Form 3-R recognizing that in the electronic era, changes are made directly to the registration information rather than via filing a Form 3-R.
In August 2012, the CFTC eliminated the requirement that registrants and individuals use CFTC Form 3-R to update and file changes to their registration information because the online Forms 7-R and 8-R can be updated directly in NFA's Online Registration System and automatically create a record of changes equivalent to a completed Form 3-R. This amendment removes the Form 3-R reference and replaces it with the direction to report updates and file changes to registration information by, “. . . an update to the Form 7-R.”
Amendments to the Interpretive Notice were previously filed with the SEC in SR-NFA-2007-07, Exchange Act Release No. 34-57142 (Jan. 14, 2008).
The rule change is authorized by, and consistent with, Section 15A(k) of the Exchange Act.
The proposed rule change will have little or no impact on competition. The proposed amendment to the Interpretive Notice does not impose new requirements on Members.
NFA did not publish the rule change to the membership for comment. NFA did not receive comment letters concerning the rule change.
The CFTC notified NFA of its determination not to review the proposed rule change.
At any time within 60 days of the date of effectiveness of the proposed rule change, the Commission, after consultation with the CFTC, may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change and require that the proposed rule change be refiled in accordance with the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Exchange 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 Exchange 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.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice.
Notice of an application for an order under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) for an exemption from sections 2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), 22(d), and 22(e) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act, under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act, and under section 12(d)(1)(J) for an exemption from sections 12(d)(1)(A) and 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act. The requested order would permit (a) index-based series of certain open-end management investment companies (“Funds”) to issue shares redeemable in large aggregations only (“Creation Units”); (b) secondary market transactions in Fund shares to occur at negotiated market prices rather than at net asset value (“NAV”); (c) certain Funds to pay redemption proceeds, under certain circumstances, more than seven days after the tender of shares for redemption; (d) certain affiliated persons of a Fund to deposit securities into, and receive securities from, the Fund in connection with the purchase and redemption of Creation Units; (e) certain registered management investment companies and unit investment trusts outside of the same group of investment companies as the Funds (“Funds of Funds”) to acquire shares of the Funds; and (f) certain Funds (“Feeder Funds”) to create and redeem Creation Units in-kind in a master-feeder structure.
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants: Impact Shares, Corp., 2189 Broken Bend, Frisco, Texas 75034, Impact Shares Trust I, Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, and SEI Investments Distribution Co., 1 Freedom Valley Drive, Oaks, Pennsylvania 19456.
Erin C. Loomis, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-6721, or Parisa Haghshenas, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6723 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's website by searching for the file number, or for an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. Applicants request an order that would allow Funds to operate as index exchange traded funds (“ETFs”).
2. Each Fund will hold investment positions selected to correspond generally to the performance of an Underlying Index. In the case of Self-Indexing Funds, an affiliated person, as defined in section 2(a)(3) of the Act (“Affiliated Person”), or an affiliated person of an Affiliated Person (“Second-Tier Affiliate”), of the Trust or a Fund, of the Adviser, of any sub-adviser to or promoter of a Fund, or of the Distributor will compile, create, sponsor or maintain the Underlying Index.
3. Shares will be purchased and redeemed in Creation Units and generally on an in-kind basis. Except where the purchase or redemption will include cash under the limited circumstances specified in the application, purchasers will be required to purchase Creation Units by depositing specified instruments (“Deposit Instruments”), and shareholders redeeming their shares will receive specified instruments (“Redemption Instruments”). The Deposit Instruments and the Redemption Instruments will each correspond pro rata to the positions in the Fund's portfolio (including cash positions) except as specified in the application.
4. Because shares will not be individually redeemable, applicants request an exemption from section 5(a)(1) and section 2(a)(32) of the Act that would permit the Funds to register as open-end management investment companies and issue shares that are redeemable in Creation Units only.
5. Applicants also request an exemption from section 22(d) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act as secondary market trading in shares will
6. With respect to Funds that effect creations and redemptions of Creation Units in kind and that are based on certain Underlying Indexes that include foreign securities, applicants request relief from the requirement imposed by section 22(e) in order to allow such Funds to pay redemption proceeds within fifteen calendar days following the tender of Creation Units for redemption. Applicants assert that the requested relief would not be inconsistent with the spirit and intent of section 22(e) to prevent unreasonable, undisclosed or unforeseen delays in the actual payment of redemption proceeds.
7. Applicants request an exemption to permit Funds of Funds to acquire Fund shares beyond the limits of section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act; and the Funds, and any principal underwriter for the Funds, and/or any broker or dealer registered under the Exchange Act, to sell shares to Funds of Funds beyond the limits of section 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act. The application's terms and conditions are designed to, among other things, help prevent any potential (i) undue influence over a Fund through control or voting power, or in connection with certain services, transactions, and underwritings, (ii) excessive layering of fees, and (iii) overly complex fund structures, which are the concerns underlying the limits in sections 12(d)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act.
8. Applicants request an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act to permit persons that are Affiliated Persons, or Second Tier Affiliates, of the Funds, solely by virtue of certain ownership interests, to effectuate purchases and redemptions in-kind. The deposit procedures for in-kind purchases of Creation Units and the redemption procedures for in-kind redemptions of Creation Units will be the same for all purchases and redemptions, and Deposit Instruments and Redemption Instruments will be valued in the same manner as those investment positions currently held by the Funds. Applicants also seek relief from the prohibitions on affiliated transactions in section 17(a) to permit a Fund to sell its shares to and redeem its shares from a Fund of Funds, and to engage in the accompanying in-kind transactions with the Fund of Funds.
9. Applicants also request relief to permit a Feeder Fund to acquire shares of another registered investment company managed by the Adviser having substantially the same investment objectives as the Feeder Fund (“Master Fund”) beyond the limitations in section 12(d)(1)(A) and permit the Master Fund, and any principal underwriter for the Master Fund, to sell shares of the Master Fund to the Feeder Fund beyond the limitations in section 12(d)(1)(B).
10. Section 6(c) of the Act permits the Commission to exempt any persons or transactions from any provision of the Act if such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or transaction, or any class or classes of persons, securities, or transactions, from any provision of section 12(d)(1) if the exemption is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors. Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to grant an order permitting a transaction otherwise prohibited by section 17(a) if it finds that (a) the terms of the proposed transaction are fair and reasonable and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned; (b) the proposed transaction is consistent with the policies of each registered investment company involved; and (c) the proposed transaction is consistent with the general purposes of the Act.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 11A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Pursuant to Rule 608(b)(3)(ii) under Regulation NMS,
The Amendments effectuate changes that certain Participants have made to their names and addresses, as set forth in Sections I(q), III(a), and VIII(a) of the CTA Plan and Section III(a) of the CQ Plan.
Not applicable.
Because the Amendments constitute “Ministerial Amendments” under both Section IV(b) of the CTA Plan and Section IV(c) under the CQ Plan, the Chairman of the Plan's Operating Committee may submit the Amendments to the Commission on behalf of the Participants in the Plans. Because the Participants have designated the Amendments as concerned solely with the administration of the Plans, the Amendments become effective upon filing with the Commission.
Not applicable.
The Participants assert that the Amendments do not impose any burden on competition because they simply effectuate a change in the names and addresses of certain Participants. For the same reasons, the Participants do not believe that the Amendments introduce terms that are unreasonably discriminatory for purposes of Section 11A(c)(1)(D) of the Exchange Act.
Not applicable.
See Item I.C. above.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
The Commission seeks general comments on the Amendments. Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed Amendments are 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.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CTA/CQ-2018-02 and should be submitted on or before July 18, 2018.
By the Commission.
Notice of request for public comment.
The Department of State is seeking Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we are requesting comments on this collection from all interested individuals and organizations. The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
The Department will accept comments from the public up to August 27, 2018.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
You must include the DS form number (if applicable), information collection title, and the OMB control number in any correspondence.
Direct requests for additional information regarding the collection listed in this notice, including requests for copies of the proposed collection instrument and supporting documents, to John Ferguson, who may be reached on 202-647-3854 or at
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department.
• Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please note that comments submitted in response to this Notice are public record. Before including any detailed personal information, you should be aware that your comments as submitted, including your personal information, will be available for public review.
The collection of the information requested on the DS-1838 and DS-7783 is necessary for all Department non-employees who need a PIV. They are required to submit an application for a Personal Identification Card (DS-1838 domestically or DS-7783 overseas) at the time of hire. The information collected on the form is necessary to verify personal identity as required by the Federal Information Processing Standard Publication 201 (FIPS 201) and Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12 (HSPD 12).
Information is collected by a form or automated badge request (ABR) online.
CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT) has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR pt. 1152 subpart F—
CSXT has certified that: (1) No local traffic has moved over the Line for at least two years; (2) any overhead traffic on the Line can be rerouted; (3) no formal complaint filed by a user of rail service on the Line (or by a state or local government entity acting on behalf of such user) regarding cessation of service over the Line either is pending with the Surface Transportation Board (Board) or any U.S. District Court or has been decided in favor of a complainant within the two-year period; and (4) the requirements at 49 CFR 1105.12 (newspaper publication), 49 CFR 1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental agencies), 49 CFR 1105.11 (transmittal letter), and 49 CFR 1105.7 and 1105.8 (environment and historic report), have been met.
As a condition to this exemption, any employee adversely affected by the abandonment shall be protected under
Provided no formal expression of intent to file an offer of financial assistance (OFA)
A copy of any petition filed with the Board should be sent to CSXT's representative, Louis Gitomer, Law Offices of Louis E. Gitomer, LLC, 600 Baltimore Avenue, Suite 301, Towson, MD 21204.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio.
CSXT has filed a combined environmental and historic report that addresses the effects, if any, of the abandonment on the environment and historic resources. OEA will issue an environmental assessment (EA) by July 2, 2018. Interested persons may obtain a copy of the EA by writing to OEA (Room 1100, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, DC 20423-0001) or by calling OEA at (202) 245-0305. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Comments on environmental and historic preservation matters must be filed within 15 days after the EA becomes available to the public.
Environmental, historic preservation, public use, or trail use/rail banking conditions will be imposed, where appropriate, in a subsequent decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR 1152.29(e)(2), CSXT shall file a notice of consummation with the Board to signify that it has exercised the authority granted and fully abandoned the Line. If consummation has not been effected by CSXT's filing of a notice of consummation by June 27, 2019, and there are no legal or regulatory barriers to consummation, the authority to abandon will automatically expire.
Board decisions and notices are available on our website at
By the Board, Scott M. Zimmerman, Acting Director, Office of Proceedings.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before July 17, 2018.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2018-0524 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Brenda Robeson, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, (202) 267-4712.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before July 17, 2018.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2018-0434 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Brenda Robeson, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, (202) 267-4712.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice of request to release airport land.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes to rule and invites public comments on the application for a release of 27,443 square feet (approximately 0.63 acres) of airport property at San Luis Obispo Airport, San Luis Obispo, California from all conditions contained in the Grant Assurances. This land is not needed for airport purposes. The property consists of land that is vacant, unimproved, and landlocked. It is separated from the airport operations area by a public highway. The land sat idle and unused for over 25 years. The property would be sold at an appraised fair market value to the adjacent property owner. Proceeds would be deposited in the airport account, thereby serving the interests of civil aviation.
Comments must be received on the proposed land release request from federal obligations on or before July 27, 2018.
Comments on the request may be mailed or delivered to the FAA at the following address: Katherine Kennedy, Federal Aviation Administration, San Francisco Airports District Office, Federal Register Comment, 1000 Marina Boulevard, Suite 220, Brisbane, CA 94005-1835, telephone (650) 827-7611, facsimile (650) 817-7634. In addition, one copy of the comment submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered Mr. Philip M. D'Acri, Real Property Manager, County of San Luis Obispo Central Services Department, San Luis Obispo, CA 93408, telephone (805) 781-5206, facsimile (805) 781-1364.
In accordance with the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR 21), Public Law 106-181 (Apr. 5, 2000; 114 Stat. 61), this notice must be published in the
Following is a brief overview of the request:
The County of San Luis Obispo, California, the owner and operator of the San Luis Obispo Airport, requested a release from grant assurance obligations for approximately 27,443 square feet (approximately 0.63 acres) of airport property. The property was acquired with local funds in 1991 for runway approach protection. However, in 2007, the Runway 7-25 threshold was shifted to the west side of Runway 11-29. After this shift, the property was no longer necessary for approach protection.
Due to the property's landlocked location and current condition, it has not been used for aeronautical purposes. A major highway (HWY 227) separates the property from the rest of the airport. Because the property lacks direct ingress and egress, attempts to lease the property have been unsuccessful. This non-contiguous property continues to remain unused and unimproved. This portion of land is not suitable for future airport development and is identified on the airport's FAA-approved Airport Layout Plan for future disposal. Release and sale of the land would not negatively impact airport operations.
The sales price would be based on an appraised market value. Sale proceeds would be deposited in the airport account to be solely expended for the capital and operating costs of the San Luis Obispo Airport, thereby serving the interests of civil aviation.
Under part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that on May 29, 2018, BNSF Railway (BNSF) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR part 218. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2001-10660.
FRA granted BNSF a waiver of certain provisions of 49 CFR part 218 on May 6, 2002. Subsequently, FRA extended the waiver in 2007 and 2012. BNSF is currently petitioning for a renewal of this waiver for relief from the requirements in 49 CFR 218.22(c)(5). Specifically, BNSF seeks to permit train crew members, yard crew members, and utility employees to remove and replace batteries in two-way end-of-train (EOT) devices, while the EOT device is in place on the rear of the train to which the individual has been assigned, without establishing any blue signal protection.
In its petition, BNSF states such relief would provide several safety benefits. First, BNSF contends the safety of train service employees and utility employees will be enhanced by reducing the time such employees are performing a safety sensitive task by eighty percent. Second, train service employees and utility employees will lift and handle significantly lighter loads. The “Smartpack” batteries currently used by BNSF weigh 10.1 pounds or less as opposed to a PULSE EOT device unit weighing 32-34 pounds.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Communications received by August 13, 2018 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice of funding opportunity.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, signed by the President on March 23, 2018, appropriated $7,000,000 to the Short Sea Transportation Program, commonly referred to as the America's Marine Highway Program (AMHP). The purpose of the appropriation is to make grants to previously designated Marine Highway Projects that support the development and expansion of documented vessels, or of port and landside infrastructure. This notice announces the availability of funding for grants and establishes selection criteria and application requirements.
The Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation (Department) will award Marine Highway Grants to implement projects or components of projects previously designated by the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) under AMHP. Only Marine Highway projects designated by the Secretary are eligible for funding as described in this notice.
Applications must be received by the Maritime Administration by 5 p.m. EDT on October 5, 2018.
Grant applications must be submitted electronically using
For further information concerning this Notice, please contact Tori Collins, Office of Ports & Waterways Planning, Room W21-315, Maritime Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590, phone 202-366-0795 or email
Each section of this Notice contains information and instructions relevant to the application process for these Marine Highway Grants, and all applicants should read this Notice in its entirety so that they have the information they need to submit eligible and competitive applications. Applications received after
Section 55601 of Title 46, United States Code, directs the Secretary to establish a short sea transportation grant program to implement projects or components of designated marine highway projects. The grant funds currently available are for projects related to documented vessels and to port and landside infrastructure.
The Secretary, through the Maritime Administration (MARAD), intends to award $6,790,000 through grants to the extent that there are qualified applications. MARAD will seek to obtain the maximum benefit from the available funding by awarding grants to as many qualified projects as possible; however, MARAD reserves the right to award all funds to just one project. MARAD may partially fund applications by selecting discrete components of projects. The start date and period of performance for each award will depend on the specific project to which MARAD must agree. MARAD will administer each Marine Highway Grant pursuant to a grant agreement with the Marine Highway Grant recipient.
Recipients of prior Marine Highway Grants in earlier rounds of this program may apply for funding to support additional phases of a designated project. However, to be competitive, the applicant should demonstrate the extent to which the previously funded project phase has met estimated project schedules and budget, as well as the ability to realize the benefits expected for the new award.
To be selected for a Marine Highway Grant, an applicant must be an Eligible Applicant, and the project must be an Eligible Project.
Eligible grant applicants should be the original Project Applicant of a project that the Secretary has previously designated as a Marine Highway Project or a substitute (which can be either a public entity or a private-sector entity who has been referred to the Program Office, with written explanation, as part of the application). Grant applicants must have operations, or administrative areas of responsibility, that are adjacent to or near the relevant designated Marine Highway Project. Eligible grant applicants include State governments (including State departments of transportation), metropolitan planning organizations, port authorities, and tribal governments, or private sector operators of marine highway services within designated Marine Highway Projects.
Project applicants are encouraged to develop coalitions and public/private partnerships, which might include vessel owners and operators; third-party logistics providers; trucking companies; shippers; railroads; port authorities; state, regional, and local transportation planners; environmental organizations; impacted communities; or any combination of entities working in collaboration on a single grant application that can be submitted by the original project applicant or their designated substitute with written referral from the original project applicant. Original project applicants are defined as those public entities named by the Secretary in the original designated project. All successful grant applicants, whether they are public or private entities, must comply with all Federal requirements.
If multiple project applicants submit a joint grant application, they must identify a lead grant applicant as the primary point of contact. Joint grant applications must include a description of the roles and responsibilities of each applicant and must be signed by each applicant. Although we encourage a single award recipient, where circumstances require more than one award recipient, the application must identify the recipients of the award.
An applicant must provide at least 20 percent of project costs from non-Federal sources. The application should demonstrate, such as through a letter or other documentation, the sources of these funds. Preference will be given to those projects that provide a larger percentage of costs from non-Federal sources.
The purpose of this grant program is to create new marine highway services or to expand existing marine highway services. Only projects or their components, including planning studies, that the Secretary has previously designated as Marine Highway Projects are eligible for this round of grant funding, and they must support the development and expansion of documented vessels or of port and landside infrastructure. The current list of designated Marine Highway Projects can be found on the Marine Highway website at:
Applications may be found at and must be submitted through
In addition to the SF-424, the application should include all the information requested below. MARAD reserves the right to ask any applicant for supplemental data but expects applications to be complete upon submission. Incomplete applications may not be considered for award. Applicants are strongly encouraged to provide quantitative information, including baseline information, that demonstrates the project's merits and economic viability.
a.
b.
(i) Marine Highway Project name (as stated on the Marine Highway Program's list of Designated Projects);
(ii) Primary point of contact for applicant;
(iii) Total amount of the project cost in dollars and the amount of grant funds the applicant is seeking, along with sources and share of matching funds;
(iv) Summary statement of how the grant funding will be applied;
(v) Project parties; and
(vi) Unique Entity Identifier (
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
(i) That, except as noted in this grant application, nothing has changed from the original application for formal designation as a Marine Highway Project; and
(ii) The grant applicant will administer the project and any funds received will be spent efficiently and effectively; and
(iii) The grant applicant will provide information, data, and reports as required.
h.
i.
(i) Written referral from the original successful project applicant stating that the private entity has been referred by the original project applicant for the relevant designated Marine Highway Project.
(ii) A description of the entity including (A) location of the headquarters; (B) a description of the company assets (tugs, barges, etc.); (C) years in operation; (D) ownership; (E) customer base; and (F) website address, if any.
(iii) Unique entity identifier of parent company (when applicable): Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS + 4 number) (when applicable).
(iv) The most recent year-end audited, reviewed or compiled financial statements, prepared by a certified public accountant (CPA), per U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (not tax-based accounting financial statements). If CPA prepared financial statements are not available, provide the most recent financial statement for the entity. Do not provide tax returns.
(v) Statement regarding the relationship between applicants and any parents, subsidiaries or affiliates, if any such entity is going to provide a portion of the match.
(vi) Evidence documenting applicant's ability to make proposed matching requirement (loan agreement, commitment from investors, cash on balance sheet, etc.).
(vii) Pro-forma financial statements reflecting (a) financial condition beginning of period; (b) effect on balance sheet of grant and matching funds (
(viii) Statement whether during the past five years, the applicant or any predecessor or related company has been in bankruptcy or in reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, or in any insolvency or reorganization proceedings, and whether any substantial property of the applicant or any predecessor or related company has been acquired in any such proceeding or has been subject to foreclosure or receivership during such period. If so, give details.
(ix) Additional information may be requested as deemed necessary by the Maritime Administration to facilitate and complete its review of the application. If such information is not provided, the Maritime Administration may deem the application incomplete and cease processing it.
(x) Company Officer's certification of each of the following:
1. That the company operates in the geographic location of the designated Marine Highway Project;
2. That the applicant has the authority to carry out the proposed project:
3. That the applicant has not, and will not make any prohibited payments out of the requested grant, in accordance with the Department of Transportation's regulation restricting lobbying, 49 CFR part 20.
MARAD will not make an award to an applicant until the applicant has complied with all applicable Unique
Applications must be received by 5 p.m. EDT on October 5, 2018. Late applications that are the result of failure to register or comply with
MARAD will not allow reimbursement of any pre-Federal award costs that may have been incurred by an applicant.
Grant funds may only be used for the purposes described in 46 U.S.C. 55601(b)(1) and (3) and may not be used as an operating subsidy.
Grant applications must be submitted electronically using
When reviewing grant applications, MARAD will consider how the proposed service could satisfy, in whole or in part, 46 U.S.C. 55601(b)(1) and (3) and any of the following criteria found at 46 U.S.C. 55601(g)(2)(B):
(i) The project is financially viable;
(ii) The funds received will be spent efficiently and effectively; and
(iii) A market exists for the services of the proposed project as evidenced by contracts or written statements of intent from potential customers.
After applying the above preferences, MARAD will consider the following key Departmental objectives:
(A) Supporting economic vitality at the national and regional level;
(B) Utilizing alternative funding sources and innovative financing models to attract non-Federal sources of infrastructure investment;
(C) Accounting for the life-cycle costs of the project to promote the state of good repair;
(D) Using innovative approaches to improve safety and expedite project delivery; and,
(E) Holding grant recipients accountable for their performance and achieving specific, measurable outcomes identified by grant applicants.
In awarding grants under the program, MARAD will give preference to those projects or components that present the most financially viable marine highway transportation services and require the lowest total percentage Federal share of the costs. MARAD will also give special consideration to projects which emphasize improved infrastructure condition, or facilitate economic or competitiveness in rural areas.
Upon receipt, MARAD will evaluate the application using the criteria outlined above. Upon completion of the technical review, MARAD will forward the applications to a Department inter-agency review team (Intermodal Review Team). The Intermodal Review Team will include members of MARAD, other Operating Administrations, and representatives from the Office of the Secretary of Transportation. The Intermodal Review Team will assign ratings of “highly recommended,” “recommended,” “not recommended,” “incomplete,” or “not eligible” for each application based on the criteria set forth above. The Intermodal Review Team will provide their findings to the Program Office. The Program Office will use those findings to inform the recommendations that will be made to the Maritime Administrator and the Secretary.
The Maritime Administration is required to review and consider any information about the applicant that is in the designated integrity and performance system accessible through SAM (currently FAPIIS) (see 41 U.S.C. 2313). An applicant, at its option, may review information in the designated integrity and performance systems accessible through SAM and comment on any information about itself that a Federal awarding agency previously entered and is currently in the designated integrity and performance system accessible through SAM. The Maritime Administration will consider any comments by the applicant, in addition to the other information in the designated integrity and performance system, in making a judgment about the applicant's integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards when completing the review of risk posed by applicants.
Following the evaluation outlined in Section E, we will announce the selected grant award recipients on the MARAD website (
All awards must be administered pursuant to the “Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards” found at 2 CFR part 200, as adopted by the Department at 2 CFR part 1201. Additionally, all applicable Federal laws and regulations will apply to projects that receive Marine Highway Grants. The period following award that a project is expected to expend grant funds and start construction, acquisition, or procurement will be considered on a case-by-case basis and will be specified in the project-specific grant agreement. We reserve the right to revoke any award of Marine Highway Grant funds and to award such funds to another project to the extent that such funds are not expended in a timely or acceptable manner and in accordance with the project schedule. Federal wage rate requirements included at 40 U.S.C. 3141-3148 apply to all projects receiving funds under this program and apply to all parts of the project, whether funded with other Federal funds or non-Federal funds.
Award recipients are required to submit quarterly reports, signed by an officer of the recipient, to the Program Office to keep MARAD informed of all
For all non-planning grants, grant award recipients will also collect information and report on the project's observed performance with respect to the relevant long-term outcomes that are expected to be achieved through the project. Performance indicators will not include formal goals or targets, but will include observed measures under baseline (pre-project) as well as post-implementation outcomes for an agreed-upon timeline, and will be used to evaluate and compare projects and monitor the results that grant funds achieve to the intended long-term outcomes of the AMHP. Performance reporting continues for several years after project construction is completed, and MARAD does not provide America's Marine Highway funding specifically for performance reporting.
Consistent with the requirements of section 410 of Title IV of Division L, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2018, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (Pub. L. 115-141), the Buy American requirements of Chapter 83 of Title 41 U.S.C. apply to funds made available under this Notice of Funding Opportunity. Depending on other funding streams, the project may be subject to “Buy America” requirements. If a project intends to use any product with foreign content or of foreign origin, this information should be listed and addressed in the application. If certain foreign content is granted an exception or waiver from Buy American or Buy America requirements, a Cargo Preference requirement may apply. Applications should expressly address how the applicant plans to comply with domestic-preference requirements and whether there are any potential foreign-content issues with their proposed project. In accord with the Executive Order 13788, applications that use grant funds for domestic-content purchases will be viewed favorably.
For further information concerning this notice, please contact Tori Collins, Office of Ports & Waterways Planning, Room W21-315, Maritime Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590, phone 202-366-0795 or email
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Grant of petitions.
Autocar Industries, LLC and Autocar, LLC (collectively referred to as “Autocar”), have determined that certain model year (MY) 2014-2018 Autocar Xspotter and Xpeditor trucks do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 101,
Joshua Campbell, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA, telephone (202) 366-5307, facsimile (202) 366-3081.
Autocar has determined that certain MY 2014-2018 Autocar Xspotter and Xpeditor trucks do not fully comply with Table 2 of FMVSS No. 101,
Notices of receipt of the petitions were published with a 30-day public comment period, on August 16, 2017, in the
Approximately 644 MY 2014-2018 Autocar Xspotter trucks, manufactured between September 12, 2013 and August 4, 2017, and approximately 5,545 MY 2014-2018 Autocar Xpeditor trucks, manufactured between September 3, 2013, and June 2, 2017, are potentially involved.
Autocar explains that the noncompliance is that the low brake air pressure telltale for air brake systems displays the word “BRAKE PRESSURE” along with a symbol specified in Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (CMVSS) 101 rather than the words “Brake Air” as specified in Table 2 of FMVSS No. 101. Autocar states that the telltale is accompanied by an audible alert and pressure gauges.
Paragraphs S5 and S5.2.1 of FMVSS No. 101, include the requirements relevant to this petition:
• Each passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck and bus that is
• Each control, telltale and indicator that is listed in column 1 of Table 1 or Table 2 must be identified by the symbol specified for it in column 2 or the word or abbreviation specified for it in column 3 of Table 1 or Table 2.
Autocar described the subject noncompliance and stated it believes that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
In support of Autocar's petitions, the company submitted the following arguments:
(a) Autocar notes that the purpose of the low brake air pressure telltale is to alert the driver to a low air condition, consistent with the requirements of FMVSS No. 121, S5.1.5 (warning signal). The words “BRAKE PRESSURE” instead of “Brake Air,” together with display of the CMVSS required symbol and sounding of an audible alert that occurs inside the subject vehicles would alert the driver to an air pressure issue with the brake system. Once alerted, the driver can check the actual air pressure by reading the primary and secondary air gauges and by observing the contrasting color on the gauges indicating low pressure.
(b) NHTSA stated in a 2005 FMVSS No. 101 rulemaking that the reason for including vehicles over 10,000 pounds GVWR in the application of the standard is that drivers of heavier vehicles need to see and identify their displays, just like drivers of lighter vehicles. See 70 FR 48295, 48298 (Aug. 17, 2005). Drivers of commercial vehicles conduct pre-trip daily inspections. For vehicles with pneumatic brake systems, the in-cab checks of the air-brake warning light and buzzer would familiarize the driver with the specific telltale display and audible warning in the event a low-air condition was to occur during operation.
(c) There are two scenarios when a low brake air pressure condition would exist: a parked vehicle and a moving vehicle. In both conditions, the driver would be alerted to a low-air condition by the following means:
The functionality of both the parking brake system and the service brake system remains unaffected by using “BRAKE PRESSURE” instead of “Brake Air” for the telltale in the subject vehicles.
(d) NHTSA Precedents—Autocar notes that NHTSA has previously granted petitions for inconsequential noncompliance for similar brake telltale issues. See Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0004, 78 FR 69931 (November 21, 2013) (grant of petition for Ford Motor Company); Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0046, 79 FR 78559 (December 30, 2014) (grant of petition for Chrysler Group, LLC); and Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0103, 82
Autocar concluded by expressing their belief that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety, and that NHTSA should grant Autocar's petitions to be exempted from providing notification of the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120.
Autocar's petitions and all supporting documents are available by logging onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at:
NHTSA has considered the arguments presented in Autocar's petitions and has determined that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. NHTSA believes that the subject noncompliance poses no risk to motor vehicle safety because multiple sources of information, as described in the petition and discussed below, are simultaneously activated to warn the driver of a low air condition.
1. When a low air pressure situation exists, for both a parked or moving vehicle, the “BRAKE PRESSURE” telltale will activate in red letters with a black background. There are no requirements in FMVSS No. 101 for the color of the telltale, but Autocar's use of red, which is an accepted color representing an urgent condition, provides a definitive indication of a situation that needs attention.
2. Simultaneous to illumination of the “BRAKE PRESSURE” telltale is activation of an audible alert, further notifying the operator that a malfunction exists requiring corrective action. Although the alert would not in and of itself identify the problem, a driver would be prompted by the warning tone to heed the telltale (
3. In a low-pressure situation, the operator is provided additional feedback by the primary and secondary instrument cluster air gauges which are marked with numerical values in PSI units along with red contrasting colors on the gauges during a low-pressure condition.
4. Further, NHTSA agrees with Autocar's contention that the functionality of the parking brake system and the braking performance of the service brake system remain unaffected by use of the telltale wording “BRAKE PRESSURE” instead of “Brake Air” on the subject vehicles.
5. Lastly, NHTSA believes that, as the affected trucks are predominately used as commercial vehicles with professional drivers, operators will monitor their vehicle's condition and take note of any warning signs and gauge readings to ensure proper functionality of all systems. Autocar states, and the agency agrees, that professional drivers will be familiar with the meaning of telltales and other warnings, and that the feedback provided to the driver in these vehicles if a low brake pressure condition exists would be well understood.
NHTSA concludes that simultaneous activation of the red “BRAKE PRESSURE” telltale with a black contrasting background, an audible alert for a low air pressure condition, along with the primary and secondary air gauge indicators, and the reduced drivability of the vehicles under a low air pressure condition, provide adequate notification to the operator that a brake malfunction exists. NHTSA further concludes that the discrepancy with the telltale requirement is unlikely to lead to any misunderstanding since other sources of correct information beyond the “BRAKE PRESSURE” telltale are always provided.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA finds that Autocar has met its burden of persuasion that the FMVSS No. 101 noncompliance is, in each case, inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Autocar's petitions are hereby granted, and Autocar is consequently exempted from the obligation to provide notification of, and remedy for, the subject noncompliance in the affected vehicles under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively, to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this decision only applies to the subject vehicles that Autocar no longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, the granting of these petitions does not relieve vehicle distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of the noncompliant vehicles under their control after Autocar notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.
49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury.
Notice and request for comment.
The OCC, 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 a continuing information collection as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
In accordance with the requirements of the PRA, the OCC may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
The OCC is soliciting comment concerning the renewal of its information collection titled “Loans in Areas Having Special Flood Hazards.” The OCC also is giving notice that the information collection has been submitted to OMB for review.
Comments must be received by July 27, 2018.
Commenters are encouraged to submit comments by email, if possible. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Additionally, please send a copy of your comments by mail to: OCC Desk Officer, 1557-0326, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW, #10235, Washington, DC 20503 or by email to
You may review comments and other related materials that pertain to this information collection
•
• For assistance in navigating
•
Sharon A. Johnson, OCC Clearance Officer, (202) 649-5490 or, for persons who are deaf or hearing impaired, TTY, (202) 649-5597, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW, Suite 3E-218, Washington, DC 20219.
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the OMB for each collection of information that they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) to include agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. The OCC asks OMB to extend its approval of the following information collection.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The OCC issued a notice for 60 days of comment regarding this collection on April 2, 2018, 83 FR 14314. No comments were received. Comments continue to be invited on:
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the OCC, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the OCC's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The IRS is soliciting comments concerning Revenue Procedure 2015-41—Section 482—Allocation of Income and Deductions Among Taxpayers.
Written comments should be received on or before August 27, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Laurie Brimmer, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulation should be directed to Sara Covington, at (202) 317-6038, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number.
Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 5310, Application for Determination for Terminating Plan, and Form 6088, Distributable Benefits from Employee Pension Benefit Plans.
Written comments should be received on or before August 27, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Laurie Brimmer, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the forms and instructions should be directed to Sara Covington, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 317-6038, 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 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
Written comments should be received on or before August 27, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Laurie Brimmer, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulation should be directed to LaNita Van Dyke at (202) 317-6009, 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.
Departmental Offices, U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection requests to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. The public is invited to submit comments on these requests.
Comments should be received on or before July 27, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Treasury, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email at
Copies of the submissions may be obtained from Jennifer Quintana by emailing
44 U.S.C. 3501
Departmental Offices, U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection requests to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. The public is invited to submit comments on these requests.
Comments should be received on or before July 27, 2018 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Treasury, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email at
Copies of the submissions may be obtained from Jennifer Quintana by emailing
Form 8453-FE is used to authenticate the electronic Form 1041, U.S. Income Tax Return for Estates and Trusts, authorize the electronic filer to transmit via a third-party transmitter, and authorize an electronic fund withdrawal for payment of federal taxes owed.
Form 8879-EMP is used if a taxpayer and the electronic return originator (ERO) want to use a personal identification number (PIN) to electronically sign an electronic employment tax return.
Form 8879-F is used by an electronic return originator when the fiduciary wants to use a personal identification number to electronically sign an estate's or trust's electronic income tax return, and if applicable consent to electronic funds withdrawal.
44 U.S.C. 3501
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden and it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before July 27, 2018.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 811 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-5870 or email
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden; it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor, Office of Quality, Privacy and Risk (OQPR), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-5870 or email
Please refer to “OMB Control No. 2900-0695” in any correspondence.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
Veteran's Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before August 27, 2018.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor at (202) 461-5870.
Under the PRA of 1995, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden 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 through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
VA Form 21P-0847, Application for Request to Substitute Claimant, will be used to allow claimants to request substitution for a claimant who passed away prior to VA processing a claim to
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before August 27, 2018.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Brian McCarthy at (202) 615-9241.
Under the PRA of 1995, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VHA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VHA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VHA's estimate of the burden 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 through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
Risk and Protective Factors for Eating Disorders and Healthcare Use Survey—1,750 hours.
Eating Disorder Examination—480 hours.
Risk and Protective Factors for Eating Disorders and Healthcare Use Survey—50 minutes.
Eating Disorder Examination—120 minutes.
Risk and Protective Factors for Eating Disorders and Healthcare Use Survey—2,100.
Eating Disorder Examination—240.
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden and it
Comments must be submitted on or before July 27, 2018.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-5870 or email
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden and it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before July 27, 2018.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor, Office of Quality, Privacy and Risk (OQPR), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-5870 or email
This collection of information is necessary to ensure that VA and community partners are developing services that are responsive to the needs of local homeless Veterans, in order to end homelessness and prevent new Veterans from experiencing homelessness. Over the years, data from CHALENG has assisted VA in developing new services for Veterans such as the Homeless Veteran Dental Program (HVDP), the expansion of the Department of Housing and Urban Development-VA Supportive Housing (HUD-VASH) Program, the Veterans Justice Programs and Supportive Services for Veteran Families (SSVF). In addition, community organizations use CHALENG data in grant applications to support services for homeless Veterans; grant applications are for VA, other Federal, local government, and community foundation dollars, which maximize community participation in serving homeless Veterans.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This rulemaking relieves burdens on pilots seeking to obtain aeronautical experience, training, and certification by increasing the allowed use of aviation training devices. Use of these training devices has proven to be an effective, safe, and affordable means of obtaining pilot experience. This rulemaking also addresses changing technologies by accommodating the use of technically advanced airplanes as an alternative to the use of older complex single engine airplanes for the commercial pilot training and testing requirements. Additionally, this rulemaking broadens the opportunities for military instructor pilots or pilot examiners to obtain civilian ratings based on military experience, expands opportunities for logging pilot time, and removes a burden from sport pilot instructors by permitting them to serve as safety pilots. Finally, this rulemaking includes changes to some of the provisions established in an August 2009 final rule. These actions are necessary to bring the regulations in line with current needs and activities of the general aviation training community and pilots.
This rule is effective July 27, 2018, except for the amendments to §§ 61.31(e)(2) and (f)(2), 61.129(a)(3)(ii), (b)(3)(ii) and (j), 61.197, 61.199, 61.412, 61.415, 91.109, and appendix D to part 141, which are effective August 27, 2018; the amendments to §§ 61.1 (amendatory instruction 10 revising the definition of “Pilot time”), 61.39, 61.51(e) and (f), 61.57(c), 61.159(a), (c), (d), (e), and (f), 61.161(c), (d), and (e), 135.99, and 141.5(d) which are effective November 26, 2018; and the amendments to §§ 61.3, 63.3, 63.16, 91.313, 91.1015, 121.383, and 135.95, which are effective December 24, 2018.
For information on where to obtain copies of rulemaking documents and other information related to this final rule, see “How to Obtain Additional Information” in the
Marcel Bernard, Airmen Certification and Training Branch, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 55 M Street SE, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20003-3522; telephone (202) 267-1100; email
On May 12, 2016, the FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled “Regulatory Relief: Aviation Training Devices; Pilot Certification, Training, and Pilot Schools; and Other Provisions.”
Table 1 summarizes the provisions proposed in the NPRM, the changes being made to those provisions in this final rule, the Code of Federal Regulations sections affected, and the total cost savings (benefits) for a 5-year analysis period. All of the provisions in this rule are either relieving or voluntary. For those provisions that are relieving, no person affected is anticipated to incur any costs associated with the relieving nature of the provision. The FAA assumes that as these provisions are relieving, all persons affected will use the provisions as they will be beneficial. For those provisions that are voluntary, persons who wish to use the new provisions will do so only if the benefit they would accrue from their use exceeds any cost they might incur to comply with the new provision.
The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code (49 U.S.C.). 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 49 U.S.C. 106(f), which establishes the authority of the Administrator to promulgate regulations and rules; 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5), which requires the Administrator to promote safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations and setting minimum standards for other practices, methods, and procedures necessary for safety in air commerce and national security; and 49 U.S.C. 44703(a), which requires the Administrator to prescribe regulations for the issuance of airman certificates when the Administrator finds, after investigation, that an individual is qualified for, and physically able to perform the duties related to, the position authorized by the certificate.
On May 12, 2016, the FAA published a NPRM proposing a variety of provisions intended to provide relief from regulatory burdens to the general aviation community, commercial pilots, military flight instructors, and those using new technology in aviation. The FAA proposed changes in 12 different subject areas to 14 CFR parts 61, 63, 91, 121, 135, and 141.
The FAA received and considered a total of 100 comments to the NPRM. Commenters included 63 individuals, 15 aviation-related companies, and 12 aviation-related organizations. Several commenters provided more than one comment. The majority of commenters supported various proposed provisions, and many recommended changes to the proposed rule language. While there was opposition to some provisions, no commenters opposed the NPRM in its entirety.
Because of the specific nature of each provision, the FAA discusses each provision separately.
This final rule amends the regulations governing the use of aviation training devices (ATDs). As stated in the NPRM,
The FAA proposed to define ATD as a training device, other than a FFS or FTD, that has been evaluated, qualified, and approved by the Administrator.
The FAA received 3 comments on the proposed definition of “aviation training device.”
The Society of Aviation and Flight Educators (SAFE) concurred with the proposal. The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), however, recommended removing the words “evaluated” and “qualified” from the proposed definition because they are redundant with “approved” and because the FAA may, at times, only need to “approve” a previously approved ATD model.
The FAA is retaining the terms “evaluated” and “qualified” because the evaluation and qualification of an ATD are important parts of the approval process. An ATD is evaluated and qualified before it is approved under § 61.4(c).
An individual commenter asked the FAA to clarify whether the definition eliminates the basic ATD and advanced ATD categories described in Advisory Circular (AC) 61-136. The individual also asked the FAA to update the related guidance and advisory materials with this clarification.
The ATD definition does not eliminate the qualification of an ATD as basic or advanced. The FAA is adding a general definition of ATD to § 61.1 to differentiate ATDs from FFSs and FTDs qualified under part 60 and to establish that an ATD must be evaluated, qualified, and approved by the Administrator. The FAA will continue to provide guidance in AC 61-136, as amended, to qualify an ATD as basic or advanced. Comparatively, the definition in part 1 for a FTD does not delineate qualification levels.
The FAA notes that current regulations in parts 61 and 141 expressly differentiate instrument training time allowances for “basic” verses “advanced” ATDs.
The FAA is adopting the definition of ATD in § 61.1 as proposed.
In commenting on the ATD definition, AOPA noted that the definition of flight simulation training device (FSTD) is inconsistent between part 1 and part 60. AOPA recommended revising the part 1 definition to conform with the part 60 definition by adding the word “full” before “flight simulator.”
The FAA is adopting AOPA's recommendation, which is consistent with the FAA's proposal to replace the words “flight simulator” with the words “full flight simulator” wherever they appear in the sections the FAA determined needed to be revised.
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to amend § 61.51(g) by revising paragraph (g)(4) and adding a new paragraph (g)(5) to allow a pilot to accomplish instrument recency experience when using a FFS, FTD, or ATD without an instructor present, provided a logbook or training record is maintained to specify the approved training device, time, and the content as appropriate.
The FAA received 27 comments, 9 from organizations and 18 from individuals. The majority of commenters overwhelmingly supported the proposal noting various benefits, including reduced costs for pilots, less time commitment, reduced airspace use and congestion, increased number of instrument current pilots, and increased pilot proficiency and safety. Several commenters noted how the use of FFSs, FTDs, and ATDs enhances training by allowing more opportunities to practice important skills and experience a variety of approaches, conditions, and equipment failures.
As stated in the NPRM,
As with instrument recency experience accomplished in an aircraft, § 61.57(c) requires the pilot to log the required tasks in his or her logbook and § 61.51(b) requires certain information to be logged, including the type and identification of the FSTD or ATD.
The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), National Air Transportation Association (NATA), Redbird, Society of Aviation and Flight Educators (SAFE), and four individuals, who identified as either pilots or instructors, generally commented that bringing FFS, FTD, and ATD instrument recency requirements in line with the requirements when using an actual aircraft makes sense. These commenters indicated that if a pilot can be trusted to log instrument recency in an aircraft without an instructor present, then he or she should be trusted to do the same in an FFS, FTD, or ATD.
Four commenters expressed concern, however, that there is potential for falsification of logbook entries by pilots if they are not supervised when using an FFS, FTD, or ATD to satisfy instrument recency requirements. To reduce the risk of falsification, one individual recommended that FAA require the simulator to produce a flight track and log all pilot activities and actions during the simulator session. The commenter recommended that the flight school keep this documentation, and the pilot retain a copy of this simulator session to support the logbook entry to satisfy the instrument recency experience requirement.
Because instructor supervision is not required when a pilot satisfies the instrument recency experience in an aircraft,
American Flyers and several individuals asserted that using an FFS, FTD, or ATD to satisfy instrument recency requirements, particularly without an instructor present, is not comparable to operating an aircraft. The individual commenters noted that with FFSs, FTDs, or ATDs, there is no spatial disorientation, nothing truly unexpected, no other aircraft, no equipment problems, no approach changes, no interaction from air traffic control, no threat to life, and rules can be violated. Two individuals noted that an instructor could introduce some of these variables in an FSTD or ATD. One individual recommended the FAA require a flight instructor to introduce real-world scenarios in an ATD as part of the instrument recency requirements.
The FAA finds that satisfying instrument recency experience requirements in an FFS, FTD or ATD is as beneficial as satisfying the requirements in an aircraft regardless of whether an instructor is present. FFSs, FTDs, and ATDs are specifically designed to allow a person to replicate and execute instrument tasks just as they would in an aircraft. The FAA qualifies FFSs and FTDs under 14 CFR part 60, and the FAA evaluates, qualifies and approves ATDs under the authority provided in 14 CFR 61.4(c) using specific standards and criteria described in AC 61-136 (as amended) as one means of compliance. Additionally, the FAA accomplishes on site functional evaluations of ATDs verifying that they successfully emulate instrument tasks accurately.
Several commenters, including the Lancair Owners and Builders Organization (LOBO), stated that having an instructor present in the FSS, FTD or ATD improves the pilot's proficiency. A few individuals stated that a pilot may need additional training and not realize it without an instructor present. However, one individual asserted that if a pilot has obtained a certificate after completing the minimum hours with an instructor and remains current, there is no requirement for additional training.
Section 61.57(c) requires a pilot to perform and log minimum tasks to maintain instrument recency; § 61.57(c) does not impose training or proficiency requirements. An instrument-rated pilot has already demonstrated his or her proficiency during a practical test with an examiner. The purpose of the instrument recency experience requirement is to ensure the pilot maintains his or her instrument proficiency by performing and logging the required instrument experience. Therefore, the FAA expects pilots accomplishing the instrument recency experience to already be at an acceptable level of proficiency. The FAA recommends, however, that a pilot seek additional training if he or she is uncomfortable with his or her performance of the required tasks under § 61.57(c).
LOBO recommended requiring pilots to complete an annual instrument proficiency check with an instrument flight instructor.
The FAA requires an instrument proficiency check only when a pilot has failed to meet the recent instrument experience requirements for more than six calendar months.
Two individuals asserted that there is no cost savings when one takes into account the cost of a crash, including the cost of a human life, property damage, and medical treatment for survivors.
For the reasons stated above, the FAA disagrees with the assertion that removing the requirement for an instructor to be present in an FSTD or ATD will result in a decrease in safety. Pilots may accomplish the required tasks under § 61.57(c) in an aircraft in actual instrument conditions without an instructor present. Allowing pilots to accomplish the same tasks in an FSTD or ATD without an instructor present does not reduce the level of safety.
LOBO questioned the accuracy of the FAA's estimates of cost savings, noting that the FAA may be overestimating the number of pilots that use an FFS, FTD, or ATD, to maintain instrument recency. LOBO claimed that although the percentage of pilots who possess instrument ratings is quite high, non-scientific polling by AOPA indicates many of them are not instrument current. LOBO noted that the FAA estimated that removing the requirement for a flight instructor to be present would generate a total savings of $10.6 million (present value), or $2.4 million annually, all other factors remaining the same. Given there has been no polling of the U.S. pilot population for training, experience, etc. by the FAA since 1990, LOBO questioned the accuracy of these estimates.
The Regulatory Evaluation in the NPRM estimated that implementation of this rule provision would result in present value cost savings of $10.6 million over a five-year period at a 7 percent discount rate. Because the FAA does not require pilots to report instrument experience data and capturing such data is difficult if not impossible, the FAA made a conservative estimate of the cost savings. This is a conservative estimate because it reflects that a significant number of pilots do not maintain instrument recency in general. The FAA estimated the number of pilots who might benefit from this rule provision by starting with the total number of instrument rated pilots in the United States as of June 30, 2015. This was 305,976 instrument rated pilots. This number included airline transport pilots (ATPs). However, under § 61.57(e), pilots employed by part 119 certificate holders conducting operations under part 121 or part 135 are excepted from the instrument recency experience requirement in § 61.57(c). As of June 23, 2015, the FAA estimated that 104,424 air carrier pilots were excepted. This left 201,552 instrument rated pilots that could potentially benefit from this rule provision. Of these pilots, the FAA estimated that only approximately 50 percent (100,776) were maintaining their recency. Of this group, the FAA estimated that only 25 percent (25,194) used an FFS, FTD, or ATD for recency and would potentially benefit from this rule provision. At an average instructor rate of $24 per hour for an estimated 4 hours per year, the FAA estimated that it would cost about 2.4 million dollars per year for 25,194 pilots to complete the recency requirement. These estimates indicate that only 12.5 percent of instrument rated pilots (excluding air carrier pilots) would benefit from this rule provision. The FAA finds this to be a reasonably conservative estimate.
Furthermore, FAA notes that LOBO did not provide any alternative estimates, LOBO relied on non-scientific polling from AOPA, and LOBO failed to provide any substantiated statistics. The FAA believes new § 61.51(g)(5) will significantly reduce cost to the public. As described in the NPRM, the FAA believes that new § 61.51(g)(5) will likely increase the public's use of FFSs, FTDs or ATDs and notes that the majority of comments supported this conclusion. Because the FAA is adopting § 61.51(g)(4) and (5) as proposed and no alternative estimates were provided, there will be no change to the NPRM methodology used for this estimate.
As a general matter, the FAA notes that ATDs allow programming and practice of many instrument situations, scenarios, and procedures. The current capabilities of ATDs, FTDs, and FFSs allow an instrument rated pilot to program and successfully practice simulated low visibility weather conditions, multiple approaches in a shorter period of time, emergency procedures, equipment failures, and other various flight scenarios that cannot necessarily be accomplished in an aircraft safely. Allowing the use of ATDs, FTDs and FFSs without the requirement (and therefore the cost) of having an instructor present can result in more pilots being better prepared. This benefit could include executing flight scenarios they may not normally experience when accomplishing instrument recency in an aircraft, or in locations where they do not normally fly, or when practicing emergency procedures that are likely too dangerous to accomplish in an aircraft. This includes the unique capability of practicing identical instrument approach procedures to an airport the pilot may not have otherwise flown to before.
Other than removing the term “approved” from the proposed rule language, as explained above, § 61.51(g)(4) and (5) remain unchanged from the proposal.
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to amend § 61.57(c) to allow pilots to accomplish instrument experience in ATDs at the same 6-month interval allowed for FFSs and FTDs.
Ten commenters, including Redbird, American Flyers, and Eagle Sport, supported the proposal without change noting the anticipated cost savings that may encourage pilots to stay current, the ability for ATDs to enhance skills and improve proficiency, and the simplified rule language that will facilitate compliance.
The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) and an individual commented that ATDs are much more advanced than they were at the time of the 2009 final rule, and that with these advances, it makes sense to allow the use of ATDs to meet instrument recency requirements in the same manner as with FFSs, FTDs, or aircraft.
As discussed in the NPRM, the FAA believes that the current design and technology of ATDs has advanced and provides a greater opportunity for the advancement of instrument skills and improved proficiency, as well as a wider range of experiences and scenarios, which justifies their increased use in § 61.57(c)(2). This is also reflected in the final rule, “Aviation Training Device Credit for Pilot Certification,” published on April 12, 2016,
AOPA, General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA), Society of Aviation and Flight Educators (SAFE), and one individual asked the FAA to revise the proposed rule language to expressly allow a pilot to meet the requirements for instrument recency experience in any combination of aircraft, FFS, FTD, or ATD.
While the FAA stated in the NPRM that a pilot would be permitted to complete instrument recency experience in any combination of aircraft, FFS, FTD, or ATD, the proposed rule would not have expressly allowed this. The FAA is therefore adding language to proposed § 61.57(c)(2) to expressly state that a person may complete the instrument recency experience in any combination of aircraft, FFS, FTD, or ATD. Furthermore, consistent with the changes made in § 61.51(g)(5), the FAA is removing the word “approved” from proposed § 61.57(c)(1) because an FFS or FTD used to satisfy § 61.57(c)(1) is qualified, not approved, by the National Simulator Program under part 60.
Two individuals opposed the provision. One individual believed that experience in an ATD cannot replicate that of an actual aircraft because piloting an aircraft involves many unexpected elements and stresses not present in an ATD. The other individual asserted that the instrument recency requirements are bare minimums and do not demonstrate proficiency, and that requiring more flight time would result in fewer accidents.
The FAA disagrees with requiring a pilot to accomplish the instrument recency experience in an aircraft. The FAA has allowed the instrument recency tasks to be accomplished in an FFS, FTD, or ATD since 2009.
Furthermore, the FAA disagrees with the comment that requiring more flight time in an aircraft will result in fewer accidents. The FAA finds that allowing a pilot to accomplish instrument recency requirements in an ATD or FSTD encourages more pilots to remain instrument current and provides the necessary experience to enable safe operation of an aircraft in instrument meteorological conditions (IMC). As the FAA explained in the final rule, “Aviation Training Device Credit for Pilot Certification,”
The Lancair Owners and Builders Organization (LOBO) asserted that the FAA did not make a safety case to reduce the recency requirements. LOBO believed that the NPRM did not explain how this proposed provision would improve safety, and that to do so, the FAA needs more information, which was not presented. LOBO claimed the FAA should gather data regarding the following: How many instrument pilots are instrument current; how many pilots use an instrument proficiency check to maintain recency; how many pilots use an FFS, FTD, or ATD to maintain instrument recency; how many of those
The FAA is aligning the requirements for accomplishing instrument experience in an ATD with the requirements for accomplishing instrument experience in an FSTD or aircraft. Prior to this final rule, a person accomplishing instrument recency experience in an aircraft, FFS, FTD, or a combination, was required to, within the preceding 6 months, have performed: (1) Six instrument approaches; (2) holding procedures and tasks; and (3) intercepting and tracking courses through the use of navigational electronic systems. Persons accomplishing instrument recency experience exclusively in an ATD, however, were required to have performed, within the preceding 2 months, the same tasks and maneuvers listed above plus “two unusual attitude recoveries while in a descending V
While the data sought by LOBO would be useful, it does not currently exist.
In response to LOBO's concerns about the proficiency of low activity instrument pilots, as previously stated, instrument-rated pilots have already demonstrated proficiency during their practical test. Instrument proficiency is considered ongoing unless one fails to maintain instrument recency in the previous 12 calendar months. In that scenario, one would be required to complete an instrument proficiency check (IPC) in accordance with § 61.57(d) to exercise instrument rating privileges. While instrument-rated pilots may have a low number of annual flight hours, so long as they are complying with the instrument experience and instrument proficiency check requirements, they may exercise their instrument rating privileges. The FAA did not propose to change these requirements; any change to these requirements in this final rule would be out of scope.
Lastly, the FAA does not find that aligning the instrument experience requirements in an ATD with the instrument experience requirements in an FSTD or aircraft will result in an increased accident rate. Rather, this ATD allowance should lower the accident rate by allowing pilots to regularly practice instrument tasks and maneuvers in a hazard free environment. The FAA believes that new § 61.57(c)(2) will increase the opportunities for pilots to maintain recency, reduce cost, and generally promote maintaining instrument recency.
The Regional Air Cargo Carriers Association (RACCA) provided several recommendations concerning FTDs, including expanding the allowable instrument recency experience, training, and limited checking elements from FFS to include Level 3 and 4 FTDs; allowing credit for circling approaches in Level 3 and 4 FTDs with sophisticated, wide-angle visual systems but no motion system; and expanding the allowable credit in FFSs with the motion system turned off. RACCA further recommended reviewing current FAA FTD and simulator approval protocols to make them simpler and less labor-intensive for the FAA, operators, and contract training providers.
The FAA is not adopting RACCA's recommendations because they are outside the scope of this rulemaking.
As discussed above, the FAA is adding language to the proposed provision to make clear that a person may complete the instrument experience in any combination of an aircraft, FFS, FTD, or ATD. Other than this additional language, § 61.57(c)(2) remains unchanged from the NPRM.
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to amend § 135.99 by adding paragraph (c) to allow a certificate holder to receive approval of a second in command (SIC) professional development program (SIC PDP) via operations specifications (Ops Specs) to allow the certificate holder's pilots to log SIC time in operations conducted under part 135 in an airplane or operation that does not otherwise require a SIC.
The FAA also proposed changes to certain logging requirements to enable the logging of SIC time obtained under a SIC PDP. The FAA proposed to revise § 61.159(c)(1) to contain the requirements for logging SIC pilot time in an operation conducted under part 135 that does not require an SIC by type certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is being conducted. The FAA proposed to revise the aeronautical experience requirements of §§ 61.159 and 61.161 to allow a pilot to credit SIC time logged under an SIC PDP towards the total time as a pilot requirements. The FAA also proposed to revise the definition of pilot time in § 61.1, the prerequisites for practical test in § 61.39(a)(3), and the logging requirements of § 61.51(f) to reflect the allowance for SICs to log flight time in part 135 operations when not serving as required flightcrew members under the type certificate or the regulations.
Airlines for America (A4A) and two individuals supported the proposed SIC PDP without change. They noted the benefits of mentoring, crew resource management training, and the overall experience gained by accumulating more flight time in a complex environment.
Several commenters suggested changes to proposed §§ 135.99, 61.159 and 61.51, which are discussed below.
In the NPRM, proposed § 135.99(c)(2) would have required the aircraft operated under an approved SIC PDP to be a multiengine airplane.
The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), Baron Aviation Services, National Air Transportation Association (NATA), Regional Air Cargo Carriers Association (RACCA), Tradewind Aviation, and two individuals commented that single-engine turbine-powered airplanes should be included for use in an SIC PDP. These commenters asserted that single-engine turbine-powered airplanes are equal to or more complex than certain multiengine airplanes. These commenters indicated that high performance single engine turbo-propeller airplanes such as the Pilates PC-12, Socata TBM 700, and Cessna Caravan can provide more beneficial flight experience and training for an SIC than other general aviation operations. RACCA, Tradewind Aviation, and one individual explained that these types of airplanes can provide applicable experience using “glass cockpit” and flight management systems in real-world IFR, weather, cross-country, and night flight in an airline-like environment.
Further, AOPA, RACCA, and one individual stated the SIC PDP would provide opportunities for pilots to gain flight hours. As proposed, these flight hours could be used toward an airline transport pilot (ATP) certificate. Increasing the types of aircraft permitted to be used for an SIC PDP would provide even more opportunities for this professional growth.
In light of these comments, the FAA is revising proposed § 135.99(c)(2) to allow multiengine airplanes or single-engine turbine-powered airplanes to be used in an approved SIC PDP. In Public Law 111-216, Congress directed the FAA to ensure applicants for an ATP certificate have received flight training, academic training, or operational experience that will prepare the pilot to, among other things, function effectively in a multi-pilot environment, in adverse weather conditions, and during high altitude operations, and to adhere to the highest professional standards. The FAA finds that pilots can obtain the operational experience described in section 217 of Public Law 111-216 using either a multiengine airplane or a single-engine turbine-powered airplane under an approved SIC PDP. The FAA is revising proposed § 135.99(c)(2) accordingly.
The FAA is adopting the proposed requirement for the airplane to have an independent set of controls for the second pilot flightcrew member, which may not include a throwover control wheel. The FAA also notes that the equipment and independent instrumentation requirements for the second pilot in § 135.99(c)(2)(i) through (viii) remain unchanged from the proposal.
In the NPRM, proposed § 135.99(c)(4) would have required the assigned PIC in an operation conducted under an approved SIC PDP to be an authorized part 135 flight instructor for the certificate holder.
Bemidji Aviation Services, NATA, and RACCA did not support proposed § 135.99(c)(4), asserting that there is no rationale to support the requirement for the PIC to be a qualified part 135 flight instructor. Bemidji noted that training PICs to be flight instructors would be time consuming and of little value because a new SIC under an SIC PDP will be in need of mentoring and real-world experience, rather than the type of training a part 135 flight instructor provides. Bemidji further contended that this requirement indicates that revenue flights are training flights rather than operations as a crew. However, Bemidji stated it would support certain crew pairing requirements. NATA believed that this requirement could limit operators from implementing a SIC PDP. RACCA stated that requiring the PIC to be a part 135 flight instructor is not necessary; however, initial operating experience (OE) under supervision by a flight instructor, additional line checks, or other intermittent quality assurance verifications are appropriate. RACCA stated that it appeared the FAA's intent was, from SIC initial qualification until the SIC was qualified to serve as PIC in part 135, an SIC logging flight time under an SIC PDP would be required to fly with a PIC who was a part 135 flight instructor. RACCA believed that the “professional development” element of the SIC PDP needs to be concentrated in the initial training, checking, and OE phases and that once the SIC has successfully completed that portion, he/she can continue to gain experience having completed that part of the program except for a possibility of more frequent quality assurance checks or proficiency checks in operators' programs than otherwise required for SICs in part 135. However, RACCA also stated the SIC flight time in revenue operations under the mentoring and supervision of an experienced part 135 PIC is more directly applicable to further career flying than hours in the following types of operations, which are currently acceptable: VFR flight instruction, pipeline patrol, banner towing, traffic watch flying, and light sport flying. RACCA further asserted that because the SIC PDP is restricted to less risky cargo operations, this requirement only increases complexity and cost without any risk mitigation
Upon review of these comments submitted by Bemidji, NATA, RACCA, and individuals, the FAA has decided to withdraw the proposed requirement for assigned PICs in a SIC PDP to be qualified part 135 flight instructors. Under this proposed requirement, every operation conducted under an approved SIC PDP would have been required to have a qualified part 135 flight instructor assigned as the PIC. This proposed requirement was intended to create the appropriate training and mentoring environment to enable the proposed SIC PDP to support the Congressional directive and provide an effective method to acquire experience for ATP certification. In the NPRM, the FAA explained that the experience gained from working with and learning from a part 135 flight instructor in a crew configuration would have provided valuable experience. However, commenters suggested alternatives to the requirement for the PIC to be a part 135 flight instructor. Upon review of these suggestions, the FAA has determined that a combination of these alternatives will be an equally effective method to support the Congressional directive while ensuring these SICs are gaining valuable experience for ATP certification.
The FAA agrees with Bemidji, RACCA, and the individual commenter that a new SIC needs mentoring and real-world experience.
In new § 135.99(c)(4)(i) and (ii),
As indicated by commenters, mentoring should be provided by an experienced PIC. For mentoring to be effective, the FAA believes that the mentor (
As proposed in the NPRM, § 135.99(c)(1)(iii) requires the certificate holder with an approved SIC PDP to establish and maintain a data collection and analysis process that will enable the certificate holder and the FAA to determine whether the professional development program is accomplishing its objectives. Regarding RACCA's recommendations for initial OE, additional line checks, or other intermittent quality assurance verifications, the FAA agrees these types of events could be valuable components of an effective data collection and analysis process. In addition to the recommendations from RACCA, there may be other suitable methods to obtain relevant data for the data collection and analysis process. Therefore, the FAA will include RACCA's recommendations in the new Advisory Circular as possible data collection methods. The FAA notes that the data provided to the FAA by the certificate holder may be de-identified. The FAA further notes that records used for the data collection and analysis process will still be subject to record requirements, such as the Pilot Records Improvement Act of 1996 (PRIA).
Lastly, contrary to RACCA's statement, the SIC PDP is not restricted to cargo-only operations. Except as provided in § 135.99(d), any part 135 operator meeting the requirements of § 135.99(c) may voluntarily choose to seek approval of an SIC PDP. Section 135.99(d) prohibits certificate holders who are authorized to operate as a basic operator, single PIC operator, or single pilot operator from obtaining approval to conduct an SIC PDP.
The requirements for certificate holders in §§ 135.99(c)(1)(i), (ii), and (iii) also remain unchanged from the proposal. However, because the FAA is withdrawing the proposed requirement for assigned PICs to be qualified part 135 flight instructors, the FAA is also withdrawing proposed § 135.99(c)(1)(iv), which would have required flight instructor standardization meetings.
The FAA further notes that the requirements for persons serving as SIC in § 135.99(c)(3)(i) through (iv) remain unchanged from the proposal.
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to revise § 61.159(c) to set forth the requirements for logging SIC pilot time in a part 135 operation that does not require an SIC by type certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is being conducted. Proposed § 61.159(c) would have allowed a commercial pilot to log SIC pilot time toward the hours of total time as a pilot required by §§ 61.159(a) and 61.160, provided the SIC pilot time was obtained in part 135 operations conducted under a SIC PDP in accordance with § 135.99 and the PIC certified in the SIC's logbook that the
RACCA suggested the FAA allow a pilot to use the time logged under a SIC PDP toward the more specific flight time requirements for ATP certification set forth in § 61.159(a)(1) through (5), instead of only the 1,500 hours of total time as a pilot required by § 61.159(a). RACCA asserted that there is little quantifiable difference in the value of experience between aircraft that require a two pilot crew and aircraft authorized to utilize a two pilot crew in specific circumstances. RACCA further asserted that experience obtained by a properly trained and checked SIC is more directly applicable to IFR complex airplane operations and subsequent career flying than hours in the following types of operations, which are currently acceptable: VFR flight instruction, pipeline patrol, banner towing, traffic watch flying, and light sport flying.
In response to RACCA's comments, the FAA is revising proposed § 61.159(c) to allow pilots to credit time logged under a SIC PDP not only for total time as a pilot, but also toward the specific flight time requirements for ATP certification set forth in § 61.159(a)(1) through (4) (
As proposed, the FAA maintains in the final rule that a SIC logging flight time under § 61.159(c) is not permitted to log this flight time as PIC time even when he or she is the sole manipulator of the controls. If the SIC time were to count toward the requirements of § 61.159(a)(5), a pilot could meet the ATP aeronautical experience requirements and transition to a part 121 SIC position directly from a SIC PDP, without serving as a part 135 PIC—which was not the FAA's intent. As explained in the NPRM, the FAA intended for § 61.159(c) to promote an environment in which a pilot's career follows a progression within part 135 that includes the pilot serving as a PIC in part 135 operations before transitioning to an SIC position in a part 121 operation. The FAA finds that allowing the SIC time to be used only toward the total time as a pilot requirements of § 61.159(a) and the specific flight time requirements of § 61.159(a)(1) through (4) is consistent with the proposal's objective. A pilot may use the time accrued under a SIC PDP to meet the time requirements of § 135.243 to serve as a PIC under part 135; then, as a required flightcrew member in part 135, that pilot may accrue the required PIC airplane time for an ATP certificate before transitioning to a part 121 operation.
Consistent with the changes to proposed § 61.159(c), the FAA is also revising proposed § 61.161(c) to allow pilots to credit time logged under a SIC PDP toward both the total time as a pilot required by § 61.161(a) and the specific flight time requirements for ATP certification set forth in § 61.161(a)(1), (2), and (4) (
Upon further review, the FAA has decided to also allow SIC flight time to be logged during part 91 flight operations (
For the reasons discussed above, the FAA is revising the proposed amendments to §§ 61.159(c) and 135.99(c) to allow the logging of SIC flight time in operations conducted under parts 91 and 135,
RACCA and AOPA both recommended additional revisions to proposed § 61.159(c)(1). AOPA asserted that the FAA's proposed change to § 61.159(c)(1) eliminates the ability of a required SIC to use logged SIC flight
Revisions to proposed § 61.159(c)(1) are not needed to allow a required SIC to log flight time toward the requirements for an ATP certificate in § 61.159(a). Section 61.51(a) establishes the requirement for persons to document and record training and aeronautical experience used to meet the requirements for a certificate or rating under part 61. Section 61.51(f)(2) allows a person to log SIC flight time when that person holds the appropriate category, class, and instrument rating and more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is being conducted. Further, § 61.1(b) defines pilot time as including time in which a person serves as a required flightcrew member. Collectively, these regulations allow flight time logged as a required SIC to be used toward the aeronautical experience requirements for an ATP certificate as delineated in § 61.159(a). Therefore, the FAA is not revising proposed § 61.159(c)(1), as recommended by commenters, because the former language in § 61.159(c)(1), which allowed a person to credit SIC flight time toward the total time requirements in § 61.159(a), was redundant and unnecessary.
The FAA notes that proposed § 61.159(c) would have contained logging requirements for both SICs and flight engineers, similar to former § 61.159(c). Upon further reflection, the FAA has decided to restructure § 61.159(c), (d) and (e) for clarity. The FAA is relocating the flight engineer logging requirements, which were formerly in § 61.159(c)(2) and (3), to § 61.159(d). Thus, § 61.159(c) will contain only the SIC logging requirements under the SIC PDP. The FAA is redesignating former § 61.159(d) as § 61.159(e) and former § 61.159(e) as new § 61.159(f).
In addition to proposed § 61.159(c), the FAA proposed to revise the definition of “pilot time” in § 61.1 and the logging requirements in § 61.51(f) to reflect the allowances for SICs to log flight time in part 135 operations when not serving as required flightcrew members under the type certificate or regulations. The FAA also proposed to revise § 61.39(a)(3) to require a pilot who has logged flight time under the SIC PDP to present a copy of the records required by § 135.63(a)(4)(vi) and (x) at the time of application for the practical test. Due to the reorganization of proposed § 61.159(c), the FAA is referencing § 61.159(c), instead of § 61.159(c)(1), in the definition of “pilot time,” and in §§ 61.51(f)(3) and 61.39(a)(3). Other than updating the cross-reference to § 61.159(c), the definition of “pilot time” and the revisions to §§ 61.51(f) and 61.39(a)(3) remain unchanged from the proposal.
The FAA also proposed to revise the logging requirements of § 61.51(e) to allow the part 135 flight instructor serving as PIC in an operation conducted under an approved SIC PDP to log all of the flight time as PIC flight time even when the PIC is not the sole manipulator of the controls. As previously explained, the FAA is withdrawing the proposed requirement that the assigned PIC be a part 135 flight instructor. The FAA is therefore revising proposed § 61.51(e) to reflect the requirements the FAA adopted in § 135.99(c). Accordingly, § 61.51(e)(5) now allows a commercial pilot or airline transport pilot to log all flight time while acting as an assigned PIC of an operation conducted in accordance with an approved SIC PDP that meets the requirements of § 135.99(c).
RACCA noted that the regulatory evaluation accompanying the NPRM stated “This proposal would provide an additional option for commercial pilots seeking to meet the minimum aeronautical experience requirements for the ATP certificate while also providing a strong foundational experience for a developing professional pilot. For a commercial pilot to utilize this option, an operator would have to meet the additional requirements proposed in the NPRM. Any operators, who chose to do so, would expect their benefits to exceed their costs.” RACCA believed this statement implies an additional, optional training requirement for the SIC to count flight time under the SIC PDP toward the ATP experience requirements. RACCA noted that there is no requirement for an ATP certificate in part 135 cargo-only operations and therefore additional training for an ATP certificate imposes an economic burden by requiring training not applicable to the operation for which the SIC is being qualified.
Neither the NPRM, nor the regulatory evaluation, proposed to require ATP training for an SIC to be able to log flight time under an SIC PDP. The statement in the regulatory evaluation was referencing the proposed new option for commercial pilots to log flight time under an SIC PDP to meet the minimum experience requirements for the ATP certificate. The proposed requirements for the SIC PDP did not include ATP training. A certificate holder is not required to have an SIC PDP. The FAA emphasizes that an SIC PDP is voluntary and would impose no new requirements on certificate holders conducting operations under part 135 if they choose not to seek approval of an SIC PDP. Any certificate holders who choose to have an SIC PDP would expect the benefits of the SIC PDP to exceed their costs of the SIC PDP.
One individual opposed the proposed SIC PDP, indicating the proposal was a money-making scheme that does not consider the negative consequences. This individual cited previous negative experience with non-required pilots in the right seat of the aircraft stating these unqualified non-essential pilots caused distractions for the PIC. Additionally, this commenter did not agree that a non-required SIC should be able to log flight time equal to the PIC unless the type certification requires an SIC.
Without additional information, the FAA cannot address the specific circumstances presented by the individual commenter. However, the SIC PDP requires pilots assigned as a non-required SIC to meet the same training and qualification requirements as a required SIC. More specifically, § 135.99(c)(3) requires the assigned SIC to meet the SIC qualifications in § 135.245, the flight time and duty period limitations and rest requirements in subpart F of part 135, and the crewmember testing and training requirements for SIC in subparts G and H of part 135.
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed that the amendments to §§ 61.39, 61.51(e) and (f), 61.159(a) and (c), 61.161, and 135.99(c) regarding logging flight time as a second in command in part 135 operations would be made effective 180 days after publication of any final rule associated with the NPRM. In the NPRM, the FAA acknowledged that these provisions affect part 119 certificate holders conducting operations under part 135 and will take more coordination and review by both certificate holders and the FAA.
The FAA recognizes, however, that the coordination and review timeframe will vary among certificate holders. Certain certificate holders' manuals and training programs may already include some of the components of an SIC PDP, such as SOP for conducting operations with a two pilot flightcrew, approved SIC training curriculums, and approved CRM training for operations with a two pilot flightcrew. In these instances, the FAA anticipates the development of the remaining components of an SIC PDP to take less time than for certificate holders who must develop all components of an SIC PDP.
Therefore, in the final rule, the amendments to §§ 61.39, 61.51(e) and (f), 61.159(a) and (c), 61.161, and 135.99(c) will be effective 150 days after publication of this final rule. This change in effective date will allow certificate holders and pilots to benefit from these provisions sooner than proposed, provided the certificate holder has developed all components of an SIC PDP and the certificate holder's principal operations inspector (POI) has authorized use of the SIC PDP in the certificate holder's operations specifications. The FAA notes that review and acceptance or approval of the various components of an SIC PDP by the certificate holder's POI is still required prior to authorization in the operations specifications. As such, certificate holders should plan accordingly to allow sufficient time for FAA acceptance or approval.
As previously discussed, § 135.99 allows a certificate holder to obtain authorization of an SIC PDP, which will be granted via a new operations specification (A062). To be eligible for approval of a SIC PDP, a certificate holder must be authorized to conduct IFR operations with a multiengine airplane or a single-engine turbine-powered airplane, that meets the aircraft, equipment, and instrumentation requirements of § 135.99(c)(2). In accordance with §§ 135.323 and 135.325, the certificate holder must submit a revised training program to the POI for approval. The revised training and qualification program must include (1) curricula for SICs that will serve in an SIC PDP, (2) curricula for PICs that will serve in an SIC PDP to include mentoring training and CRM training for two pilot flight crew operations, (3) curricula for flight instructors that will conduct the training of PICs and SICs in an SIC PDP, and (4) curricula for check pilots that will conduct the checking of PICs and SICs in an SIC PDP. In accordance with §§ 135.21 and 135.23, the certificate holder must also submit a revised manual to the POI for acceptance, which must include (1) standard operating procedures for operations with a two pilot flight crew, (2) duties and responsibilities of an SIC, and procedures to comply with the crew pairing requirements of § 135.99. The certificate holder must also submit procedures for the data collection and analysis process required by § 135.99(c)(1)(iii). The POI will review the documentation submitted by the certificate holder. Once the documentation meets the requirements for approval or acceptance, as applicable, the POI may authorize the SIC PDP via a new operations specification. The FAA will be issuing a new Advisory Circular to provide more detailed guidance to certificate holders on obtaining authorization of an SIC PDP.
Prior to this final rule, § 135.245(a) required a person serving as second-in-command (SIC) in a part 135 operation conducted under IFR to “meet the recent instrument experience requirements of part 61.” The FAA proposed to remove the reference to part 61 in § 135.245(a) and move the current instrument experience requirements in § 61.57(c)(1) and (2) to new § 135.245(c). As explained in the NPRM,
The FAA received comments from two organizations regarding this provision. The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) and General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) recommended the FAA revise proposed § 135.245(c) to allow a pilot serving as SIC in a part 135 operation to use a combination of aircraft and FSTD to meet the proposed instrument recency requirements.
The FAA did not intend to foreclose the option of using a combination of aircraft and FSTD to accomplish SIC instrument recent experience requirements. The FAA is adding language to proposed § 135.245(c)(2) to clarify that a combination of aircraft and FSTD may be used.
AOPA also recommended that the FAA withdraw proposed § 135.245(c) and retain the current § 135.245(a) language to enable persons serving as SIC in a part 135 operation under IFR to use ATDs for instrument recency. Because § 61.57(c)(3) and (4) allow the use of ATDs to satisfy instrument recency requirements in part 61, AOPA believed the requirements of current § 135.245(a) may be satisfied by the use of ATDs. AOPA also believed that, rather than eliminating the use of ATDs for SICs serving in part 135, the FAA should add a limitation to specific Letters of Authorization (LOA) if the use of a particular ATD is not appropriate.
As noted in the NPRM, the FAA does not permit the use of ATDs to satisfy flight training, checking, and recency requirements in part 135. In accordance with § 61.4, the Administrator may approve an ATD for specific purposes. The FAA has never issued a LOA authorizing an ATD to be used to meet the qualification requirement of § 135.245.
AOPA also recommended that the FAA withdraw the proposal in § 135.245(c)(2) for an instructor to be present when a part 135 SIC conducts instrument recency in a FSTD. AOPA noted that, when the FAA modified the instrument recency requirements for part 61 in 2009, the FAA indicated that it did not want to require an instructor to be present when using an approved
The SIC instrument experience requirements were added to part 135 on October 10, 1978, when the FAA published the “Regulatory Review Program: Air Taxi Operators and Commercial Operations” final rule, which substantially revised the requirements for operations under part 135.
Upon further consideration, the FAA has decided to also include the instrument proficiency check (IPC) requirements of § 61.57(d) in § 135.245. Because a person who fails to satisfy the instrument experience requirements of § 61.57(c) for more than six calendar months may reestablish instrument recency only by completing an IPC in accordance with § 61.57(d), the FAA finds that the reference to “recent instrument experience requirements of part 61” in § 135.245 referred to the instrument experience requirements of § 61.57(c)(1) and (2) and the IPC requirements of § 61.57(d). The FAA recognizes that proposed § 135.245 did not include the option to reestablish instrument recency through an IPC. However, the FAA did not intend to eliminate this option for SICs in part 135. The FAA intended only for proposed § 135.245 to list the express requirements for instrument recency rather than reference the requirements of another part. Because the express requirements for instrument recency includes the IPC requirements of § 61.57(d), the FAA is including the IPC requirements in new § 135.245(d). However, to avoid confusion with § 135.297, which contains separate and unique instrument proficiency check requirements for PICs, the FAA is not using the term “instrument proficiency check” in § 135.245(d). Instead, the FAA is using the term “reestablish instrument recency” for SICs.
The FAA notes that § 135.245(a) and (c)(1) remain unchanged from the proposal.
Prior to this final rule, a pilot seeking a commercial pilot certificate with an airplane single-engine class rating was required to complete 10 hours of training in either a complex or turbine-powered airplane.
The FAA received 35 comments on these proposed changes. Twenty-seven commenters generally supported the proposal. LOBO and 6 individuals did not support the proposal. One individual commenter did not opine, but asked for clarification regarding the definition of TAA. The following sections respond to these comments.
The FAA proposed to define “technically advanced airplane” in § 61.1 based on the common and essential components of advanced avionics systems equipped in an airplane, including a primary flight display (PFD), a multifunction flight display (MFD) and an integrated two axis autopilot. The FAA proposed that a TAA must include a PFD that is an electronic display integrating all of the following flight instruments together: An airspeed indicator, turn coordinator, attitude indicator, heading indicator, altimeter, and vertical speed indicator. Additionally, the FAA proposed that an independent MFD must be installed that provides a GPS with moving map navigation system and an integrated two axis autopilot.
GAMA suggested the FAA work with industry in refining the definition of TAA to ensure that it is appropriately flexible to accommodate future technologies.
The FAA recognizes that the proposed definition would have been too prescriptive. As explained throughout this section, the FAA has revised the proposed language in response to industry's concerns to make it more flexible and accommodating of new technologies. Furthermore, the FAA recognizes that the definition of TAA would have inappropriately embedded requirements, which may have inhibited future technologies from falling under the definition of a TAA.
AOPA stated that the terms “Primary Flight Display (PFD)” and “Multifunction Display (MFD),” which are not defined anywhere, will cause confusion. AOPA further noted that the same argument applies to removing “advanced” from “electronically advanced avionics system.” The addition of “advanced,” without any clarification, will generate questions over whether a particular system qualifies as advanced or not. AOPA commented that if a particular airplane is equipped with the items in proposed paragraphs (i) and (ii), then the airplane should be considered equipped as a TAA with the appropriate electronic avionics system.
The FAA is retaining the terms “Primary Flight Display,” “Multifunction Display,” and “advanced” in the TAA requirements. The FAA disagrees that the terms PFD and MFD will cause confusion. These terms are currently used and described in several FAA publications that are recognized by the aviation industry, including the Airplane Flying Handbook (FAA-H-8083-3B), the Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge (FAA-H-8083-25), the Aviation Instructors Handbook (FAA-H-8083-9A), the Instrument Flying Handbook (FAA-H-8083-15B), and the FAA/Industry Training Standards (FITS). The Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge defines a PFD and MFD in the glossary. PFD is defined as “a display that provides increased situational awareness to the pilot by replacing the traditional six instruments used for instrument flight with an easy-to-scan display that provides the horizon, airspeed, altitude, vertical speed, trend, trim, and rate of turn among other key relevant indications.” MFD is defined as a “small screen (CRT or LCD) in an aircraft that can be used to display information to the pilot in numerous configurable ways. Often an MFD will be used in concert with a primary flight display.”
The FAA believes the terms PFD and MFD add clarity to the TAA requirements by describing and prioritizing the display features and elements for TAA avionics and their respective functions. For example, the term PFD is specific to the use of the primary flight controls to maintain aircraft attitude and positive control. The PFD is used by the pilot to execute appropriate use of the control stick or yoke for pitch and bank, rudder pedals for yaw, and throttle for engine power. The PFD is designed specific to controlling the aircraft attitude and altitude relative to the horizon and the surface of the earth, especially when outside visibility is poor or unavailable. The MFD has a different priority; its function is secondary to the PFD. The MFD is designed for navigational use and position awareness information, even though it may include some PFD features for redundancy. Furthermore, the FAA is requiring certain minimum display elements for both a PFD and MFD, respectively, thereby clarifying what will be considered a PFD or MFD.
As for the term “advanced,” the FAA finds it necessary to describe the avionics system of a TAA as “advanced” to differentiate current new glass cockpit aircraft designs from older aircraft that used six independent mechanical dial/analog style flight instruments.
Twin City suggested the FAA clarify whether the MFD requirement may be satisfied by a split-screen display (
Section 61.129(j)(2) requires only the minimum elements of a MFD; it does not preclude the use of a split-screen display or two independent screens contained within a single physical unit. Therefore, a manufacturer may use a split-screen display or two independent screens for the PFD and MFD provided the displays contain the minimum elements required for each. Furthermore, in response to Twin City's comment, the FAA is clarifying the MFD requirements by first describing what the display shows (
Several commenters noted ambiguity with requiring the MFD to include an “integrated two axis autopilot.” Garmin noted that the G500 and G600 have autopilot mode control and annunciations capabilities for select autopilots on the PFD, not the MFD portion of the display. Therefore, the autopilot function itself is provided in a separate piece of equipment and not included in the MFD. Garmin also noted that equipment, such as Garmin's GTN650 and GTN750, could be considered an independent additional MFD that includes GPS with moving map navigation but the autopilot function and related mode control and annunciations are provided in separate pieces of equipment. Twin City suggested the FAA remove “integrated” from the description of the autopilot, allowing the use of independent/aftermarket autopilot systems.
In response to these comments, the FAA did not intend to exclude systems that provide autopilot functions separate from the MFD. The FAA is therefore separating the “two-axis autopilot” requirement from the MFD requirement. Accordingly, under new § 61.129(j)(3), the two axis autopilot is no longer required to be included as part of the MFD. This change from what was proposed allows the use of independent/aftermarket autopilot systems.
Twin City also asked the FAA to specify whether the integrated autopilot must include GPS roll steering (GPSS). Furthermore, Twin City asked whether the proposed two-axis requirement would have been satisfied by autopilots
In response to Twin City's comments, the TAA requirements of § 61.129(j) do not require the autopilot to have GPSS. However, § 61.129(j) specifies only the minimum requirements for a TAA. Therefore, an autopilot may have additional features, including GPSS. The “two axis” requirement refers to the lateral and longitudinal axes. The autopilot at a minimum must be able to track a predetermined GPS course or heading selection, and also be able to hold a selected altitude. The autopilot is not, however, required to control vertical navigation other than holding a selected altitude. The FAA is revising the proposed language for clarity and to accommodate future advancements in technology. Rather than requiring the MFD to have an integrated two axis autopilot, the FAA is requiring the TAA to have a two axis autopilot integrated with the navigation and heading guidance system. The FAA believes this revision from what was proposed clarifies the minimum requirements for the two axis autopilot and also allows for flexibility in autopilot design and installation.
AOPA, Garmin, and GAMA recommended that the FAA not require the MFD to be an “independent additional” piece of equipment because this requirement would preclude a single display that features the required information of both a PFD and a MFD from qualifying as a TAA.
The FAA agrees that the proposed definition of TAA would have been unintentionally restrictive and would have excluded some qualifying aircraft unnecessarily with its use of the phrase “independent additional.” The proposed requirement for an MFD to be an independent additional piece of equipment was intended to ensure that the minimum display elements are visible at all times. The FAA is not opposed to an aircraft having one display or piece of hardware that meets the overall definition requirements of § 61.129(j). The FAA is therefore removing the phrase “independent additional” from the proposed language to allow a single piece of equipment or single display to satisfy the requirement for both a PFD and MFD. However, to ensure that both displays are visible at the same time, the FAA is requiring the display elements for both the PFD and MFD (paragraphs (j)(1) and (2)) to be continuously visible.
Garmin noted that the proposed phrase “(MFD) that includes, at a minimum, a Global Positioning System (GPS) with moving map navigation and an integrated two axis autopilot” is problematic. Garmin explained that the MFD portion of the G500 and G600 has a moving map that is driven by GPS but the GPS is a separate piece of equipment and not included in the MFD portion of the display.
In reference to the G500 and G600 equipment identified by Garmin, the FAA understands that the PFD and MFD can be driven or supported by other pieces of equipment to provide for its required functionality. Many of the display features for the PFD and MFD can be driven by separate pieces of equipment that are connected to the display. The TAA requirements in no way restrict the use of peripheral or supporting equipment that enables the display functionality described for the PFD and MFD in the TAA requirements. Therefore, the FAA finds that the G500 and G600 equipment identified by Garmin likely satisfies the requirements for an MFD.
Garmin also commented that the phrase “Global Positioning System (GPS) with moving map navigation” inappropriately mixes “GPS”, “moving map”, and “navigation” functionality. Garmin noted that FAA has separate TSOs for these functions, including for GPS sensors: TSO-C145 (GPS with SBAS), TSO-C161 (GPS with GBAS), and TSO-C196 (GPS only); for moving map: TSO-C165, and for navigation: TSO-C146 (standalone navigation equipment using GPS/SBAS sensor) and TSO-C115d (required navigation performance (RNP) equipment using multi-sensor inputs). Garmin added that it would be better to list these functions separately to allow for avionics architectures that provide these functions in different equipment that still supports the concept of a TAA.
In response to Garmin's concern with the use of the terms GPS, moving map, and navigation, the FAA is only describing the display functionality requirements of the PFD and MFD equipment. The FAA is not adopting any requirements for the underlying architecture or supporting equipment that would provide for the display functions or capabilities.
GAMA commented that the FAA should consider whether it is appropriate to evaluate designating certain rotorcraft as technically advanced for certain training and testing related initiatives in the future, noting several benefits.
The FAA appreciates GAMA's comments. However, the FAA finds it unnecessary to designate a rotorcraft as technically advanced at this time because there are no regulatory requirements to obtain training in a technically advanced rotorcraft.
The FAA proposed to amend § 61.129(a)(3)(ii) and appendix D to part 141 to allow a pilot seeking a commercial pilot certificate with an airplane category single engine class rating to complete the 10 hours of training in a complex airplane, turbine-powered airplane, or a TAA, or any combination of these three airplanes.
AOPA, American Flyers, Bemidji, Eagle Flight Centre, UND, NATA, Twin City, and nine individuals, supported the proposal, noting that it would provide training alternatives to aging complex airplanes and reduce costs. Several commenters noted that allowing TAAs in place of complex airplanes would introduce commercial pilot candidates to risk management and increase pilot proficiency in systems management, integration, and use of glass cockpit instrumentation, which would result in a safer, more valuable training experience. Commenters explained the costs and maintenance issues associated with aging complex airplanes, and stated that allowing TAAs to be used as a replacement would address the lack of availability of complex airplanes. Furthermore, several commenters believed the proposal would enhance safety, while others commented that any potential risk to safety would be mitigated by the requirement in § 61.31(e) that a pilot receive training and an endorsement from an instructor prior to acting as PIC in a complex airplane.
As commenters noted, there are several benefits associated with allowing TAAs to be used in place of complex airplanes. For these reasons and for the reasons explained in the
AOPA recommended the FAA revise the proposed rule language of § 61.129(a)(3)(ii) and appendix D of part 141 to clarify that the combined use of complex, turbine-powered, and technically advanced airplanes is permitted.
As evident from the NPRM, the FAA intended to allow a pilot seeking a commercial pilot certificate with a single engine class rating to complete the 10 hours of training in any combination of complex, turbine-powered, and technically advanced airplanes. However, the proposed rule language did not reflect this intent. The FAA is therefore adding language to § 61.129(a)(3)(ii) and appendix D to part 141 to clarify that any combination of a complex airplane, turbine-powered airplane, or TAA may be used. For consistency, the FAA is also adding language to § 61.129(b)(3)(ii) and appendix D to part 141 to clarify that a pilot seeking a commercial pilot certificate with a multiengine class rating may complete the 10 hours of training using any combination of multiengine complex airplanes or multiengine turbine-powered airplanes.
Furthermore, as explained in the NPRM, the FAA proposed to amend § 61.129(a)(3)(ii) and appendix D to part 141 to allow an applicant for a commercial pilot certificate with a single-engine class rating to complete 10 hours of training in a complex, turbine-powered or technically advanced airplane. The FAA explained how demonstration of proficiency in an airplane that is electronically complex will be comparable to the demonstration of proficiency in an airplane that is mechanically complex. Thus, based on the FAA's proposal, the option to use a TAA was intended to apply to all commercial pilot applicants for a single-engine class rating regardless of whether the applicant was seeking a land or sea rating. The FAA recognizes, however, that proposed § 61.129(a)(3)(ii) did not accurately reflect this intent as it applied to commercial pilot applicants for single-engine sea ratings. Rather, proposed § 61.129(a)(3)(ii) would have allowed a commercial pilot applicant for a single-engine sea rating to use only a complex airplane. Therefore, consistent with its intent, the FAA is revising proposed § 61.129(a)(3)(ii) to allow applicants for a commercial pilot certificate with a single-engine class rating (including both land and sea) to complete the 10 hours of training in a complex, turbine-powered, or technically advanced airplane, or any combination thereof. The FAA is specifying in § 61.129(a)(3)(ii), however, that the airplane must be appropriate to land or sea depending on the rating sought, which is consistent with the requirement in § 61.129(a)(3)(ii) as it existed prior to this final rule. The FAA is also adding language to appendix D to part 141 to clarify that the airplane used to satisfy the 10 hours of training in a complex, turbine-powered, or TAA must be appropriate to land or sea depending on the rating sought.
Bemidji suggested the FAA add an exception to § 61.31(e), which prescribes additional training for operating complex airplanes, and § 61.31(f), which prescribes additional training for operating high-performance airplanes, to allow a part 135 flight instructor without a current flight instructor certificate/flight instructor instrument certificate to satisfy the training and endorsement requirements of paragraphs (e) and (f). Bemidji recommended an exception similar to § 61.31(g)(3)(iv), which excepts from the training and endorsements requirements of paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) persons who can document satisfactory completion of a PIC proficiency check under part 121, 125, or 135 conducted by the Administrator or by an approved pilot check airman. Bemidji noted that complex airplane training is becoming difficult for new pilots to receive in both part 61 and part 141 flight school environments and that an increasing number of part 135 instructors do not maintain a current flight instructor certificate because it is not required. Bemidji added that the current language in § 61.31(e) may become an issue in the typical flight training environment if the complex airplane is no longer needed for the commercial certificate, and if fixed gear multiengine aircraft become more popular in the flight training environment.
The FAA agrees with revising § 61.31(e) and (f) to allow a competency check under part 135 to meet the requirements for training in complex or high performance airplanes. However, the FAA is not providing an exception for part 121 or 125 operators. The change to the commercial pilot training requirements to allow use of a TAA instead of a complex airplane for the airplane single-engine class rating could require a part 135 air carrier or operator to provide this training to newly employed pilots who may not have previous experience in complex airplanes. The FAA understands Bemidji's comment to indicate that this change could also require a part 135 air carrier or operator to provide high-performance airplane training to newly employed pilots. The FAA infers this suggestion from Bemidji's comment because many complex airplanes are also high-performance airplanes. As a result, many pilots complete complex and high-performance training using the same airplane. Therefore, since a complex airplane is no longer required for the commercial certificate with an airplane single-engine class rating, it is more likely that a newly-employed pilot at a part 135 air carrier or operator might not have previous experience in a high-performance airplane.
In accordance with § 135.323, a part 135 air carrier or operator is currently required to establish and implement an approved training program that ensures that each pilot, flight instructor, and check pilot is adequately trained to perform his or her assigned duties. Therefore, a part 135 approved training program for an airplane that meets the definition of complex or high-performance will include the required ground and flight training necessary to meet the intent of § 61.31(e)(1)(i) and (f)(1)(i), as applicable. All part 135 pilots are required to complete a § 135.293 competency check every 12 calendar months. Therefore, the FAA agrees with Bemidji that it is appropriate to include an exception in § 61.31(e) and (f) for persons who have successfully completed a § 135.293 competency check in a complex or high performance airplane, or in an FSTD that is representative of a complex or
An individual, who identified himself as a pilot, suggested that to mitigate the risk of gear up landings for students that did not receive training in complex airplane it may be appropriate to amend the requirements of 14 CFR 61.31(e). This individual suggested requiring additional experience and/or training prior to receiving the complex endorsement, rather than keeping the requirement under § 61.129(a)(3)(ii) with respect to commercial pilot certification.
Similarly, SAFE and one individual recommended the FAA require a commercial pilot to have at least 10 hours of PIC time in a complex airplane prior to exercising commercial privileges in a complex airplane.
The FAA is not adding additional training or experience requirements to § 61.31(e). Adding the option to train in a TAA at the commercial pilot level does not change the FAA's safety assessment that a person who complies with § 61.31(e), which requires training and an endorsement from an authorized instructor certifying that the person is proficient to operate a complex airplane, is sufficient.
LOBO and four individuals, including one who identified himself as an instructor, opposed the provision, asserting that the proposed amendments would provide for a commercial pilot certificate without experience operating the controls of a mechanically complex airplane. LOBO stated that as proposed, training will result in a pilot who can operate TAA, but will know nothing about systems and procedures on complex airplanes such as controllable pitch propellers and retractable landing gear systems. LOBO further stated that many of these commercial pilots will go on to get flight instructor certificates and teach in single engine airplanes, again without having to demonstrate complex system operations. The individual, who identified himself as an instructor, stated that it is the degradation in physical pilot skills that has been noticed over time as having become problematic to the FAA and National Transportation Safety Board. This commenter noted the importance of demonstrated skill with learning, understanding and demonstrating a complicated aircraft system in the performance of flight duties. Another individual noted that the proposal would provide the pilot with no experience in the flight dynamics (changing pitch and drag) when operating landing gear, flaps and a controllable propeller.
LOBO and three individuals, one of whom identified himself as an instructor, noted that a combination of complex airplane and TAA for use during training and checking would be a better choice. Specifically, LOBO suggested that commercial pilot applicants should have to demonstrate proficiency with both glass cockpit technology and complex system operations, including use of the landing gear.
LOBO and three individuals generally noted that current requirements provide valuable experience in cockpit management procedures and complex systems operations, not provided by TAA. Specifically, LOBO noted that the perception that an FAA checkride in a single engine TAA will produce a commercial pilot with the same skills as one who had to learn complex airplane operations is false. One individual noted that training in a complex airplane provides the proper mindset and cockpit management procedures needed in order to be successful long term pilots. Additionally, one individual, identified as an instructor, noted that the original purpose of the regulation was to ensure pilot demonstration and mastery of both the technical aspects of the system operation and incorporating that understanding into the safe and efficient operation of the airplane. This individual further believed that the FAA has lost sight of that purpose in seeking to substitute a TAA in place of complex or turbine powered airplanes.
The FAA disagrees with comments suggesting that TAA skills are not as significant or as necessary as complex airplane skills. The FAA does not suggest that this is the same skill set required for operating a complex airplane, but an appropriate experience requirement for a commercial pilot applicant. This final rule allows the combined use of a turbine-powered, complex, or TAA for satisfying the experience requirements. In fact, most, if not all, production aircraft currently produced now have glass cockpits utilizing advanced LCD displays for aircraft control and navigation. These advanced flight information systems are becoming mainstream equipment in both general and commercial aviation aircraft operations, and many older aircraft are being retrofitted with this new instrument glass cockpit technology.
The FAA emphasizes that prior to acting as PIC of a complex airplane, a commercial pilot (or any other certificated pilot) must receive and log additional ground and flight training in a complex airplane and receive an endorsement from an authorized instructor certifying that the person is proficient to operate a complex airplane.
LOBO and two individuals believed that the proposal would increase the risk of gear up landings. LOBO asserted that the number one cause of all Lancair accidents and incidents is failure to follow proper procedures. An individual explained the need for pilots to be trained on operations of retractable landing gear and the associated emergency procedures. This individual emphasized that training in a TAA cannot serve as a substitute.
This final rule does not eliminate the requirement for a pilot to receive training in complex airplane operations prior to acting as PIC of a complex airplane. The amendment to § 61.129(a)(3)(ii) allows a pilot to use a TAA as an alternative to a complex airplane to satisfy the aeronautical experience specified in paragraph (a)(3)(ii). However, under § 61.31(e), a pilot is still required to receive training in a complex airplane and an endorsement from the authorized instructor certifying that the pilot is proficient to operate a complex airplane prior to acting as PIC of a complex airplane. An authorized instructor is responsible for providing as much training time as necessary to ensure a person is proficient before providing a complex airplane endorsement. Therefore, the FAA does not expect the final rule to result in an increase in gear up landings.
LOBO cited a report by Tom Turner of the American Bonanza Society that noted “Tracking accident reports through other sources, I've found that nearly 20 percent of all accidents in piston-powered, retractable gear aeroplanes are gear-up landings. The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) tells us there is an average of three gear-up landings every week in the United States.” (Turner, 2015). LOBO stated that Turner also stated that landing gear related mishaps cost the insurance industry (and the owners who pay premiums) nearly $1 million per month in claims or $12 million per year, far more than the $1.6 million per year in savings proposed by the NPRM.
The FAA reviewed the gear up landing statistics referenced by LOBO and has determined, with the assistance of the National Transportation Safety Board, that the gear up landing statistics are significantly less than described, representative of mostly private operators, and the majority of them not engaged in commercial operations. The NTSB reported to the FAA that between January 2013 and June 2016 there were a total of 59 gear-up incidents and accidents reported, and all but one was operating under part 91 operating rules.
LOBO disagreed with the FAA's position that there are certain challenges with availability, maintenance and cost of complex airplanes. Specifically, LOBO stated that the FAA's position that airplanes with retractable landing gear are unavailable for purchase, expensive to maintain, and are not equipped with glass cockpits, is false. LOBO noted that it is aware of at least one retractable gear airplane with a Garmin G500 cockpit and that there are single engine retractable gear airplanes suitable for flight training available at affordable prices, but did not provide any specific data. One individual acknowledged the higher maintenance costs for complex airplanes, but also noted the higher acquisition costs for TAAs. This individual explained that there is little cost difference to the student because the equally high maintenance and acquisition costs are passed on to the renter. Another individual believed that the initial acquisition costs for TAAs makes the cost of training in TAA far greater than in complex airplanes.
Based on public comment, the GAMA shipment database, and discussion with large general aviation organizations, the current fleet of available complex airplanes is decreasing. Many commenters describe limited or no availability of complex airplanes for rent. New production of these types of complex airplanes used for initial flight training is at an all-time low,
The FAA also received comments on ensuring the flight instructor providing the training in a complex airplane or TAA is qualified to provide the training. Specifically, SAFE recommended the FAA amend § 61.195 to require a flight instructor to have at least 10 hours of PIC time in a complex airplane prior to giving instruction in a complex airplane and at least 10 hours of PIC time in a TAA prior to giving instruction in a TAA. An individual also recommended requiring flight instructors to have 10 hours of PIC time in a complex airplane.
The FAA is not requiring a flight instructor to obtain a minimum of 10 hours as PIC in a complex airplane prior to instructing in a complex airplane. As discussed previously, the FAA finds that the current training and endorsement requirement to act as PIC of a complex airplane as set forth in § 61.31, in conjunction with the flight instructor's demonstrated knowledge of the fundamentals of instruction, is sufficient to ensure that this type of training is provided effectively. Furthermore, the ability to provide training in a complex airplane without having been evaluated on a practical test is consistent with other § 61.31 endorsements, including high performance aircraft, tailwheel aircraft, and high altitude operations.
Additionally, the FAA is not requiring a flight instructor to obtain 10 hours as PIC in a TAA prior to instructing in a TAA. The proposal was intended only to introduce commercial pilot candidates to TAAs. Flight instructors are currently permitted to provide flight training in airplanes with glass-cockpits without having to receive any specific amount of training in the aircraft. Therefore, allowing a flight instructor to provide flight instruction in a TAA without first receiving extensive training in the TAA will not result in a decreased level of safety. Flight instructors have the responsibility of ensuring their familiarity with an aircraft prior to providing flight instruction in that aircraft.
Furthermore, since the NPRM, the FAA has determined that the requirement in § 61.129(b)(3)(ii) that a seaplane have flaps and a controllable pitch propeller has not been updated to reflect the revised definition of “complex airplane” in § 61.1. In 2011, the FAA amended the definition of “complex airplane” to include airplanes and seaplanes equipped with a full authority digital engine control (FADEC).
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to revise the commercial pilot single engine airplane practical test standards (PTS) to permit the use of a TAA in place of a complex or turbine-powered airplane during the initial practical test.
AOPA supported the proposed changes to the commercial pilot and flight instructor PTS because they are necessary to carry out the proposed amendments to § 61.129(c)(3)(ii) and appendix D to part 141.
UND recommended the FAA not require an applicant to use a TAA for the flight instructor practical test. UND described that, according to the flight instructor single engine airplane PTS, the TAA would be needed for “takeoff and landing maneuvers as well as appropriate emergency procedures” and questioned why a two axis autopilot is needed to demonstrate proficiency for takeoff and landings in a VFR traffic pattern. UND suggested that this PTS requirement should be removed from a PTS that focuses on VFR maneuvers. UND requested the removal of both the complex airplane and the TAA airplane requirement from the flight instructor single engine airplane PTS.
Upon further review, the FAA decided not to revise the commercial pilot airman certification standards (ACS) and flight instructor PTS to include the option to use a TAA during the commercial pilot (single-engine airplane) or flight instructor (single-engine airplane) practical tests.
As explained in the NPRM, there are far fewer single engine complex airplanes available to meet the ACS requirement, and the single engine complex airplanes that are available are older aircraft that are expensive to maintain. Revising the airmen certification standards to include the option to use a TAA for the commercial pilot and flight instructor practical tests would have alleviated some of the cost, maintenance and production issues associated with single engine complex airplanes. However, the FAA found that removing the ACS requirements to furnish a complex or turbine powered airplane achieves the same objectives. Additionally, the FAA determined that removing these ACS/PTS requirements, rather than adding the option to use a TAA, more significantly reduces costs for persons pursuing a commercial pilot or flight instructor certificate by allowing applicants to utilize less expensive airplanes on the practical test that are not turbine driven, complex, or technically advanced. Furthermore, the FAA found that no longer requiring a complex airplane to be furnished for the initial commercial pilot or flight instructor practical test will not result in a decreased level of safety. Airplanes provided for the practical test will be less complex, newer, and not as likely to fail due to mechanical and maintenance issues associated with older single engine complex airplanes. Additionally, prior to operating as PIC of a complex airplane, a pilot is still required to receive flight training and an endorsement from an authorized
The FAA concluded that any airplane may be used to accomplish the tasks described in the commercial pilot (single-engine) ACS or flight instructor (single-engine) PTS, provided that aircraft is capable of accomplishing all areas of operation required for the practical test and is the appropriate category and class for the rating sought.
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to revise § 61.195(b) and (c) to allow a flight instructor who holds only an instrument-airplane or instrument-helicopter rating on his or her flight instructor certificate to conduct instrument training.
The FAA received four comments on this proposal. Three commenters supported the proposed changes to § 61.195(b) and (c); one individual opposed them.
American Flyers stated that if an instrument instructor holds the appropriate category and class on his or her commercial pilot certificate, he or she has already demonstrated proficiency on the tasks required for the commercial practical test. Eagle Sport stated that instrument procedures are standard across the board and instrument instructors should be qualified to teach them. One individual believed that removing the requirement of category and class for instrument instructors makes absolute sense and instrument flying and the regulations are the same no matter what aircraft is being flown.
The FAA recognizes that instrument procedures are fundamentally consistent within a particular category of aircraft and that the same instrument flight rules apply in the NAS regardless of what aircraft is being flown. However, upon further review, the FAA has determined that a flight instructor who does not possess an airplane category multiengine class rating on his or her flight instructor certificate has not been trained and tested on giving instruction in a multiengine airplane, specifically instruction on one-engine inoperative tasks. The Flight Instructor Instrument Practical Test Standards (PTS) are not the same for single-engine and multiengine airplanes because the PTS contains two tasks that are specific to multiengine airplanes.
In the interest of safety, the FAA has determined that, in order to provide instrument instruction in a multiengine airplane competently and safely, the flight instructor must have been trained and tested on giving instruction in a multiengine airplane including instruction on one-engine inoperative tasks. Any task required for the multiengine airplane rating has the potential for becoming a single engine operation. Verification of flight instructor proficiency in teaching emergency scenarios such as a loss of an engine during multiengine operations ensures that flight instructors can successfully mitigate such risk and safely provide instrument training in multiengine airplanes.
Therefore, the FAA is revising proposed § 61.195(c) by adding new paragraph (c)(2), which requires a flight instructor who possesses an instrument rating on his or her flight instructor certificate to also possess an airplane category multiengine class rating on his or her flight instructor certificate when conducting instrument training in a multiengine airplane.
The FAA is also revising § 61.195(e) to clarify that a flight instructor may not give instrument training in an aircraft that requires the PIC to hold a type rating unless the flight instructor holds a type rating for that aircraft on his or her pilot certificate. While this revision was not proposed in the NPRM, flight instruction includes instrument training;
One individual, who is identified as a flight instructor, believed that an instrument-only flight instructor may not possess the skills necessary to manipulate the aircraft if the pilot flying loses control of the aircraft. The commenter further stated that instrument-only flight instructors do not have to demonstrate stalls or spin proficiency on the practical test, and described observing many pilots on instrument proficiency checks incorrectly recovering from an unusual attitude training event pushing the aircraft closer to a stall/spin scenario.
For the reasons explained above, the FAA agrees that an instrument-only flight instructor may not possess the skills needed to conduct instrument training in a multiengine airplane and is revising proposed § 61.195(c) accordingly. However, the FAA believes that a flight instructor with only an instrument-airplane rating or instrument-helicopter rating possesses the skills necessary to conduct instrument training in an aircraft (other than a multiengine airplane). The Flight Instructor Instrument Airplane and Helicopter PTS states that examiners shall place special emphasis upon areas of aircraft operations considered critical to flight safety, including positive aircraft control, stall/spin awareness, and other areas deemed appropriate to any phase of the practical test.
Furthermore, the FAA is revising and restructuring proposed § 61.195(b) for clarity. Proposed § 61.195(b)(2) would have required the flight instructor to hold a pilot certificate with a type rating, if appropriate. The FAA finds that this language could have been interpreted as requiring the flight instructor to hold a type rating, which was not the FAA's intent. Prior to this final rule, § 61.195(b) required a flight instructor to hold a type rating only if appropriate. The FAA did not propose to change this requirement. Therefore, the FAA is revising proposed § 61.195(b) to require the flight instructor to hold a flight instructor certificate appropriate to category and class; to hold a pilot certificate; and to meet the requirements of § 61.195(e), if applicable. Section 61.195(e) requires a flight instructor to hold a type rating on his or her pilot certificate if the aircraft requires the PIC to hold a type rating.
The FAA will revise FAA Order 8900.1 to be consistent with the flight instructor privileges and limitations associated with this rule. Additionally, these instructor privileges and limitations described for instrument training in an aircraft will also be applicable to training credits permitted when using an FFS, FTD, or ATD.
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to add new § 61.412 to authorize a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating to provide training on control and maneuvering solely by reference to the instruments to sport pilot applicants receiving flight training for the purpose of solo cross-country requirements in an airplane that has a V
The FAA also proposed to revise § 61.415 by adding a new paragraph (h) to clarify that a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating may not conduct flight training on control and maneuvering an aircraft solely by reference to the instruments in an airplane that has a V
The FAA received six comments regarding this proposal. All commenters supported the FAA allowing flight instructors with a sport pilot rating to provide training to sport pilot applicants on control and maneuvering solely by reference to the flight instruments. However, each commenter expressed concern and offered revisions to proposed § 61.412.
AOPA, Chesapeake Sport Pilot (2 individuals), and one individual recommended the FAA except flight instructors with a sport pilot rating who also hold at least a private pilot certificate with a single-engine airplane rating from the proposed § 61.412 training requirement.
The FAA is not providing an exception to the training and endorsement requirements of § 61.412 for flight instructors with a sport pilot rating who also possess a private pilot certificate or higher. As the FAA explained in the NPRM, § 61.412(b) involves flight training for the purpose of giving instruction on control and maneuvering solely by reference to the instruments. While a person who holds at least a private pilot certificate with a single-engine airplane rating has received three hours of flight training in a single-engine airplane on the control
Eagle Sport LLC commented that requiring a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating to obtain additional instruction and an endorsement in order to provide training on control and maneuvering solely by reference to the flight instruments is needlessly cumbersome. One individual commenter suggested that an endorsement may be sufficient (without the need for a specific training time requirement).
The FAA is requiring a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating to receive and log a minimum of one hour of ground training and three hours of flight training, as proposed. As stated in the NPRM,
SAFE agreed that a one-time endorsement is appropriate, but asserted that the minimum training requirement is insufficient. SAFE recommended that the flight instructor with a sport pilot rating be required to demonstrate all the tasks described in the Private Pilot ACS Area VIII, Task F.
The FAA disagrees with SAFE's assertion. The training and subsequent endorsement that will be provided to the flight instructor with a sport pilot rating is not meant to be a practical test and should not be treated as such. The instructor providing the training can make the determination of competency without referencing the PTS standards. The training and endorsement required under § 61.412 is similar in nature to the other training and endorsements instructors provide, such as for high performance, complex, or tailwheel airplanes.
SAFE also stated that it is unclear what “use of radio aids and ATC directives” means under proposed § 61.412(c). To more clearly define it, SAFE suggested referencing the “Private Pilot ACS Area VIII, Task F, Radio Communications, Navigation Systems/Facilities, and Radar Services” instead.
Because § 61.412(c) requires the flight instructor with a sport pilot rating to receive an endorsement certifying that the instructor is proficient in providing the flight training specified in § 61.93(e)(12), the FAA is describing the flight training in § 61.412(c) by using language that mirrors the language of § 61.93(e)(12). Thus, the language “use of radio aids and ATC directives” does not introduce a new concept into the regulations. It has been used in 14 CFR 61.93 since 1997.
SAFE also stated that it is unclear what type of instructor would be authorized under subpart H. SAFE questioned if this should be any flight instructor that meets the appropriate category and class requirement, an instrument flight instructor, or an instructor who meets the requirements to provide instruction for an initial flight instructor certificate applicant. SAFE suggested the training be provided by an instructor with substantial experience who also meets the requirements to provide training for the initial flight instructor certificate.
The FAA intended for any flight instructor authorized under subpart H to provide the requisite training and endorsement to a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating. However, in its own continued review of the NPRM, the FAA discovered that the express language of § 61.195(c) would have prohibited an instrument-only flight instructor from providing flight training on the control and maneuvering of an airplane solely by reference to the flight instruments. As explained in the NPRM, a subpart H instructor is instrument rated and knowledgeable on the appropriate techniques for safely accomplishing flight by reference to the flight instruments. Because flight training on the control and maneuvering of an airplane solely by reference to the flight instruments is not instrument training, it may be provided by a flight instructor who does not hold an instrument rating on his or her flight instructor certificate.
The FAA understands that a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating has already demonstrated proficiency in the fundamentals of instruction and course development. A flight instructor with a sport pilot rating is evaluated and then qualified on the fundamentals of flight instruction before receiving a flight instructor certificate.
AOPA recommended the FAA revise proposed § 61.412(b) to allow flight instructors with a sport pilot rating to receive the required three hours of flight training in an ATD. AOPA explained
The FAA recognizes that proposed § 61.412(b) would have allowed the three hours of flight training to be conducted in an airplane with a V
AOPA also recommended clarifying changes to proposed § 61.412. First, AOPA recommended revising the proposed rule language to clarify that the solo cross-country endorsement is not issued pursuant to § 61.93(e)(12). Rather, the required flight training maneuvers and procedures are listed under § 61.93(e)(12). Second, AOPA stated that § 61.327 requires two different endorsements. AOPA recommended referencing § 61.327(b), rather than § 61.327 in its entirety, because paragraph (b) requires the endorsement for sport pilots who want to operate a light-sport aircraft that has a V
The FAA is revising proposed § 61.412 to clarify that the flight training on control and maneuvering an aircraft solely by reference to the instruments is provided under § 61.93(e)(12), and the solo cross-country endorsement is issued under § 61.93(c)(1). Additionally, the FAA is using the phrase “student pilot seeking a sport pilot certificate,” rather than the proposed term “sport pilot applicant,” because it more accurately describes the pilots who must obtain the solo-cross country endorsement under § 61.93(c)(1). The phrase “student pilot seeking a sport pilot certificate” is also consistent with the terminology that exists in current § 61.93(e)(12). Furthermore, the FAA is referencing § 61.327(b) for the reasons identified by AOPA.
Eagle Sport LLC expressed concern with requiring student pilots seeking a sport pilot certificate to receive training on flight solely by reference to the flight instruments as part of training for cross-country flight if operating a light sport airplane that has a V
This requirement has existed since February 1, 2010.
One commenter recommended the FAA add instrument time to the requirements for flight instructors with a sport pilot rating. The FAA is not adopting this recommendation. The FAA finds it unnecessary to require a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating to obtain instrument training because a sport pilot may not operate when the flight or surface visibility is less than 3 statute miles, or without visual reference to the surface.
The FAA notes that §§ 61.415 and 91.109 remain unchanged from the NPRM. The FAA also notes that it will revise AC 61-65F to include the appropriate endorsement language that can be used when authorizing a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating.
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to revise § 61.99 and add new § 61.109(l) to allow a portion of the flight training received from a sport pilot instructor who does not also hold a flight instructor certificate issued under the requirements in subpart H to be credited toward a portion of the flight training requirements for a recreational or private pilot certificate with airplane, rotorcraft, or lighter-than-air categories.
As an alternative, the FAA considered allowing all training received from a sport pilot instructor to be credited by an applicant seeking a recreational or private pilot certificate. An applicant would still be required to obtain a minimum of three hours of training in preparation for the practical test (within the preceding 2 calendar months) from a flight instructor under subpart H,
The FAA received 13 comments on this proposal. Twelve commenters supported the proposed rule changes; one commenter opposed them.
EAA, AOPA, one individual, and two commenters writing on behalf of Chesapeake Sport Pilot recommended that all the training time received from a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating be allowed for credit for the recreational or private pilot certificate. Both EAA and AOPA indicated that the same fundamental knowledge is required for the sport pilot certificate as other pilot certificates, that many of the flight training requirements and tasks
After review of the comments and further analysis, the FAA has decided to allow all training received from a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating to be credited by an applicant seeking a recreational or private pilot certificate. The FAA recognizes that an applicant for a sport pilot certificate must complete flight training on many of the same areas of operation required for a recreational or private pilot certificate.
Additionally, before receiving solo cross-country privileges, all student pilots pursuing a sport pilot (in airplanes with a V
A student pilot seeking a sport pilot certificate is not tested on basic instrument maneuvers during the sport pilot practical test.
The FAA agrees with AOPA that sufficient safeguards are in place to prevent any reduction in safety, including the additional training and recommendations
For the reasons discussed above, the FAA is revising § 61.99 and adding new paragraph (l) to § 61.109 to allow all flight training received from a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating to be credited toward the aeronautical experience requirements of §§ 61.99 and 61.109, provided certain conditions are met. The FAA notes that proposed § 61.109(l) would have allowed only a certain amount of sport pilot training to be credited toward the private pilot certificate based on the specific aircraft category and class rating sought. Because the FAA is now allowing all sport pilot training to be credited, the FAA is revising proposed § 61.109(l) to no longer differentiate credit based on specific aircraft categories and classes and to clarify the conditions under which a sport pilot may credit sport pilot training toward a private pilot certificate. Therefore, new § 61.109(l) allows the holder of a sport pilot certificate to credit flight training received from a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating toward the aeronautical experience requirements of § 61.109 if the conditions specified in paragraphs (l)(1) through (3) are satisfied.
Section 61.109(l)(1) requires the flight training to be accomplished in the same category and class of aircraft for which the rating is sought. This requirement is consistent with the NPRM, which stated that any training received from a sport pilot instructor that would be credited under this rule must be completed in an aircraft appropriate to the category and class rating for the recreational or private pilot certificate sought.
The FAA is revising proposed § 61.99(b) to be consistent with the reorganization of proposed § 61.109(l).
SAFE commented that pilot certification under part 61 is based on demonstrated performance. Therefore, if a sport pilot meets the required performance standards, the pilot should not have to accomplish additional training just because the previous training was provided by a subpart K instructor.
The FAA notes that pilot certification under part 61 is based on more than flight proficiency. An applicant for a pilot certificate must meet all the applicable aeronautical knowledge, flight proficiency, and aeronautical experience requirements. Sections 61.99 and 61.109, which contain the aeronautical experience requirements for a person who applies for a recreational or private pilot certificate, respectively, prescribes flight training and experience requirements above those that are required for a sport pilot certificate.
One individual suggested that if a private pilot candidate can credit time in a light sport aircraft, then the FAA should allow a sport pilot candidate to credit his or her sport pilot training toward the private pilot certificate in the future.
This final rule allows an applicant for a higher pilot certificate who receives flight training from a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating, to credit that pilot time toward the aeronautical experience requirements for a recreational or private pilot certificate. This can include training accomplished in a Light Sport Aircraft (LSA).
Both EAA and Chesapeake Sport Pilot discussed that allowing only partial credit would have placed undue burden on designated pilot examiners when trying to differentiate training provided by a subpart K instructor verses a subpart H instructor since this time is documented as “dual” instruction in a person's logbook.
Because the FAA is allowing full credit for training received as a sport pilot applicant, this alleviates concerns with differentiating training received from a subpart H instructor versus training received from a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating, when recording flight instruction in a person's logbook. Flight instructors provide additional details in the applicant's logbook other than just describing dual instruction. A subpart H instructor is required to provide a recommendation in the pilot applicant's logbook certifying that he or she has provided the required additional training referencing §§ 61.103(f), 61.107(b), and 61.109, for the private pilot certificate.
The FAA notes that currently examiners are not required to verify the credentials of the recommending instructor unless there are extenuating circumstances such as ensuring the flight instructor meets the requirements of § 61.195(h). Section 61.59 provides safeguards to ensure that the training flight instructors provide is appropriate to the certificate or rating for which a student is applying.
GAMA stated that since the publication of the proposed rule, the FAA replaced the PTS for private and sport pilots with the Airman Certification Standards (ACS), which became effective in June 2016. GAMA recommended referencing the ACS instead of the PTS to help facilitate the proposed changes in this rule.
The FAA implemented the ACS for Private Pilot Airplane on June 15, 2016, subsequent to the publication of the NPRM. Because the Private Pilot ACS for Airplane superseded the Private Pilot PTS for Airplane,
One individual commenter opposed the provision. The commenter stated that a sport pilot instructor only has to have a private pilot certificate and no instrument rating. The commenter suggested that a sport pilot instructor does not have the appropriate experience and background to provide “airline discipline,” and claimed that sport pilot ratings are sought due to a non-requirement for a medical certificate. The individual claimed the “general aviation safety record shows the need for rigorous, standardized training from the student's first flight.” Additionally, this individual asserted that the private pilot certificate requires 20 hours of instruction from an authorized instructor who has a vastly superior background than a sport pilot instructor.
A flight instructor with a sport pilot rating is not required to possess a private pilot certificate. He or she is required to hold at least a sport pilot certificate with the category and class ratings or privileges, appropriate to the flight instructor certificate held.
The fact that a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating does not have an instrument rating on his or her pilot certificate is not relevant because all the training that he or she provides must be accomplished under visual flight rules. This fact is also true for the majority of the flight training that a student receives in pursuit of a recreational or private pilot certificate.
The FAA notes that the commenter's statement about persons seeking sport pilot ratings due to the ability to fly without a medical certificate is not relevant to the FAA's proposal because the proposal was not specific to medical certification requirements. Furthermore, BasicMed now allows certain pilots to operate without a medical certificate, provided certain conditions and limitations are met.
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to amend § 141.5(d) to allow the FAA to issue or renew a pilot school certificate to a part 141 pilot school that holds a training course approval for special curricula courses based on their students' successful completion of end-of-course tests for these FAA approved courses.
AOPA supported this proposal noting that it could benefit the flight training community by encouraging the development of more FAA-approved courses by part 141 schools and by encouraging existing flight schools to pursue part 141 certificates.
SAFE believed the proposed language would have significantly changed the effect § 141.5(d) has on pilot schools requesting approval or renewal of their certificates. SAFE asked the FAA to reconsider its use of the words “all”, “or”, and “and,” and to reword the proposed rule to ensure that the 80 percent or higher pass rate would be computed properly.
After reconsidering its use of the words “all” and “and” in the proposed rule, the FAA finds that proposed § 141.5(d), which would have required an applicant for a pilot school certificate to establish at least an 80 percent pass rate on the first attempt for all tests administered, accurately reflects the FAA's intent. Prior to 2009,
Section 141.5(d) remains unchanged from the NPRM. The FAA expects that a pilot school will utilize special curricula course graduations when applying for or renewing a pilot school certificate on or after the effective date of this provision, even if those special curricula course graduations occurred before the effective date of this new rule provision. Therefore, effective July 27, 2018, pilot schools will be able to immediately utilize graduates from special curricula courses to qualify for or renew their pilot school certificates as described in § 141.5(d).
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to amend §§ 121.383(c) and 135.95 to allow part 119 certificate holders conducting operations under part 121 or 135 to provide their flightcrew members a temporary verification document (valid for 72 hours) without the need of an FAA exemption.
The FAA received five comments from organizations and two comments from individuals.
Airlines for America (A4A), National Air Transportation Association (NATA), and Regional Air Cargo Carriers Association (RACCA) recommended the FAA clarify what an acceptable form of media is for the temporary validation document. A4A suggested revising proposed § 121.383(c) to clarify that the temporary document may be in either paper or electronic form. A4A noted that this clarification would standardize methods of documentation in the industry and, as more flight decks go paperless, ensure that the airlines have the ability to transmit the required
The FAA finds it unnecessary to specify in §§ 121.383(c) and 135.95(b) that the temporary verification document may be in either paper or electronic form. Sections 121.383(c) and 135.95(b) are intended to provide flexibility and allow for advancements in technology regarding the method, format or media by which the temporary document must be provided. The operations specification authorizing an approved certificate verification plan will include the specific method or format for each air carrier/operator. Accordingly, the FAA is adopting §§ 121.383(c) and 135.95(b) as proposed. The FAA will be issuing a new Advisory Circular (AC 00-70) to provide guidance to air carriers/operators on obtaining approval of a certificate verification plan, including the necessary components for various methods and formats of issuing the temporary document.
A4A supported proposed §§ 121.383(c) and 135.95(b), which would have allowed the use of temporary validation documents for flights conducted “entirely within the United States.” Unlike the current exemptions that limit the relief to “operations conducted entirely within the District of Columbia and the 48 contiguous States of the United States,” the proposed rule language would have allowed persons to use the temporary document on flights conducted entirely within Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and other possessions.
The FAA is adopting §§ 121.383(c) and 135.95(b) as proposed.
One individual suggested the FAA change “domestic operations” to “operations within the United States” to avoid confusion with the term “domestic operations” contained in 14 CFR part 119, which defines a particular type of part 119 operation.
The term “domestic operations” was not proposed in regulatory text. It is therefore unnecessary to make any changes to the proposed rule language in response to the individual's comment. The FAA notes, however, that this term was used in Tables 1 and 3 of the NPRM,
AOPA suggested a correction to proposed § 63.3(a)(2), which would have mistakenly referenced § 63.16(d) instead of § 63.16(f).
Section 63.3(a)(2) now references new § 63.16(f), as AOPA suggested because the requirements that were previously contained in § 63.16(d) have been relocated to new § 63.16(f) and revised.
One individual asked several clarifying questions regarding limitations on the use of temporary validation documents. This individual asked how the program would keep track of the number of times a flightcrew member loses, destroys, or otherwise fails to have their certificates in their possession. This individual also asked if there was a limit to the number of temporary verification documents issued to an individual, and if so, how those limitations would be enforced.
Keeping track of how many times a crewmember loses their pilot or medical certificate, or any limitations regarding the number of times a temporary verification document can be issued to any one individual, can be managed appropriately with FAA air carrier oversight. In addition, conditions and limitations can be specified in an air carrier's certificate verification plan, within its operation specifications.
RACCA and Bemidji Aviation Services, Inc. suggested incorporating similar allowances for aircraft registration and airworthiness certificates.
These comments are outside the scope of this rulemaking. The proposal was specific to certificates that an airman must have in his or her possession to exercise his or her privileges. Unlike airmen certificates that are carried on a person outside of the aircraft, the airworthiness and registration certificates are typically placed in a permanent location within the aircraft (usually visible to the operator) and are rarely removed from the aircraft.
AOPA recommended the FAA implement an online method to allow all pilots and airmen to request and obtain a temporary document confirming medical certification. This comment is also outside the scope of this rulemaking. The FAA notes, however, that it is addressing AOPA's comment in a separate action.
The FAA is amending §§ 121.383(c) and 135.95 as proposed. Furthermore, as a result of the FAA's own continued review of the proposal, the FAA has decided to also allow part 91, subpart K, program managers to issue temporary verification documents to flightcrew members who do not have their airman or medical certificates in their personal possession for a particular flight. The FAA did not originally consider providing relief to part 91, subpart K, program managers only because there were no current exemptions granted to these program managers. However, upon further review, the FAA finds that it is appropriate to include part 91, subpart K, program managers because of the similarity of part 91, subpart K, operations compared to part 121 and 135 operations. Many similarities exist between part 91, subpart K, program managers and part 135 operators providing public air transportation, such as: Time, duty, and rest requirements, destination airport analysis programs, minimum equipment lists, recordkeeping, pilot training and checking, proving tests, approved inspection programs, and drug and alcohol misuse and prevention programs. In some instances, a part 91, subpart K, program manager is also certificated under part 119 to conduct part 135 operations.
Specifically, part 91, subpart K, fractional ownership programs are subject to FAA oversight similar to that provided to air carriers (parts 135 and 121), with the exception of line checks and en-route inspections. FAA aviation safety inspectors conduct scheduled and unscheduled inspections, and surveillance of personnel, aircraft, records, and other documents to ensure compliance with the regulations. Given the similarities between parts 91, subpart K, 121 and 135, the FAA finds it appropriate to also prevent cancelation of flights under part 91, subpart K, in situations where a pilot certificate or medical certificate is valid
Furthermore, as a result of the FAA's continued review of the proposal, the FAA is making several clarifying changes to allow for smooth implementation of the final rule. Because the final rule allows a person to use a temporary verification document as an airman certificate or medical certificate, if certain conditions are met, the inspection requirements of §§ 61.3(l), 63.3(e), and 121.383(b) would have applied to the temporary document. However, to avoid any confusion, the FAA is revising §§ 61.3(l), 63.3(e), and 121.383(b) to expressly include the temporary verification document in the list of documents that must be presented for inspection upon request from the Administrator.
Additionally, the FAA is revising § 121.383(a) to clarify that an airman engaged in part 121 operations must have in his or her possession any required appropriate current airman and medical certificates or a temporary verification document issued in accordance with an approved certificate verification plan under new § 121.383(c).
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed several changes to §§ 61.197 and 61.199 to accommodate renewal and reinstatement of flight instructor certificates by military instructors and examiners.
In § 61.199, the FAA proposed to revise paragraph (a) to permit a military instructor pilot to reinstate his or her expired flight instructor certificate by providing a record showing that, within the previous six calendar months, the instructor pilot passed a U.S. Armed Forces instructor pilot or pilot examiner proficiency check for an additional military rating.
The FAA received six comments on these proposed amendments. Three commenters supported the proposal. Two commenters recommended changes to the proposed rule language. One commenter opposed the proposal.
The Society of Aviation and Flight Educators (SAFE) and Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) concurred with the proposed amendments to § 61.199. AOPA also supported the proposed changes to § 61.197. One individual, identifying himself as a retired U.S. Air Force instructor, supported having military credentials recognized by the FAA and providing civilian equivalent instructor ratings.
One individual, identifying as a military instructor with the National Guard Bureau, agreed with changing the timeframe in § 61.197(a)(2)(iv) from 12 calendar months to 24 calendar months. However, the commenter suggested that the FAA revise the proposed rule language to require a record showing that, within the preceding 24 months from the month of application, the flight instructor passed an official U.S. Armed Forces military instructor pilot proficiency check equivalent to renewal requirements as stated in the practical test standards (PTS) for the rating sought. The commenter believed that this would validate an equivalent level of flight proficiency. The commenter explained that because some U.S. Armed Forces have instructors that only train specific tasks such as formation flying or tactical operations, this type of instruction is not an equivalent level of flight proficiency as required for the renewal of a FAA flight instructor certificate. The commenter also provided attachments described as comparable military instructor pilot proficiency checks accomplished on an annual basis in the U.S. Army. The commenter asserted that these annual checks are equivalent to or better than what would be necessary for the renewal of a flight instructor rating.
As stated in the NPRM, the FAA proposed to clarify in § 61.197(a)(2)(iv) that a flight instructor may renew his or her certificate by providing a record demonstrating that, within the previous
However, the FAA disagrees with referencing the PTS within § 61.197(a)(2)(iv) because it would be too prescriptive. The military typically does not perform all the tasks from the PTS or Airman Certification Standards (ACS), as appropriate, required for civil pilot certification during their military instructor pilot proficiency checks. Rather, the military typically performs tasks or maneuvers that are not outlined in the PTS and/or ACS. The FAA believes that requiring a record showing that, within the preceding 24 months from the month of application, the flight instructor passed an official U.S. Armed Forces military instructor pilot proficiency check in an aircraft for which the military instructor already holds a rating or in an aircraft for an additional rating, is sufficient to validate a flight instructor's equivalent level of competency. The FAA has long recognized and accepted military credit without further review.
The individual commenter further asserted that if a military proficiency check meets the requirements for flight instructor renewal or reinstatement as described in the PTS and/or ACS, the FAA should modify § 61.73(g)(3)(iv) to read: “An official U.S. Armed Forces record or order that shows the person passed a U.S. Armed Forces instructor pilot or pilot examiner proficiency check in an aircraft as a military instructor pilot or pilot examiner that is appropriate to the flight instructor rating sought that meets equivalent requirements of 14 CFR 61.185.”
Section 61.73(g)(3)(i) already requires the applicant to present a knowledge test report that shows the person passed a knowledge test on the aeronautical knowledge areas listed under § 61.185(a). Therefore, the FAA finds it unnecessary to revise § 61.73(g)(3)(iv) to require the U.S. Armed Forces proficiency check to meet requirements of § 61.185.
This commenter also recommended the FAA revise proposed § 61.199(a)(3), which would have required a military instructor to show, within the preceding 6 calendar months from the date of application for reinstatement, the person passed a U.S. Armed Forces instructor pilot or pilot examiner proficiency check for an additional military instructor rating. The commenter noted that additional military ratings are not acquired through a “proficiency check.” The commenter, therefore, recommended the FAA revise paragraph (a)(3) to require a record showing that, within the previous six calendar months, the instructor passed a U.S. Armed Forces instructor pilot or pilot examiner qualification program for an additional military rating that results in an additional rating to be added to the airman certificate. The individual also recommended the FAA add a new paragraph (a)(4) that would allow for reinstatement of a flight instructor certificate if the instructor can provide a record showing that, within the previous six calendar months, the instructor passed a U.S. Armed Forces instructor pilot or pilot examiner proficiency check equivalent to reinstatement requirements as stated in the PTS and/or ACS for the rating sought. The commenter explained this provision would facilitate reinstatement of an expired flight instructor certificate through a U.S. Armed Forces proficiency check that would be equivalent to the flight test described in the PTS.
As the commenter pointed out, additional military ratings are not acquired through a proficiency check. Therefore, the FAA is revising proposed § 61.199(a)(3) to more accurately reflect the process by which a military instructor pilot acquires an additional aircraft rating qualification. The FAA is also dividing proposed § 61.199(a)(3) into two subparagraphs to make the reinstatement requirements for a military instructor pilot more consistent with the reinstatement requirements for a civilian holder of an expired flight instructor certificate, which are found in § 61.199(a)(1) and (2).
Accordingly, § 61.199(a)(3)(i) now allows reinstatement of an expired flight instructor certificate if the military instructor pilot can provide a record showing that, within the preceding 6 calendar months from the date of application for reinstatement, the pilot passed a U.S. Armed Forces instructor pilot or pilot examiner proficiency check. The FAA finds that a U.S. Armed Forces instructor pilot or pilot examiner proficiency check is the military equivalent of a flight instructor certification practical test. Therefore, this requirement is consistent with § 61.199(a)(1), which allows reinstatement of an expired flight instructor certificate if the civilian pilot satisfactorily completes a flight instructor practical test for one of the ratings held on the expired flight instructor certificate.
Additionally, § 61.199(a)(3)(ii) now allows reinstatement of an expired flight instructor certificate if the military instructor pilot can provide a record showing that, within the preceding 6 calendar months from the date of application for reinstatement, the pilot completed a U.S. Armed Forces instructor pilot or pilot examiner training course and received an additional aircraft rating qualification as a military instructor pilot or pilot examiner that is appropriate to the flight instructor rating sought. The FAA finds that this requirement accurately reflects the process by which a military instructor pilot acquires an additional aircraft rating. The FAA is not using the terminology “qualification program,” as the commenter recommended, because it is subject to interpretation. Instead, the FAA is using language that is consistent with the terminology of § 61.73(g)(3)(iii).
One individual asserted that military instructor pilots who allow their FAA flight instructor rating to expire reflect a lack of knowledge concerning 14 CFR part 61 that is pervasive in the military.
The FAA disagrees. There are many possible scenarios other than “a lack of knowledge” that may lead to someone letting his or her flight instructor
(2) A flight instructor certification practical test for an additional rating.
One individual recommended the FAA revise § 61.73 to add military navigators and naval flight officers who hold a FAA flight instructor certificate and who are military flight instructors to the list of persons eligible for an instrument flight instructor certificate. This commenter further asserted that there are numerous other military aeronautical specialties beyond pilots, navigators, and naval flight officers who have a skill set that may be valuable to the civilian aviation community. The commenter recommended that any military member that can produce documentation of service instructing any aviation crew position be exempted from the fundamentals of instruction written examination for a flight instructor certificate in § 61.183(e) or for a ground instructor certificate in § 61.213(b).
The FAA is not adopting these recommendations because they are outside the scope of this rulemaking. Furthermore, the FAA disagrees with providing flight instructor equivalency for non-pilot instructor positions.
The FAA is adding new § 61.199(c) as proposed. As previously stated, § 61.199(c) will allow military instructor pilots who obtained their initial flight instructor certificate under subpart H to reinstate that flight instructor certificate based on military competence rather than by completing a practical test. The FAA notes that § 61.199(c) is a temporary provision that will expire on August 26, 2019. The FAA will revise FAA Order 8900.1 to provide guidance to designees and inspectors on how to facilitate instructor military competency approvals.
Section 91.313(a) prohibits a person from operating a restricted category aircraft for other than the special purpose for which it is certificated or in any operation other than one necessary to accomplish the work activity directly associated with the special purpose. Under § 91.313(b), operating a restricted category civil aircraft to provide flight crewmember training in a special purpose operation for which the aircraft is certificated is an operation for that special purpose. The FAA recently clarified, however, that flight training and testing for certification (
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed in § 91.313(b) to list the following operations in restricted category aircraft as flights necessary to accomplish the work activity directly associated with a special purpose operation:
• Flights conducted for flight crewmember training in a special purpose operation for which the aircraft is certificated provided the flight crewmember holds the appropriate category, class, and type ratings and is employed by the operator to perform the appropriate special purpose operation;
• Flights conducted to satisfy proficiency check and recent flight experience requirements under part 61 of this chapter provided the flight crewmember holds the appropriate category, class, and type ratings and is employed by the operator to perform the appropriate special purpose operation; and
• Flights conducted to relocate a restricted category aircraft for maintenance.
A number of commenters, including Queen Bee Air Specialties, Inc., GAMA, Air Tractor, and the National Agricultural Aviation Association (NAAA), noted that the proposed regulation would prohibit third-party training providers from conducting flight crewmember training in a special purpose operation. The commenters indicated that such a provision would eliminate agricultural aviation schools and decrease safety. The commenters noted that training by experienced instructors based on an approved curriculum in restricted category aircraft under the oversight of FAA inspectors enhances safety. The NAAA and the Colorado Agricultural Aviation Association (CAAA) commented that they interpreted the proposal to allow agricultural aviation operator “sponsored” pilots to be able to attend third party training facilities.
GAMA, NAAA, AOPA, and CAAA suggested revisions to proposed § 91.313(b) to ensure that training which is directly associated with the special purpose operation is permitted without an employment relationship existing between the trainee and the special purpose operator.
Upon review of the extensive comments received, including a conference call with Air Force representatives on December 13, 2016, and a face-to-face meeting with representatives from the agricultural aviation industry during the comment period, the FAA agrees that the proposed rule language would have unnecessarily required all personnel receiving flight crewmember training in a special purpose operation to be employed by the operator providing the training.
Flight crewmember training in a special purpose operation has historically been conducted by flight schools. Appendix K of part 141 for pilot schools contains allowances for special curriculum courses for agricultural and external load operations. The FAA did not intend to end the longstanding practice of pilot schools conducting flight crewmember training in a special purpose operation. Flight crewmember training in a special purpose operation for which the aircraft is certificated is currently authorized in accordance with § 91.313(b) and was not intended to be affected by this provision. It was the FAA's intent only to require pilot candidates to be an employee of the operator when accomplishing training or practical tests specific to the requisite type rating, a proficiency check, or recent flight experience requirements specified under part 61. The FAA has revised the language proposed in the NPRM to remove the employee requirement for
The FAA is retaining the provision proposed in § 91.313(b) that allows pilots employed by operators performing special purpose operations to accomplish § 61.58 proficiency checks and recent flight experience requirements set forth in § 61.57 in the course of their employment provided the pilots hold the appropriate category, class, and type ratings. When a pilot is employed to perform a special purpose operation, satisfying recent flight experience and proficiency check requirements is necessary to accomplish the work activity directly associated with a special purpose operation. When a pilot is not employed to perform a special purpose operation, these operations are neither a special purpose operation nor an operation directly associated with a special purpose operation and, therefore, are not permitted under § 91.313(a).
The FAA is also retaining the provision from the NPRM that adds relocation flights for maintenance to the list of operations considered necessary to accomplish the work activity directly associated with the special purpose operation.
GAMA, Air Tractor, NAAA, Thrush Aircraft, Inc. and CAAA all noted that the FAA's proposal to add this provision could suggest that other essential types of flights necessary to accomplish work directly associated with the special purpose, such as positioning flights, flights to deliver aircraft, and flights to trade shows, are excluded from expressly listed operations. GAMA stated that these flights are clearly within the scope of flights necessary to accomplish work directly associated with the special purpose, but that the industry could benefit from explicit recognition that § 91.313(b) does not contain an exhaustive list of flights.
The FAA has modified the final rule text to include flights to relocate a restricted category aircraft for delivery, repositioning, or maintenance to be considered as flights necessary to accomplish work activity directly associated with a special purpose operation. This change in the final rule permits many of the operations described by the commenters, such as deliveries from an aircraft manufacturer, change in ownership deliveries, relocation from one special purpose operation to another, or repositioning for the special purpose operation. The FAA notes that other types of flight events not expressly allowed by the regulation may be permitted if they are necessary to accomplish work activity directly associated with the special purpose operation.
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed in § 91.313(h) to allow operators of restricted category aircraft to apply for deviation authority for the purpose of conducting the following operations in restricted category aircraft:
• Flight training and the practical test for issuance of a type rating provided the pilot being trained and tested holds at least a commercial pilot certificate with the appropriate category and class ratings for the aircraft type and is employed by the operator to perform a special purpose operation; and
• Flights to designate an examiner or qualify an FAA inspector in the aircraft type and flights necessary to provide continuing oversight and evaluation of an examiner.
The FAA emphasized that the proposed provision was intended to ensure that operators do not establish training schools for the sole purpose of issuing type ratings using restricted category aircraft. As proposed, operators would only be granted deviation authority under proposed § 91.313(h) to conduct this training and testing for pilots who are employed by the operator and only when a type rating is required to complete the special purpose operation for which the aircraft was certificated and the operator is actively engaged in performing.
A number of commenters opposed the proposed provision in § 91.313(h) that limited the ability to obtain a LODA to an employer providing flight training to its employees who perform a special purpose operation for that employer. Texas State Technical College, GAMA, L-3 Communications, and Queen Bee all suggested that such a limitation would result in a reduction in safety.
More specifically, Thrush Aircraft, Inc. noted that the implication of the phrase “is employed by the operator” in proposed § 91.313(h)(1)(i) is that an employer/employee relationship must exist before any training may commence. The interpretation of this phrase could create the effect of “restricting” the aircraft from being used in agricultural aviation flight schools to conduct training of students planning to become agricultural pilots, by instructors employed by manufacturers and their dealers, or flight schools to perform pilot checkouts and transitional training, such as transitions from piston powered to turbine powered aircraft and by third party training for firefighting or other restricted category operations. The U.S. Air Force commented that proposed § 91.313(h) would prohibit commercial vendors from providing the required USAF flight crewmember training; therefore, USAF flightcrew would not be able to receive training in restricted category aircraft. The USAF also indicated that removing the employment requirement would allow training in aircraft where it is not practical to obtain a type rating in an aircraft with a standard airworthiness certificate. Queen Bee stated that the proposal limits ability for dealers to provide training that is crucial to customers for their safety, success and comfort.
As noted previously, the FAA has removed the proposed employment requirement for flight crewmember training in a special purpose operation. Third party training providers may continue to provide training in special purpose operations (
GAMA, L-3 Communications, and AOPA all suggested that the FAA revise the proposal to permit individuals or entities (instead of operators) to apply for deviation authority and require that the trainee is employed by “an” operator to perform a special purpose operation instead of “the” operator applying to conduct the training in proposed § 91.313(h)(1). They noted that this would help to ensure that the type rating training is required for the special purpose operation in which the operator is actively engaged but allow flexibility if the operator is unable to conduct the training itself. GAMA noted, however, that this provision still would hinder training of pilots trying to enter the
L-3 Communications noted that modifying the proposal so that other entities could obtain a LODA would allow training of initial cadres of pilots by an aircraft manufacturer or by a properly certified training school with an authorization to conduct restricted category training. L-3 Communications noted that such a change would still achieve the FAA's goal of limiting the training in restricted category aircraft for certification to only those pilots who are employed to perform a special purpose operation.
GAMA, Air Tractor, Queen Bee, and one individual generally noted that limiting the training and testing for the purpose of achieving a type rating in a restricted category aircraft to a pilot's employer will deny access to training for pilots that are not currently employed in a special purpose operation. Additionally, Air Tractor noted the possible burden on students, who must stay employed to finish flight training. GAMA also noted that some insurance underwriters may require pilots to obtain training that is only available through third party training providers. Air Tractor, NAAA, CAAA, Queen Bee and one individual all noted that these types of barriers to training will affect the ability to replace an aging pilot community.
As noted in the NPRM, the FAA has historically placed operating limitations on the use of restricted category aircraft because the airworthiness certification standards for these aircraft are not designed to provide the same level of safety that is required for aircraft certificated in the standard category. The operating limitations set forth in § 91.313 are designed to compensate for the different standards and provide the necessary level of safety for special purpose operations. In the final rule, the FAA has retained the employment requirement to prevent flight training and testing for the purpose of obtaining a type rating in restricted category aircraft without an explicit employment connection to special purpose operations. The operation of restricted category aircraft has always been limited to special purpose operations and those operations necessary to accomplish the work activity directly associated with a special purpose operation. Providing flight training and testing for certification to a pilot who does not perform a special purpose operation is not training in a special purpose operation and the hope of eventual employment in a special purpose operation is too attenuated to be necessary to accomplish the work activity associated with a special purpose operation.
L-3 Communications, Air Tractor, NAAA, CAAA, and Queen Bee generally noted that the proposed rule would have a significant adverse effect on businesses conducting operations with restricted category aircraft since nearly all of these businesses are small businesses. Texas State Technical College, L-3 Communications, Air Tractor, NAAA and CAAA all noted that limiting the training and testing of pilots for the purpose of achieving a type rating in a restricted category aircraft to owners/operators will result in a major financial burden to certain entities. GAMA, L-3 Communications, Air Tractor, Inc., and Queen Bee Air Specialties generally noted that many agricultural aviation operators lack the staff and aircraft to conduct training for their employees. Texas State Technical College and GAMA both noted that many of these small operators do not have in-house training staff. Texas State specifically noted that the cost of providing its own training would be a huge burden. Air Tractor commented that the FAA should not place more burdens on these operators and reduce safety by requiring training in restricted aircraft to be conducted by the operator and requiring the student to be an employee of the operator.
Most of the commenters concerned with the employment requirement have described training operations in which restricted category aircraft are being used for flightcrew member training in a special purpose operation rather than flight training to obtain a type rating. The FAA has removed the proposed employment requirement for special purpose training in the final rule which may continue to be conducted without obtaining a LODA and without an employment relationship. As such, the economic burden associated with this provision would only affect operators who must obtain a LODA to conduct flight training for certification. These are very limited training operations, and they are currently conducted by operators using the exemption process. The FAA has issued several exemptions to facilitate this training.
Queen Bee specifically noted that this provision would limit its ability to vet pilots for operators that do not have two-place, dual control aircraft and/or the expertise in training. Queen Bee indicated it currently provides this training, which would be prohibited under the proposed requirements, for the U.S. company ARAMCO which responds to oil spills in the Red Sea with U.S. citizens as pilots.
L-3 Communications, Air Tractor, NAAA, Farm Air, Curless Flying Service and CAAA noted the effect on manufacturers developing and selling new restricted category type designs.L-3 Communications, Farm Air and Curless Flying Service asserted that the proposed rule would limit the ability of manufacturers to develop and sell new restricted category type design aircraft. According to the commenters, prospective buyers of new restricted category aircraft would not be able to receive training for their pilot employees. A manufacturer would have no incentive to produce a new design aircraft providing safety benefits and improvements based on new design features and technology insertion because pilot employees of a prospective buyer could not receive training.
Most restricted category aircraft do not require a type rating and would be unaffected by this provision. Additionally, a manufacturer of a new large or turbojet powered aircraft could seek approval as a standard or transport category aircraft and, therefore, avoid any such “type rating” training limitations. The FAA notes that the level of safety for restricted category aircraft may be lower than the level of safety for standard category aircraft. However, the restricted category level of certification does not eliminate any type certification procedural requirements, such as the need to comply with continued airworthiness requirements. To maintain an equivalent level of safety for the public the FAA imposes certain operating restrictions for restricted category aircraft. This provision is specific to facilitate training in restricted category aircraft requiring a type rating safely, not the promotion of restricted category aircraft production for public use.
The FAA also proposed a change to § 91.313(c) to ensure that instructors providing flight training and designees conducting practical tests under a LODA may accept compensation for these operations. Likewise, the FAA proposed to revise § 91.313(d) to permit persons to be carried on restricted category aircraft if necessary to accomplish a flight authorized by LODA under paragraph (h).
AOPA suggested revisions to § 91.313(c) to eliminate confusion by breaking each of the operations identified into three separate subparagraphs and provided specific revised rule language. The FAA is retaining the language in paragraph (c) as it was proposed in the NPRM. The FAA merely proposed to add operations conducted under a LODA to the existing list of operations involving the carriage of persons and material that could be conducted without violating the general rule prohibiting the carriage of persons or property on restricted category aircraft for compensation or hire.
GAMA raised concerns about the relationship between § 61.31 and proposed § 91.313(h). GAMA noted that, if applicants requesting exemption from § 61.31 type rating requirements also must request exemption from § 91.313 type rating training through this LODA process, they will be subject to an employment requirement. GAMA suggested that the FAA clarify that aircraft operators who hold exemptions from a type rating requirement do not need to also request exemption from § 91.313(h) per the proposed LODA process or revise the LODA process to permit third party training as discussed previously.
GAMA also noted that while the LODA process seems to provide a path for training in restricted category aircraft in pursuit of a type rating, they believe that this process will be burdensome to obtain and maintain. This process will be a barrier to a small business in that manufacturers that plan on building larger restricted category aircraft, that may not be exempted from the type rating requirement of § 61.31, will have a more difficult time getting training for pilots. Air Tractor added that it and its competitor Thrush Aircraft, Inc. manufacture airplanes that, by definition, are “large” (greater than 12,500 lbs. gross weight). These airplanes are operated under exemptions from § 61.31. Air Tractor requested that the FAA consider clarifying that large aircraft that are exempt from § 61.31 are also exempt from the LODA process as proposed in the new § 91.313(h).
Section 91.313 requires an operator to obtain a LODA to conduct training and testing for the purpose of obtaining a type rating in a restricted category aircraft. To the extent that some operators may hold exemptions that enable pilots to operate certain aircraft as PIC without a type rating, then § 91.313 would be inapplicable. We note, however, that the general provision limiting the operation of restricted category aircraft to special purpose operations and flights necessary to accomplish the work activity directly associated with a special purpose operation remains applicable to all operations conducted—even operations conducted under these exemptions. No operator should utilize a restricted category aircraft outside the permitted operations in § 91.313.
Finally, AOPA commented that, for the last 50 years, operators of restricted category aircraft have been permitted to use such aircraft for type rating training, type rating practical tests, and PIC proficiency checks per §§ 61.31 and 61.58. AOPA suggested that the FAA reversed long-standing precedent in 2015 when it concluded that this type rating training was not permissible under § 91.313. AOPA noted that new FAA guidance for conducting pilot training and/or certification events in a restricted category aircraft was then outlined in Notice N 8900.295 which stated that flights necessary for PICs to obtain type rating designations in the restricted category aircraft required under § 61.31(a) are not permitted by the operating limitations in § 91.313.
AOPA recommended that the FAA incorporate the operations from proposed § 91.313(h)(1) into proposed § 91.313(b). This approach would permit, without having to obtain a LODA, flight operations in restricted category aircraft which are necessary for PICs to obtain type rating designations in that aircraft, as required under § 61.31(a). AOPA did not believe that the LODA approach adds any increased level of safety because the FAA has not articulated any reason for the recent reinterpretation of current § 91.313. AOPA also believed that the FAA has not explained why the past accepted practice should not be codified.
The FAA Office of the Chief Counsel was asked by the Director of the Flight Standards Service to provide a legal interpretation on the scope of § 91.313 and whether the regulation permitted operators to conduct training and testing for certification in restricted category aircraft. The Office of the Chief Counsel concluded that the rule as written does not expressly permit this training and testing. As previously noted, the FAA has historically placed limitations on the use of restricted category aircraft because they do not meet the same standard as a standard category aircraft. When restricted category aircraft are used solely for the purpose of providing a type rating to a pilot who is not engaged in a special purpose operation, the operation cannot meet the express requirements of § 91.313(a). The previous history relative to this type of training does not change the identified training limitation. Additionally, the FAA believes that this type rating training and testing needs FAA oversight and approval to ensure safe operations. Restricted category aircraft were never intended or designed to be used for FAA pilot training and certification. The FAA will retain the requirement for an operator to obtain an LODA specific to training and testing in restricted category aircraft that require a type rating when a standard category aircraft is not readily available or does not exist and only when a pilot will be performing a special purpose operation.
AOPA noted that the FAA proposed to implement the changes to § 91.313 within 180 days of the final rule. AOPA further noted that if all of its recommendations are adopted, the implementation time frame should be reduced to 30 days. AOPA suggested that the proposed changes would be less complex to implement because the LODA process is eliminated and less coordination within the FAA is required.
The FAA is not eliminating the LODA process and will retain the 180-day effective date after publication. This will allow the FAA and operators time to become familiar with the guidance and process documents associated with the LODA requirements. The FAA has
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to revise § 91.531 to allow large airplanes, including former military aircraft and some experimental aircraft, to operate without an SIC if they were originally designed for single pilot operations.
The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) expressed concern that, if read in isolation, proposed § 91.531(b) could be interpreted as providing an exhaustive list of airplanes that may be operated without a SIC. AOPA stated that this would be a detrimental unintended consequence because airplanes type certificated for one required pilot are not listed in proposed § 91.531(b). AOPA recommended the FAA clarify that proposed § 91.531(b) is not an exhaustive list.
Section 91.531(b) should not be read in isolation from the remainder of § 91.531. Section 91.531 prescribes SIC requirements under subpart F of part 91. Subpart F of part 91 applies to large and turbine-powered multiengine airplanes and fractional ownership program aircraft. Section 91.531(b) should be read in context with paragraph (a), which expressly states that exceptions are provided in paragraph (b). The FAA finds that reading § 91.531 in its entirety alleviates AOPA's concern. The FAA is adopting § 91.531(b) as proposed.
AOPA also recommended revising proposed § 91.531(b)(3) to state “large airplane or turbojet-powered multiengine airplane,” rather than “large or turbojet-powered multiengine airplane,” to prevent any confusion as to whether the paragraph applied to “large airplanes” or “large multiengine airplanes.”
The FAA agrees that proposed § 91.531(b)(3) may have caused confusion specific to large airplanes. The FAA is adopting AOPA's recommendation.
Additionally, the FAA recognizes that § 91.531 has been amended since the FAA published the NPRM on May 12, 2016.
Furthermore, the FAA is relocating the exception in proposed § 91.531(a)(2), which excepts from the SIC requirement any large airplane that is type certificated for single-pilot operation, to § 91.531(b)(1). This change from what was proposed is consistent with the NPRM, which intended to place all affirmative requirements in paragraph (a) and all exceptions in paragraph (b). The FAA notes that, rather than providing an exception for any large airplane certificated under SFAR 41 if that airplane is certificated for operation with one pilot, paragraph (b)(1) excepts any airplane that is certificated for operation with one pilot. It is therefore unnecessary to expressly reference the new airplane certification levels in paragraph (b) because § 91.531(b)(1) will except from the SIC requirement any airplane that is certificated for single-pilot operation, including any airplanes certificated under new part 23 and any large airplanes certificated under SFAR 41. The FAA notes that the remaining requirements of § 91.531 remain unchanged from the proposal.
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed a technical correction in appendix I to part 141, Additional Aircraft Category and/or Class Rating Course. In paragraph 4.(k), course for an airplane additional multiengine class rating, subparagraph (2) discussing the requirements for the commercial pilot certificate, the FAA noted that two paragraphs were designated as (k)(2)(iv). The FAA proposed to redesignate the second paragraph (k)(2)(iv) as paragraph (k)(2)(v). The FAA received no comments on this correction. The FAA is redesignating the second paragraph (k)(2)(iv) as paragraph (k)(2)(v) as proposed.
Additionally, to reflect the change in nomenclature regarding flight simulators, the FAA proposed to remove the words “flight simulator” wherever they appear in the sections the FAA determined needed to be revised and replace them with the words “full flight simulator.” The Society of Aviation and Flight Educators agreed with the proposed changes of wording to “full flight simulator.” The FAA is adopting the changes as proposed. The following sections are amended to reflect this nomenclature change: §§ 61.31, 61.51, 61.57, 61.109, 61.129, 61.159, 61.161, and section 4 of Appendix D to part 141.
Finally, as discussed in section III.F.2. of this preamble, GAMA recommended the FAA update its nomenclature to reflect the new Airmen Certification Standards (ACS). The FAA began transitioning from the practical test standards (PTS) to the airmen certification standards (ACS) on June 15, 2016. The transition from the PTS to the ACS is an ongoing process in which the FAA is enhancing the guidance it provides to applicants, instructors, and evaluators to better prepare applicants for knowledge and practical tests.
In light of GAMA's comment, the FAA recognized that the following sections still referenced the practical test standards: §§ 61.43, 61.57, 65.59, appendix A to part 65, and appendices A, B, C and D to part 60. The FAA has
In § 61.57(d), the FAA is removing the reference to the PTS. The FAA recognizes that it was inappropriate for § 61.57(d) to state that the areas of operation and instrument tasks were required in the instrument rating PTS. The PTS and ACS do not contain regulatory requirements. Therefore, rather than referencing the instrument rating ACS in § 61.57(d), the FAA is codifying in § 61.57(d) the areas of operation for an IPC. The FAA finds that this revision is not a substantive change because the areas of operation and instrument tasks required for an IPC remain unchanged. Thus, an IPC is still driven by the standards for the instrument rating practical test.
In § 61.43(a)(1), the FAA is removing the reference to the PTS as unnecessary. The FAA is also removing from § 65.59 the reference to the aircraft dispatcher PTS, to be consistent with editorial changes made to other regulatory parts pertaining to certification of airmen. In its place, the FAA is requiring an applicant to demonstrate skill in applying the areas of knowledge and the topics outlined in appendix A of part 65 to preflight and all phases of flight, which must include abnormal and emergency procedures. The FAA emphasizes that this is not a substantive change. The areas of operation in the aircraft dispatcher PTS are currently based on an aircraft dispatcher's duties as they relate to the various phases of flight, including preflight, en route, and post-flight, and abnormal and emergency situations that could occur. Therefore, the practical test will still be based on the aircraft dispatcher PTS on the items outlined in appendix A of part 65. Additionally, the aircraft dispatcher PTS will continue to provide direction to examiners on how to administer a practical test.
Additionally, the FAA is removing the references to the practical test standards for FAA Publication FAA-S-8081 series (Practical Test Standards for Airline Transport Pilot Certificate, Type Ratings, Commercial Pilot, and Instrument Ratings) in appendices A, B, C, and D to part 60. These references are replaced with “FAA Airman Testing Standards for the Airline Transport Pilot Certificate, Type Ratings, Commercial Pilot Certificate, and Instrument Ratings.”
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed three different effective dates for the various proposed amendments. The proposed amendments would have been effective either 30, 60 or 180 days after the date of publication of the final rule in the
The FAA received no comments on the proposed effective dates. The following discussion summarizes when the various amendments included in this final rule will become effective.
The following provisions will be effective 30 days after publication of the final rule:
The following provisions will be effective 60 days after publication of the final rule:
The following provisions will be effective 150 days after publication of the final rule:
The following provisions will be effective 180 days after publication of the final rule:
To further implement this final rule, the FAA is revising or creating the following Advisory Circulars and FAA Orders.
FAA Order 8900.1, Flight Standards Information Management System, Vol. 11, Chapter 10, Basic and Advanced Aviation Training Device, Sec. 1, Approval and Authorized Use under 14
FAA Order 8900.1, Flight Standards Information Management System, Vol. 5 Airmen Certification, Chapter 1 Direction, Guidance, and Procedures for Title 14 CFR parts 121/135 and General Aviation, Sec. 1, General Information, will be revised adding a new paragraph to facilitate application to the General Aviation and Commercial Division for new technology TAA designation.
The Commercial Pilot—Airplane ACS will be revised to no longer require a complex or turbine powered airplane to be provided for part of the practical test, and the Flight Instructor PTS for Airplane will be revised to no longer require a complex airplane to be provided for part of the practical test.
AC 135-43: This document will be a new AC (Part 135 SIC Professional Development Program) that will provide part 135 operators guidance on receiving FAA approval for training and qualifying pilots to act as an SIC and log that time for the ATP flight time requirements.
AC 61-65, Certification: Pilots and Flight and Ground Instructors will be revised to include endorsements and guidance pertaining to the sport pilot provisions. This will include the recommended endorsement for qualifying a sport pilot only instructor to give basic instrument flight instruction to sport pilot candidates only. Additional guidance will be provided concerning reference to the General Aviation and Commercial Division, to qualify aircraft as TAA that otherwise do not meet the criteria defined in the rule definition.
AC 141-1
AC 00-70: This document will be a new AC (Flightcrew Member Certificate Verification Plan) that will provide part 121 air carriers, part 135 air carriers/operators, and part 91, subpart K, program managers guidance on receiving FAA approval of a certificate verification plan to provide a temporary document verifying a flightcrew member's airman certificate and medical certificate privileges.
FAA Order 8900.1, Flight Standards Information Management System, Vol. 5, Airman Certification, Chapter 1, Direction, Guidance and Procedures for Parts 121/135 and General Aviation, Sec. 7, Amendments to Certificates and Replacement of Lost Certificates will be revised to provide guidance concerning temporary documents verifying a flightcrew member's airman certificate and medical certificate privileges under an approved certificate verification plan set forth in the certificate holder's operations specifications/management specifications.
FAA Order 8900.1, Flight Standards Information Management System, Vol. 5, Airman Certification, Chapter 2, Title 14 CFR part 61 Certification of Pilots and Flight Instructors, Sec. 15, Issue a Title 14 CFR part 61 Pilot Certificate Based on Military Competence; and FAA Order 8900.2, General Aviation Airman Designee Handbook, Chapter 7, Designated Pilot Examiner Program, Sec. 19, Accomplish Designation/Issue Certificates as an ACR Employed Solely by a FIRC Sponsor, Paragraph 121, Flight Instructor Certificate and Ratings Issued on the Basis of Military Competence by an MCE and MC/FPE, and Paragraph 122, Certification of Graduates; and Sec. 20, Accomplish Designation/Conduct Functions as an MCE, FPE, MC/FPE, GIE, and FIRE, Paragraphs 123-127, Background, General Information for MCE, FPE, and MC/FPE Designations, Issuance of a U.S. Private Pilot Certificate and Ratings Based on Foreign Pilot Licenses, Pilot Certificates and Ratings Issued on the Basis of Military Competence by an MCE and MC/FPE, and Compliance with Other Provisions, respectively, guidance concerning flight instructor certificate renewal via military competence will be revised regarding the military flight instructor provisions included in this final rule.
In part 1, definitions and abbreviations, in § 1.1, the definition of “flight simulation training device” is revised.
In part 60, flight simulation training device initial and continuing qualification and use, appendices A, B, C, and D are revised to remove the references to the FAA Publication FAA-S-8081 series (Practical Test Standards for Airline Transport Pilot Certificate, Type Ratings, Commercial Pilot, and Instrument Ratings) to reflect the transition to the airman certification standards. These references are replaced with “FAA Airman Testing Standards for the Airline Transport Pilot Certificate, Type Ratings, Commercial Pilot Certificate, and Instrument Ratings.”
In part 61, certification: Pilots, flight instructors, and ground instructors, in § 61.1, the definition of “pilot time” is revised. New definitions are added to § 61.1(b) for “aviation training device” and “technically advanced airplane.”
Section 61.3(a) is revised to permit a pilot flightcrew member to carry a temporary document as a required pilot certificate for operating a civil aircraft of the United States. This document must be provided under an approved certificate verification plan by a part 119 certificate holder conducting operations under part 121 or 135 or a fractional ownership program manager conducting operations under part 91, subpart K. Section 61.3(l) is revised to require the temporary document to be presented for inspection upon request of certain persons.
Section 61.31 is revised to add an exception in § 61.31(e) and (f) to allow a § 135.293 pilot-in-command competency check completed in a complex or high performance airplane to meet the training requirements for a complex or high performance airplane, respectively.
Section 61.39 is revised to add a provision that requires a pilot who has logged flight time under the SIC professional development program requirements of § 61.159(c) to present a copy of the records required by § 135.63(a)(4)(vi) and (x) at the time of application for the practical test.
Section 61.43 is revised to remove the reference to the practical test standards to reflect the transition to the airman certification standards.
Section 61.51(e) is revised to allow a commercial pilot or ATP acting as PIC of a part 135 operation to log all of the flight time as PIC flight time even when the SIC is the sole manipulator of the controls under an approved SIC PDP. Section 61.51(e) is also revised to prohibit an SIC from logging PIC time when the SIC is the sole manipulator of the controls under an approved SIC PDP. Section 61.51(f) is revised to reflect the allowance for SICs to log flight time in part 135 operations when not serving as required flightcrew members under the type certificate or regulations. Section 61.51(g) is revised to allow a pilot to accomplish instrument experience when using a FFS, FTD, or ATD without an instructor present. Section 61.51(h) is revised to include ATDs to accommodate the logging of training time in an ATD.
Section 61.57(c) is revised to allow pilots to accomplish instrument experience in ATDs at the same 6-month interval allowed for FFSs and FTDs. In addition, the section is revised to no longer require pilots, who opt to use ATDs for accomplishing instrument experience, to complete a specific number of additional instrument experience hours or additional tasks. Finally, § 61.57(d) is being revised to remove the reference to the practical test
Section 61.99 is revised to allow flight training received from a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating who does not also hold a flight instructor certificate issued under the requirements in subpart H of part 61 to be credited toward the flight training and aeronautical experience requirements for a recreational pilot certificate with airplane or rotorcraft categories.
Section 61.109 is revised by adding paragraph (l) to allow flight training received from a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating who does not also hold a flight instructor certificate issued under the requirements in subpart H of part 61 to be credited toward the flight training and aeronautical experience requirements for a private pilot certificate with airplane, rotorcraft, or lighter-than-air categories.
Section 61.129(a)(3)(ii) is revised to allow a pilot seeking an initial commercial pilot certificate with an airplane single engine rating to complete 10 hours of training, currently required in a complex or turbine-powered airplane, to also be completed in a TAA or any combination thereof. Section 61.129(a)(3)(ii) is also revised to include a reference to the requirements of paragraph (j) because the FAA is relocating the proposed requirements regarding what a TAA must contain to § 61.129(j). Coordinated revisions are made in § 61.129(b)(3)(ii) for clarity and consistency purposes only.
Section 61.159 is revised to permit flight time logged under an approved SIC PDP to be used to meet certain flight time requirements for an ATP certificate with an airplane category rating.
Section 61.161 is revised to permit flight time logged under an approved SIC PDP to be used to meet certain flight time requirements for an ATP certificate with a rotorcraft category and helicopter class rating.
Section 61.195(b) and (c) are revised to permit a flight instructor who holds only an instrument rating to provide instrument training without being required to hold aircraft category and class ratings on his or her flight instructor certificate if both the flight instructor and the pilot receiving training hold a pilot certificate with the appropriate category and class ratings. Flight instructors who wish to provide instrument training in a multiengine airplane must still have that additional category and class on their flight instructor certificate.
Section 61.197(a)(2)(iv) is revised to allow a military instructor who has passed a U.S. Armed Forces military instructor pilot proficiency check within the 24 calendar months preceding the month of application to be eligible to renew his or her FAA flight instructor certificate based on that proficiency check. The section is clarified to indicate that a flight instructor is able to renew his or her certificate by providing a record demonstrating that, within the previous 24 calendar months, the instructor passed a military instructor pilot proficiency check for a rating that the instructor already holds or for a new rating.
Section 61.199 is revised to permit a military instructor to reinstate his or her flight instructor certificate by providing a record showing that, within the previous six calendar months, the instructor passed a U.S. Armed Forces instructor pilot or pilot examiner proficiency check for an additional military rating or completed a U.S. Armed Forces' instructor pilot or pilot examiner training course and received an additional aircraft rating qualification as a military instructor pilot or pilot examiner. Section 61.199(c) is added as a temporary provision to provide a reinstatement method for military instructors and examiners who allowed their FAA instructor certificates to expire before the regulations allowed them to add a rating based on military instructor competence.
Section 61.412 is added to establish training and endorsement requirements for those sport pilot flight instructors who want to provide training for sport-pilot applicants on control and maneuvering solely by reference to the flight instruments.
Section 61.415 is revised by adding new paragraph (h) to clarify that a sport pilot instructor may not conduct flight training on control and maneuvering an aircraft solely by reference to the instruments in an airplane that has a V
In part 63, certification: Flight crewmembers other than pilots, § 63.3(a) is revised to permit a flight engineer flightcrew member to carry a temporary verification document as an airman certificate or medical certificate, as appropriate. This document must be provided under an approved certificate verification plan by a part 119 certificate holder conducting operations under part 121. Section 63.3(e) is revised to require the temporary document to be presented for inspection upon request of certain persons.
Section 63.16 is revised to update the process for replacement of a lost or destroyed airman certificate or medical certificate and to add a process for replacement of a lost or destroyed knowledge test report.
In part 65, certification: Airmen other than flight crewmembers, § 65.59 and appendix A are revised to update the terminology to reflect the transition to the airman certification standards.
In part 91, general operating and flight rules, § 91.109(c) is revised to permit a sport pilot instructor who has obtained the endorsement in § 61.412 to serve as a safety pilot only for the purpose of providing flight training on control and maneuvering solely by reference to the instruments to a sport pilot applicant seeking a solo endorsement in an airplane with a V
Section 91.313 is revised to permit operators of aircraft certificated in the restricted category to operate those aircraft for the purpose of providing pilot training and testing, to pilots employed by the operator to perform the special purpose operation, that leads to a type rating designation required by § 61.31(a) (and an ATP certificate obtained concurrently with a type rating). The section is amended to allow flights to be conducted in restricted category aircraft for the purpose of designating examiners and qualifying FAA inspectors in the aircraft type and conducting oversight and observation of designated examiners.
Section 91.531 is revised to allow certain large airplanes that are not type-certificated to be operated without a pilot who is designated as SIC, provided that those airplanes: (1) Were originally designed with only one pilot station; or (2) were originally designed with more than one pilot station for purposes of flight training or for other purposes, but were operated by a branch of the United States armed forces or the armed forces of a foreign contracting State to the Convention on International Civil Aviation with only one pilot. The section is revised to eliminate redundancies and reorganized for purposes of clarification by placing all affirmative requirements for a SIC in paragraph (a) and all exceptions thereto in paragraph (b).
Section 91.1015 is revised to permit a fractional ownership program manager to obtain approval to provide a temporary document verifying a flightcrew member's airman certificate and medical certificate privileges under an approved certificate verification plan set forth in the program manager's management specifications.
In part 121, operating requirements: Domestic, flag, and supplemental operations, § 121.383(b) is revised to require the temporary document to be
In part 135, operating requirements: Commuter and on demand operations and rules governing persons on board such aircraft, § 135.95 is revised to permit a certificate holder to obtain approval to provide a temporary document verifying a flightcrew member's airman certificate and medical certificate privileges under an approved certificate verification plan set forth in the certificate holder's operations specifications.
Section 135.99 is revised to add paragraph (c) to permit a certificate holder conducting part 135 operations to receive approval of an SIC PDP via operations specifications (Ops Specs) in order to allow their pilots to log time as SICs in an operation that does not require an SIC by type certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is being conducted. The paragraph includes requirements related to the certificate holder, aircraft, and pilots involved. Section 135.99(d) states that certificate holders who have been approved to deviate from the requirements in § 135.21(a), § 135.341(a), or § 119.69(a) are not permitted to obtain approval to conduct an SIC PDP.
Section 135.245 is revised to remove the reference to part 61 in § 135.245(a) and move the current instrument experience requirements in § 61.57(c) and (d) to new § 135.245(c) and (d).
In part 141, pilot schools, § 141.5(d) is revised to add an end-of-course test for a special curricula course approved under § 141.57 to the list of activities a pilot school may use for the FAA to issue or renew a pilot school certificate.
Appendix D to part 141, commercial pilot certification course, is revised to allow commercial pilot certification courses to reflect the relief in § 61.129(a)(3)(ii) that permits a pilot seeking a commercial pilot certificate with an airplane single engine class rating to complete the 10 hours of training in one, or a combination of, a TAA, a complex airplane, or a turbine-powered airplane.
Appendix I to part 141, additional aircraft category and/or class rating course, section 4, paragraph (k)(2) is revised by redesignating the second paragraph (k)(2)(iv) as paragraph (k)(2)(v).
Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866, and Executive Order 13563, direct that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, this Trade Act requires agencies to consider international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic impacts of this rule. We suggest readers seeking greater detail read the full regulatory evaluation, a copy of which we have placed in the docket for this rulemaking.
In conducting these analyses, FAA has determined that this final rule: (1) Has benefits that justify its costs, (2) is not an economically “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, (3) is not “significant” as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, because this rule provides modest cost savings without imposing significant costs; (5) will not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States; and (6) will not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector by exceeding the threshold identified above. These analyses are summarized below, and a full discussion of the benefits and costs is provided in the regulatory evaluation included in the docket for this rulemaking.
This final rule will provide regulatory relief and benefits to pilots, student pilots, flight instructors, military pilots seeking civilian ratings, and pilot schools.
The amendments in this final rule reduce or relieve existing burdens on the general aviation community and part 135 operators. Several of these changes result from comments from the general aviation community through petitions for rulemaking, industry/agency meetings, and requests for legal interpretation. The changes include: reduction in time and flexibilities in the use of ATDs, FTDs, and FFSs; expanded opportunities for pilots in part 135 operations to log flight time; allowed alternatives to the complex airplane requirement for commercial pilot training; and, an allowance for pilots to credit some of their sport pilot training toward a higher certificate. This final rule does not result in additional costs.
The present value total cost savings over the 5-year period of analysis is about $93.1 million with an annualized cost savings of about $22.7 million at a 7% discount rate. The following table summarizes unquantified and monetized cost savings over the 5-year period of analysis.
The following table summarizes annualized cost savings at a 7% discount rate (annualized estaimtes at a 3% discount rate are almost the same in this analysis). The reduction in interval and time for pilots using ATDs comprises about 75% of the savings of this final rule.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA) establishes “as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given serious consideration.” The RFA covers a wide range of small entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.
Most of the parties affected by this final rule will be small businesses such as flight instructors, aviation schools, fixed base operators, and small part 135 air carriers. There are over 1,000 part 135 air carriers alone. The general lack of publicly available financial information from these small businesses precludes a financial analysis of these small businesses.
This final rule will affect a substantial number of small entities. However, this final rule will not impose a significant impact on those entities because this rule provides modest cost savings without imposing significant costs.
Therefore, as provided in section 605(b), the head of the FAA certifies that this final rule will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, as it imposes no new costs.
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the
The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this final rule and determined that it will have only a domestic impact and therefore would not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more (in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a “significant regulatory action.” The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value of $155.0 million in lieu of $100 million.
This final rule does not contain such a mandate. Therefore, the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. According to the 1995 amendments to the Paperwork Reduction Act, (5 CFR 1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an agency may not collect or sponsor the collection of information, nor may it impose an information collection requirement unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
In the proposed rule the FAA identified three provisions with PRA implications that will require amended OMB supporting statements:
• Instrument recency experience requirements (information collection 2120-0021),
• Second in command for part 135 operations (information collection 2120-0021, 2120-0593, 2120-0039),
• Include special curricula courses in renewal of pilot school certificate (information collection 2120-0009).
The FAA did not receive any comments regarding its proposed revision to any of the listed information collections. However, as the FAA was developing this final rule, it recognized that it had not provided an opportunity for meaningful comment regarding the proposed revisions to information collections 2120-0021, 2120-0039 and 2120-0009.
The FAA notes that the effective dates of the provisions of this final rule with information collection revisions have been adjusted from the effective dates that were proposed to address the Paperwork Reduction Act requirements for notice and OMB approval.
In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has reviewed the corresponding ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices and has identified the following differences with these proposed regulations.
The FAA notes that, under § 61.159(c), pilots are permitted to log second in command flight time in part 135 operations when a second pilot is not required. ICAO standards do not recognize the crediting of flight time when a pilot is not required by the aircraft certification or the operation under which the flight is being conducted. Accordingly, all pilots who log flight time under this provision and apply for an ATP certificate would have a limitation on the certificate indicating that the pilot does not meet the PIC aeronautical experience requirements of ICAO. This limitation may be removed when the pilot presents satisfactory evidence that he or she has met the ICAO standards.
Additionally, the FAA is allowing part 119 certificate holders conducting operations under parts 121 and 135 and program managers conducting operations under part 91 subpart K to issue temporary verification documents to flightcrew members who do not have their airman certificates or medical certificates in their personal possession for a particular flight. A temporary verification document may be used for a period not to exceed 72 hours. Article 29 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation requires that every aircraft engaged in international navigation shall carry “the appropriate licenses for each member of the crew.” Accordingly, the FAA is limiting the use of temporary verification documents to flights conducted entirely within the United States.
FAA Order 1050.1F identifies FAA actions that are categorically excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 5-6.6f and involves no extraordinary circumstances.
The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency has determined that this action would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and
The FAA analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that it would not be a “significant energy action” under the executive order and would not be likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation, (77 FR 26413, May 4, 2012) promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. The FAA has analyzed this action under the policies and agency responsibilities of Executive Order 13609, and has determined that this action would have no effect on international regulatory cooperation.
This final rule is considered an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action. Details on the estimated cost savings of this final rule can be found in the rule's economic analysis.
An electronic copy of rulemaking documents may be obtained from the internet by—
• Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (
• Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies web page at
• Accessing the Government Publishing Office's web page at
Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9677. Commenters must identify the docket or notice number of this rulemaking.
All documents the FAA considered in developing this proposed rule, including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed from the internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced above.
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this document may contact its local FAA official, or the person listed under the
Air transportation.
Airmen, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, Teachers.
Aircraft, Airman, Aviation safety.
Air traffic controllers, Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety.
Air carriers, Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety.
Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety.
Airmen, Educational facilities, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Schools.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701.
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, and 44701; Pub. L. 111-216, 124 Stat. 2348 (49 U.S.C. 44701 note).
1. * * *
d. * * *
(27) FAA Airman Testing Standards for the Airline Transport Pilot Certificate, Type Ratings, Commercial Pilot Certificate, and Instrument Ratings.
1. * * *
d. * * *
(26) FAA Airman Testing Standards for the Airline Transport Pilot Certificate, Type Ratings, Commercial Pilot Certificate, and Instrument Ratings.
1. * * *
d. * * *
(25) FAA Airman Testing Standards for the Airline Transport Pilot Certificate, Type Ratings, Commercial Pilot Certificate, and Instrument Ratings.
1. * * *
d. * * *
(28) FAA Airman Testing Standards for the Airline Transport Pilot Certificate, Type Ratings, Commercial Pilot Certificate, and Instrument Ratings.
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701-44703, 44707, 44709-44711, 44729, 44903, 45102-45103, 45301-45302; Sec. 2307 Pub. L. 114-190, 130 Stat. 615 (49 U.S.C. 44703 note).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(b) * * *
(i) Serves as a required pilot flight crewmember;
(ii) Receives training from an authorized instructor in an aircraft, full flight simulator, flight training device, or aviation training device; or
(iii) Gives training as an authorized instructor in an aircraft, full flight simulator, flight training device, or aviation training device.
(b) * * *
(iii) Gives training as an authorized instructor in an aircraft, full flight simulator, flight training device, or aviation training device; or
(iv) Serves as second in command in operations conducted in accordance with § 135.99(c) of this chapter when a second pilot is not required under the type certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is being conducted, provided the requirements in § 61.159(c) are satisfied.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(iv) A document conveying temporary authority to exercise certificate privileges issued by the Airmen Certification Branch under § 61.29(e);
(v) When engaged in a flight operation within the United States for a part 119 certificate holder authorized to conduct operations under part 121 or 135 of this chapter, a temporary document provided by that certificate holder under an approved certificate verification plan;
(vi) When engaged in a flight operation within the United States for a fractional ownership program manager authorized to conduct operations under part 91, subpart K, of this chapter, a temporary document provided by that program manager under an approved certificate verification plan; or
(l)
The revisions read as follows:
(e) * * *
(2) The training and endorsement required by paragraph (e)(1) of this section is not required if—
(i) The person has logged flight time as pilot in command of a complex airplane, or in a full flight simulator or flight training device that is representative of a complex airplane prior to August 4, 1997; or
(ii) The person has received ground and flight training under an approved training program and has satisfactorily completed a competency check under § 135.293 of this chapter in a complex airplane, or in a full flight simulator or flight training device that is representative of a complex airplane which must be documented in the pilot's logbook or training record.
(f) * * *
(2) The training and endorsement required by paragraph (f)(1) of this section is not required if—
(i) The person has logged flight time as pilot in command of a high-performance airplane, or in a full flight simulator or flight training device that is representative of a high-performance airplane prior to August 4, 1997; or
(ii) The person has received ground and flight training under an approved training program and has satisfactorily completed a competency check under § 135.293 of this chapter in a high performance airplane, or in a full flight simulator or flight training device that is representative of a high performance airplane which must be documented in the pilot's logbook or training record.
(a) * * *
(3) Have satisfactorily accomplished the required training and obtained the aeronautical experience prescribed by this part for the certificate or rating sought, and if applying for the practical test with flight time accomplished under § 61.159(c), present a copy of the records required by § 135.63(a)(4)(vi) and (x) of this chapter;
(a) * * *
(1) Performing the tasks specified in the areas of operation for the airman certificate or rating sought;
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Except when logging flight time under § 61.159(c), when the pilot is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated, or has sport pilot privileges for that category and class of aircraft, if the aircraft class rating is appropriate;
(5) A commercial pilot or airline transport pilot may log all flight time while acting as pilot in command of an operation in accordance with § 135.99(c) of this chapter if the flight is conducted in accordance with an approved second-in-command professional development program that meets the requirements of § 135.99(c) of this chapter.
(f) * * *
(1) Is qualified in accordance with the second-in-command requirements of § 61.55, and occupies a crewmember station in an aircraft that requires more than one pilot by the aircraft's type certificate;
(2) Holds the appropriate category, class, and instrument rating (if an instrument rating is required for the flight) for the aircraft being flown, and more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is being conducted; or
(3) Serves as second in command in operations conducted in accordance with § 135.99(c) of this chapter when a second pilot is not required under the type certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is being conducted, provided the requirements in § 61.159(c) are satisfied.
(g) * * *
(4) A person may use time in a full flight simulator, flight training device, or aviation training device for acquiring instrument aeronautical experience for a pilot certificate or rating provided an authorized instructor is present to observe that time and signs the person's logbook or training record to verify the time and the content of the training session.
(5) A person may use time in a full flight simulator, flight training device, or aviation training device for satisfying instrument recency experience requirements provided a logbook or training record is maintained to specify the training device, time, and the content.
(h)
The revisions read as follows:
(c) * * *
(2)
(d)
(i) Air traffic control clearances and procedures;
(ii) Flight by reference to instruments;
(iii) Navigation systems;
(iv) Instrument approach procedures;
(v) Emergency operations; and
(vi) Postflight procedures.
(a) A person who applies for a recreational pilot certificate must receive and log at least 30 hours of flight time that includes at least—
(1) 15 hours of flight training from an authorized instructor on the areas of operation listed in § 61.98 that consists of at least:
(i) Except as provided in § 61.100, 2 hours of flight training en route to an airport that is located more than 25 nautical miles from the airport where the applicant normally trains, which includes at least three takeoffs and three landings at the airport located more than 25 nautical miles from the airport where the applicant normally trains; and
(ii) Three hours of flight training with an authorized instructor in the aircraft for the rating sought in preparation for the practical test within the preceding 2 calendar months from the month of the test.
(2) Three hours of solo flying in the aircraft for the rating sought, on the areas of operation listed in § 61.98 that apply to the aircraft category and class rating sought.
(b) The holder of a sport pilot certificate may credit flight training received from a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating toward the aeronautical experience requirements of this section if the following conditions are met:
(1) The flight training was accomplished in the same category and
(2) The flight instructor with a sport pilot rating was authorized to provide the flight training; and
(3) The flight training included training on areas of operation that are required for both a sport pilot certificate and a recreational pilot certificate.
(l)
(1) The flight training was accomplished in the same category and class of aircraft for which the rating is sought;
(2) The flight instructor with a sport pilot rating was authorized to provide the flight training; and
(3) The flight training included either—
(i) Training on areas of operation that are required for both a sport pilot certificate and a private pilot certificate; or
(ii) For airplanes with a V
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(a) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) 10 hours of training in a complex airplane, a turbine-powered airplane, or a technically advanced airplane (TAA) that meets the requirements of paragraph (j) of this section, or any combination thereof. The airplane must be appropriate to land or sea for the rating sought;
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) 10 hours of training in a multiengine complex or turbine-powered airplane; or for an applicant seeking a multiengine seaplane rating, 10 hours of training in a multiengine seaplane that has flaps and a controllable pitch propeller, including seaplanes equipped with an engine control system consisting of a digital computer and associated accessories for controlling the engine and propeller, such as a full authority digital engine control;
(j)
(1) An electronic Primary Flight Display (PFD) that includes, at a minimum, an airspeed indicator, turn coordinator, attitude indicator, heading indicator, altimeter, and vertical speed indicator;
(2) An electronic Multifunction Display (MFD) that includes, at a minimum, a moving map using Global Positioning System (GPS) navigation with the aircraft position displayed;
(3) A two axis autopilot integrated with the navigation and heading guidance system; and
(4) The display elements described in paragraphs (j)(1) and (2) of this section must be continuously visible.
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this section, a person who is applying for an airline transport pilot certificate with an airplane category and class rating must have at least 1,500 hours of total time as a pilot that includes at least:
(5) 250 hours of flight time in an airplane as a pilot in command, or when serving as a required second in command flightcrew member performing the duties of pilot in command while under the supervision of a pilot in command, or any combination thereof, which includes at least—
(c) A commercial pilot may log second-in-command pilot time toward the aeronautical experience requirements of paragraph (a) of this section and the aeronautical experience requirements in § 61.160, provided the pilot is employed by a part 119 certificate holder authorized to conduct operations under part 135 of this chapter and the second-in-command pilot time is obtained in operations conducted for the certificate holder under part 91 or 135 of this chapter when a second pilot is not required under the type certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is being conducted, and the following requirements are met—
(1) The experience must be accomplished as part of a second-in-command professional development program approved by the Administrator under § 135.99 of this chapter;
(2) The flight operation must be conducted in accordance with the certificate holder's operations specification for the second-in-command professional development program;
(3) The pilot in command of the operation must certify in the pilot's logbook that the second-in-command pilot time was accomplished under this section; and
(4) The pilot time may not be logged as pilot-in-command time even when the pilot is the sole manipulator of the controls and may not be used to meet the aeronautical experience requirements in paragraph (a)(5) of this section.
(d) A commercial pilot may log the following flight engineer flight time toward the 1,500 hours of total time as a pilot required by paragraph (a) of this section and the total time as a pilot required by § 61.160:
(1) Flight-engineer time, provided the time—
(i) Is acquired in an airplane required to have a flight engineer by the airplane's flight manual or type certificate;
(ii) Is acquired while engaged in operations under part 121 of this
(iii) Is acquired while the person is participating in a pilot training program approved under part 121 of this chapter; and
(iv) Does not exceed more than 1 hour for each 3 hours of flight engineer flight time for a total credited time of no more than 500 hours.
(2) Flight-engineer time, provided the flight time—
(i) Is acquired as a U.S. Armed Forces' flight engineer crewmember in an airplane that requires a flight engineer crewmember by the flight manual;
(ii) Is acquired while the person is participating in a flight engineer crewmember training program for the U.S. Armed Forces; and
(iii) Does not exceed 1 hour for each 3 hours of flight engineer flight time for a total credited time of no more than 500 hours.
(e) An applicant who credits time under paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this section is issued an airline transport pilot certificate with the limitation, “Holder does not meet the pilot in command aeronautical experience requirements of ICAO,” as prescribed under Article 39 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation.
(f) An applicant is entitled to an airline transport pilot certificate without the ICAO limitation specified under paragraph (e) of this section when the applicant presents satisfactory evidence of having met the ICAO requirements under paragraph (e) of this section and otherwise meets the aeronautical experience requirements of this section.
The additions read as follows:
(c) Flight time logged under § 61.159(c) may be counted toward the 1,200 hours of total time as a pilot required by paragraph (a) of this section and the flight time requirements of paragraphs (a)(1), (2), and (4) of this section, except for the specific helicopter flight time requirements.
(d) An applicant who credits time under paragraph (c) of this section is issued an airline transport pilot certificate with the limitation, “Holder does not meet the pilot in command aeronautical experience requirements of ICAO,” as prescribed under Article 39 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation.
(e) An applicant is entitled to an airline transport pilot certificate without the ICAO limitation specified under paragraph (d) of this section when the applicant presents satisfactory evidence of having met the ICAO requirements under paragraph (d) of this section and otherwise meets the aeronautical experience requirements of this section.
(b)
(1) Holds a flight instructor certificate with the applicable category and class rating;
(2) Holds a pilot certificate with the applicable category and class rating; and
(3) Meets the requirements of paragraph (e) of this section, if applicable.
(c)
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, the flight instructor must hold an instrument rating appropriate to the aircraft used for the instrument training on his or her flight instructor certificate, and—
(i) Meet the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section; or
(ii) Hold a commercial pilot certificate or airline transport pilot certificate with the appropriate category and class ratings for the aircraft in which the instrument training is conducted provided the pilot receiving instrument training holds a pilot certificate with category and class ratings appropriate to the aircraft in which the instrument training is being conducted.
(2) If the flight instructor is conducting the instrument training in a multiengine airplane, the flight instructor must hold an instrument rating appropriate to the aircraft used for the instrument training on his or her flight instructor certificate and meet the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section.
(e)
(l)
(1) Holds a flight instructor certificate with the applicable category and class rating; or
(2) Holds an instrument rating appropriate to the aircraft used for the training on his or her flight instructor certificate, and holds a commercial pilot certificate or airline transport pilot certificate with the appropriate category and class ratings for the aircraft in which the training is conducted provided the pilot receiving the training holds a pilot certificate with category and class ratings appropriate to the aircraft in which the training is being conducted.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(iv) A record showing that, within the preceding 24 months from the month of application, the flight instructor passed an official U.S. Armed Forces military instructor pilot or pilot examiner proficiency check in an aircraft for which the military instructor already holds a rating or in an aircraft for an additional rating.
(c) The practical test required by paragraph (a)(1) of this section may be accomplished in a full flight simulator or flight training device if the test is accomplished pursuant to an approved course conducted by a training center certificated under part 142 of this chapter.
(a) * * *
(3) For military instructor pilots, provide a record showing that, within
(i) Passed a U.S. Armed Forces instructor pilot or pilot examiner proficiency check; or
(ii) Completed a U.S. Armed Forces' instructor pilot or pilot examiner training course and received an additional aircraft rating qualification as a military instructor pilot or pilot examiner that is appropriate to the flight instructor rating sought.
(c)
(1) A record showing that, since the date the flight instructor certificate was issued, the person passed a U.S. Armed Forces instructor pilot or pilot examiner proficiency check for an additional military rating; and
(2) A knowledge test report that shows the person passed a knowledge test on the aeronautical knowledge areas listed under § 61.185(a) appropriate to the flight instructor rating sought and the knowledge test was passed within the preceding 24 calendar months prior to the month of application.
(d)
To provide flight training under § 61.93(e)(12) on control and maneuvering an airplane solely by reference to the flight instruments for the purpose of issuing a solo cross-country endorsement under § 61.93(c)(1) to a student pilot seeking a sport pilot certificate, a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating must:
(a) Hold an endorsement required by § 61.327(b);
(b) Receive and log a minimum of 1 hour of ground training and 3 hours of flight training from an authorized instructor in an airplane with a V
(c) Receive a one-time endorsement in his or her logbook from an instructor authorized under subpart H of this part who certifies that the person is proficient in providing training on control and maneuvering solely by reference to the flight instruments in an airplane with a V
(h) You may not provide training on the control and maneuvering of an aircraft solely by reference to the instruments in a light sport airplane with a V
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701-44703, 44707, 44709-44711, 45102-45103, 45301-45302.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no person may act as a flight engineer of a civil aircraft of U.S. registry unless that person has in his or her physical possession or readily accessible in the aircraft:
(1) A current flight engineer certificate with appropriate ratings issued to that person under this part;
(2) A document conveying temporary authority to exercise certificate privileges issued by the Airman Certification Branch under § 63.16(f); or
(3) When engaged in a flight operation within the United States for a part 119 certificate holder authorized to conduct operations under part 121 of this chapter, a temporary document provided by that certificate holder under an approved certificate verification plan.
(b) A person may act as a flight engineer of an aircraft only if that person holds a current second-class (or higher) medical certificate issued to that person under part 67 of this chapter, or other documentation acceptable to the FAA, that is in that person's physical possession or readily accessible in the aircraft.
(c) When the aircraft is operated within a foreign country, a current flight engineer certificate issued by the country in which the aircraft is operated, with evidence of current medical qualification for that certificate, may be used. Also, in the case of a flight engineer certificate issued under § 63.42, evidence of current medical qualification accepted for the issue of that certificate is used in place of a medical certificate.
(d) No person may act as a flight navigator of a civil aircraft of U.S. registry unless that person has in his or her physical possession a current flight navigator certificate issued to him or her under this part and a second-class (or higher) medical certificate issued to him or her under part 67 of this chapter within the preceding 12 months. However, when the aircraft is operated within a foreign country, a current flight navigator certificate issued by the country in which the aircraft is operated, with evidence of current medical qualification for that certificate, may be used.
(e) Each person who holds a flight engineer or flight navigator certificate, medical certificate, or temporary document in accordance with paragraph (a)(3) of this section shall present it for inspection upon the request of the Administrator or an authorized representative of the National Transportation Safety Board, or of any Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer.
(a) An application for a change of name on a certificate issued under this part must be accompanied by the applicant's current certificate and the marriage license, court order, or other document verifying the change. The documents are returned to the applicant after inspection.
(b) A request for a replacement of a lost or destroyed airman certificate issued under this part must be made:
(1) By letter to the Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Airman Certification Branch, Post Office Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125 and must be accompanied by a check or money order for the appropriate fee payable to the FAA; or
(2) In any other form and manner approved by the Administrator including a request to Airman Services at
(c) A request for the replacement of a lost or destroyed medical certificate must be made:
(1) By letter to the Department of Transportation, FAA, Aerospace Medical Certification Division, P.O. Box 26200, Oklahoma City, OK 73125, and must be accompanied by a check or money order for the appropriate fee payable to the FAA; or
(2) In any other manner and form approved by the Administrator and must be accompanied by acceptable form of payment for the appropriate fee.
(d) A request for the replacement of a lost or destroyed knowledge test report must be made:
(1) By letter to the Department of Transportation, FAA, Airmen Certification Branch, P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125, and must be accompanied by a check or money order for the appropriate fee payable to the FAA; or
(2) In any other manner and form approved by the Administrator and must be accompanied by acceptable form of payment for the appropriate fee.
(e) The letter requesting replacement of a lost or destroyed airman certificate, medical certificate, or knowledge test report must state:
(1) The name of the person;
(2) The permanent mailing address (including ZIP code), or if the permanent mailing address includes a post office box number, then the person's current residential address;
(3) The certificate holder's date and place of birth; and
(4) Any information regarding the—
(i) Grade, number, and date of issuance of the airman certificate and ratings, if appropriate;
(ii) Class of medical certificate, the place and date of the medical exam, name of the Airman Medical Examiner (AME), and the circumstances concerning the loss of the original medical certificate, as appropriate; and
(iii) Date the knowledge test was taken, if appropriate.
(f) A person who has lost an airman certificate, medical certificate, or knowledge test report may obtain in a form or manner approved by the Administrator, a document conveying temporary authority to exercise certificate privileges from the FAA Aeromedical Certification Branch or the Airman Certification Branch, as appropriate, and the—
(1) Document may be carried as an airman certificate, medical certificate, or knowledge test report, as appropriate, for a period not to exceed 60 days pending the person's receiving a duplicate under paragraph (b), (c), or (d) of this section, unless the person has been notified that the certificate has been suspended or revoked.
(2) Request for such a document must include the date on which a duplicate certificate or knowledge test report was previously requested.
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701-44703, 44707, 44709-44711, 45102-45103, 45301-45302.
An applicant for an aircraft dispatcher certificate must pass a practical test given by the Administrator, with respect to any one type of large aircraft used in air carrier operations. To pass the practical test for an aircraft dispatcher certificate, the applicant must demonstrate skill in applying the areas of knowledge and topics specified in appendix A of this part to preflight and all phases of flight, including abnormal and emergency procedures.
This appendix sets forth the areas of knowledge necessary to perform dispatcher functions. The items listed below indicate the minimum set of topics that must be covered in a training course for aircraft dispatcher certification. The order of coverage is at the discretion of the approved school.
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 1155, 40101, 40103, 40105, 40113, 40120, 44101, 44111, 44701, 44704, 44709, 44711, 44712, 44715, 44716, 44717, 44722, 46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 46506-46507, 47122, 47508, 47528-47531, 47534, Pub. L. 114-190, 130 Stat. 615 (49 U.S.C. 44703 note); articles 12 and 29 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (61 Stat. 1180), (126 Stat. 11).
(c) * * *
(1) The other control seat is occupied by a safety pilot who possesses at least:
(i) A private pilot certificate with category and class ratings appropriate to the aircraft being flown; or
(ii) For purposes of providing training for a solo cross-country endorsement under § 61.93 of this chapter, a flight instructor certificate with an appropriate sport pilot rating and meets the requirements of § 61.412 of this chapter.
(b) For the purpose of paragraph (a) of this section, the following operations are considered necessary to accomplish the work activity directly associated with a special purpose operation:
(1) Flights conducted for flight crewmember training in a special purpose operation for which the aircraft is certificated.
(2) Flights conducted to satisfy proficiency check and recent flight experience requirements under part 61 of this chapter provided the flight crewmember holds the appropriate category, class, and type ratings and is employed by the operator to perform the appropriate special purpose operation.
(3) Flights conducted to relocate the aircraft for delivery, repositioning, or maintenance.
(c) No person may operate a restricted category civil aircraft carrying persons or property for compensation or hire. For the purposes of this paragraph (c), a special purpose operation involving the carriage of persons or material necessary to accomplish that operation, such as crop dusting, seeding, spraying, and banner towing (including the carrying of required persons or material to the location of that operation), an operation for the purpose of providing flight crewmember training in a special purpose operation, and an operation conducted under the authority provided in paragraph (h) of this section are not considered to be the carriage of persons or property for compensation or hire.
(d) * * *
(3) Performs an essential function in connection with a special purpose operation for which the aircraft is certificated;
(4) Is necessary to accomplish the work activity directly associated with that special purpose; or
(5) Is necessary to accomplish an operation under paragraph (h) of this section.
(h)(1) An operator may apply for deviation authority from the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section to conduct operations for the following purposes:
(i) Flight training and the practical test for issuance of a type rating provided—
(A) The pilot being trained and tested holds at least a commercial pilot certificate with the appropriate category and class ratings for the aircraft type;
(B) The pilot receiving flight training is employed by the operator to perform a special purpose operation; and
(C) The flight training is conducted by the operator who employs the pilot to perform a special purpose operation.
(ii) Flights to designate an examiner or qualify an FAA inspector in the aircraft type and flights necessary to provide continuing oversight and evaluation of an examiner.
(2) The FAA will issue this deviation authority as a letter of deviation authority.
(3) The FAA may cancel or amend a letter of deviation authority at any time.
(4) An applicant must submit a request for deviation authority in a form and manner acceptable to the Administrator at least 60 days before the date of intended operations. A request for deviation authority must contain a complete description of the proposed operation and justification that establishes a level of safety equivalent to that provided under the regulations for the deviation requested.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may operate the following airplanes without a pilot designated as second in command:
(1) Any airplane that is type certificated for more than one required pilot.
(2) Any large airplane.
(3) Any commuter category airplane.
(b) A person may operate the following airplanes without a pilot designated as second in command:
(1) Any airplane certificated for operation with one pilot.
(2) A large airplane or turbojet-powered multiengine airplane that holds a special airworthiness certificate, if:
(i) The airplane was originally designed with only one pilot station; or
(ii) The airplane was originally designed with more than one pilot station, but single pilot operations were permitted by the airplane flight manual or were otherwise permitted by a branch of the United States Armed Forces or the armed forces of a foreign contracting State to the Convention on International Civil Aviation.
(c) No person may designate a pilot to serve as second in command, nor may any pilot serve as second in command, of an airplane required under this section to have two pilots unless that pilot meets the qualifications for second in command prescribed in § 61.55 of this chapter.
(h) A program manager may obtain approval to provide a temporary document verifying a flightcrew member's airman certificate and medical certificate privileges under an approved certificate verification plan set forth in the program manager's management specifications. A document provided by the program manager may be carried as an airman certificate or medical certificate on flights within the United States for up to 72 hours.
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40119, 41706, 42301 preceding note added by Pub. L. 112-95, sec. 412, 126 Stat. 89, 44101, 44701-44702, 44705, 44709-44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722, 44729, 44732; 46105; Pub. L. 111-216, 124 Stat. 2348 (49 U.S.C. 44701 note); Pub. L. 112-95, 126 Stat. 62 (49 U.S.C. 44732 note).
(a) * * *
(2) Has in his or her possession while engaged in operations under this part—
(i) Any required appropriate current airman and medical certificates; or
(ii) A temporary document issued in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section; and
(b) Each airman covered by paragraph (a)(2) of this section shall present his or her certificates or temporary document for inspection upon request of the Administrator.
(c) A certificate holder may obtain approval to provide a temporary document verifying a flightcrew member's airman certificate and medical certificate privileges under an approved certificate verification plan set forth in the certificate holder's operations specifications. A document provided by the certificate holder may be carried as an airman certificate or medical certificate on flights within the United States for up to 72 hours.
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 41706, 44701-44702, 44705, 44709, 44711-44713, 44715-44717, 44722, 44730, 45101-45105; Pub. L. 112-95, 126 Stat. 58 (49 U.S.C. 44730).
(a) No certificate holder may use the services of any person as an airman unless the person performing those services—
(1) Holds an appropriate and current airman certificate; and
(2) Is qualified, under this chapter, for the operation for which the person is to be used.
(b) A certificate holder may obtain approval to provide a temporary document verifying a flightcrew member's airman certificate and medical certificate privileges under an approved certificate verification plan set forth in the certificate holder's operations specifications. A document provided by the certificate holder may be carried as an airman certificate or medical certificate on flights within the United States for up to 72 hours.
(c) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, a certificate holder authorized to conduct operations under instrument flight rules may receive authorization from the Administrator through its operations specifications to establish a second-in-command professional development program. As part of that program, a pilot employed by the certificate holder may log time as
(1) The certificate holder:
(i) Maintains records for each assigned second in command consistent with the requirements in § 135.63;
(ii) Provides a copy of the records required by § 135.63(a)(4)(vi) and (x) to the assigned second in command upon request and within a reasonable time; and
(iii) Establishes and maintains a data collection and analysis process that will enable the certificate holder and the FAA to determine whether the second-in-command professional development program is accomplishing its objectives.
(2) The aircraft is a multiengine airplane or a single-engine turbine-powered airplane. The aircraft must have an independent set of controls for a second pilot flightcrew member, which may not include a throwover control wheel. The aircraft must also have the following equipment and independent instrumentation for a second pilot:
(i) An airspeed indicator;
(ii) Sensitive altimeter adjustable for barometric pressure;
(iii) Gyroscopic bank and pitch indicator;
(iv) Gyroscopic rate-of-turn indicator combined with an integral slip-skid indicator;
(v) Gyroscopic direction indicator;
(vi) For IFR operations, a vertical speed indicator;
(vii) For IFR operations, course guidance for en route navigation and instrument approaches; and
(viii) A microphone, transmit switch, and headphone or speaker.
(3) The pilot assigned to serve as second in command satisfies the following requirements:
(i) The second in command qualifications in § 135.245;
(ii) The flight time and duty period limitations and rest requirements in subpart F of this part;
(iii) The crewmember testing requirements for second in command in subpart G of this part; and
(iv) The crewmember training requirements for second in command in subpart H of this part.
(4) The pilot assigned to serve as pilot in command satisfies the following requirements:
(i) Has been fully qualified to serve as a pilot in command for the certificate holder for at least the previous 6 calendar months; and
(ii) Has completed mentoring training, including techniques for reinforcing the highest standards of technical performance, airmanship and professionalism within the preceding 36 calendar months.
(d) The following certificate holders are not eligible to receive authorization for a second-in-command professional development program under paragraph (c) of this section:
(1) A certificate holder that uses only one pilot in its operations; and
(2) A certificate holder that has been approved to deviate from the requirements in § 135.21(a), § 135.341(a), or § 119.69(a) of this chapter.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no certificate holder may use any person, nor may any person serve, as second in command of an aircraft unless that person holds at least a commercial pilot certificate with appropriate category and class ratings and an instrument rating.
(c) No certificate holder may use any person, nor may any person serve, as second in command under IFR unless that person meets the following instrument experience requirements:
(1)
(i) Six instrument approaches;
(ii) Holding procedures and tasks; and
(iii) Intercepting and tracking courses through the use of navigational electronic systems.
(2)
(i) The FSTD represents the category of aircraft for the instrument rating privileges to be maintained;
(ii) The person performs the tasks and iterations in simulated instrument conditions; and
(iii) A flight instructor qualified under § 135.338 or a check pilot qualified under § 135.337 observes the tasks and iterations and signs the person's logbook or training record to verify the time and content of the session.
(d) A second in command who has failed to meet the instrument experience requirements of paragraph (c) of this section for more than six calendar months must reestablish instrument recency under the supervision of a flight instructor qualified under § 135.338 or a check pilot qualified under § 135.337. To reestablish instrument recency, a second in command must complete at least the following areas of operation required for the instrument rating practical test in an aircraft or FSTD that represents the category of aircraft for the instrument experience requirements to be reestablished:
(1) Air traffic control clearances and procedures;
(2) Flight by reference to instruments;
(3) Navigation systems;
(4) Instrument approach procedures;
(5) Emergency operations; and
(6) Postflight procedures.
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701-44703, 44707, 44709, 44711, 45102-45103, 45301-45302.
(d) Has established a pass rate of 80 percent or higher on the first attempt for all:
(1) Knowledge tests leading to a certificate or rating;
(2) Practical tests leading to a certificate or rating;
(3) End-of-course tests for an approved training course specified in appendix K of this part; and
(4) End-of-course tests for special curricula courses approved under § 141.57.
The revisions read as follows:
4. * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Ten hours of training in a complex airplane, a turbine-powered airplane, or a technically advanced airplane that meets the requirements of § 61.129(j) of this chapter, or any combination thereof. The airplane must be appropriate to land or sea for the rating sought;
(2) * * *
(ii) 10 hours of training in a multiengine complex or turbine-powered airplane, or any combination thereof;
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR